MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Maintenance Rituximab Following R-CHOP Chemotherapy in Patients with Composite or Discordant, Indolent and Aggressive, B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas

2015· article· en· W2574289250 on OpenAlexaff
Roopesh Kansara, Joseph M. Connors, Kerry J. Savage, David W. Scott, Randy D. Gascoyne, Alina S. Gerrie, Laurie H. Sehn, Diego Villa

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabInternal medicineCHOPLymphomaFollicular lymphomaDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaMantle cell lymphomaChemotherapyB symptomsAggressive lymphomaGastroenterologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who achieve a complete (CR) or partial (PR) response to rituximab-containing chemotherapy followed by maintenance rituximab (MR) experience improved progression-free survival (PFS). In contrast, MR does not improve outcomes in chemo-sensitive patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). There are no published data describing the impact of MR in patients presenting with indolent and aggressive histology lymphoma simultaneously in the same biopsy (composite, COM) or two separate sites (discordant, DIS). Methods: Patients with newly-diagnosed COM/DIS lymphomas composed of an indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (excluding CLL/SLL, mantle cell lymphoma, and grade 3B FL) and DLBCL were identified in the British Columbia Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer Database. All patients received first-line chemotherapy with R-CHOP. In early 2006, a treatment policy was introduced recommending MR 375 mg/m2 IV every 3 months for 2 years in patients with COM/DIS lymphomas achieving a CR/PR to R-CHOP induction. PFS, time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the time of diagnosis and compared between treatment groups. Results: 98 patients with COM/DIS lymphomas were identified between January 2001 and December 2013: median age 64 y (range 22 - 86), 56% male, 48% elevated LDH, 30% performance status ≥ 2, 87% stage III/IV, and 51% high-intermediate or high IPI. 58 (59%) and 40 (41%) patients had COM and DIS lymphoma, respectively. FL was the indolent component in 65% of all cases. 35/40 patients with DIS had low-grade histology in the bone marrow. Following R-CHOP, 77 (79%) and 21 (21%) patients achieved CR and PR, respectively. 43 patients were treated with R-CHOP alone before the MR policy introduction, and 55 were treated with R-CHOP+MR; the latter group received a median of 8 (range 1 - 8) MR doses. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or response rates between the two groups with the exception of a higher proportion of patients with poor performance status in the group not given MR. With a median follow-up of 10y (range 1.5 - 13.6) in living patients treated with R-CHOP and 6y (range 0.9-9.5) in patients treated with R-CHOP+MR, there were 20 (47%) and 15 (27%) relapses, respectively (p=0.26). Of these, 11 relapsed with indolent histology, 11 relapsed with DLBCL, 3 relapsed in the central nervous system (CNS), and 10 had no biopsy at relapse (8 had aggressive and 2 indolent clinical behavior on review of medical records). There were 6 (30%) indolent and 14 (70%) aggressive relapses in patients treated with R-CHOP, while there were 7 (47%) indolent and 8 (53%) aggressive relapses in patients treated with R-CHOP+MR (p=0.31). 19 patients eventually died from lymphoma (8 with DLBCL relapse, 5 without a biopsy at relapse, and all 3 with CNS recurrence). The 6-y PFS was 60% (standard error [SE] 5%) with no difference between patients treated with or without MR (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 - 1.37, p= 0.33). The 6-year TTP was 64% (SE 5%), again with no differences between the two groups (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 - 1.33, p= 0.25). The 6-year OS was similar between the two groups (p= 0.89). In the subgroup of patients with FL (21 R-CHOP and 43 R-CHOP+MR) the addition of MR did not impact PFS (p= 0.90), TTP (p= 0.99), or OS (p=0.55). An additional 52 patients were diagnosed after the treatment policy introduction in 2006, but did not receive MR for several reasons including physician non-adherence, progressive disease on R-CHOP, toxicity from R-CHOP or patient refusal. In an intent-to-treat analysis (43 pre-policy and 107 post-policy) there were no differences in outcomes. In a per-protocol analysis (95 R-CHOP and 55 R-CHOP+MR), there were no significant differences in outcomes. Conclusion: The addition of MR does not appear to improve PFS, TTP or OS in patients with COM/DIS lymphomas achieving CR/PR to R-CHOP, although comparisons are likely underpowered and 6-year median length of follow-up in the MR group may not be sufficient. However, the majority (63%) of relapses are aggressive and unlikely to be impacted by MR. The role of MR in these uncommon lymphomas requires further exploration. Disclosures Connors: Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Savage:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria; Infinity: Honoraria; Roche: Other: Institutional research funding. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Inventor on a patent that NanoString has licensed. Gerrie:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory board. Villa:Roche: Research Funding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→