MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575531189 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.902.902

An Open-Label, Randomized Study of Bendamustine and Rituximab (BR) Compared with Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Vincristine, and Prednisone (R-CVP) or Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone (R-CHOP) in First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Indolent Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) or Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL): The Bright Study

2012· article· en· W2575531189 on OpenAlexaff
Ian W. Flinn, Richard H. van der Jagt, Brad S. Kahl, Peter Wood, Tim E. Hawkins, David MacDonald, Mark Hertzberg, Yiu‐Lam Kwan, David Simpson, Michael Craig, Kathryn S. Kolibaba, Samar Issa, Mihaela Munteanu, Regina Clementi, Ling Chen, John M. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVincristineRituximabBendamustineInternal medicineCHOPPrednisoneGastroenterologyCyclophosphamideRegimenSurgeryChemotherapyLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 902 Background Bendamustine (B) is an active agent for relapsed and refractory indolent NHL, both as monotherapy and combined with rituximab (R), results recently updated by the StiL study group. This study compared efficacy and safety of BR with standard treatment regimens of R-CHOP and R-CVP as first-line treatment for indolent NHL or MCL. Methods Patients were randomized to 6–8 cycles of BR or R-CHOP/R-CVP (R-CHOP or R-CVP determined by investigator prior to randomization). BR regimen was B 90 mg/m2/day on days 1 and 2 plus R 375 mg/m2on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. Standard dosing and 21 day cycles were used for R-CHOP and R-CVP. Primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of complete response (CR) rate of BR vs standard treatment (noninferiority margin [ratio] 0.88). Secondary measures included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival, and overall survival. Tumor response was determined by a blinded independent review committee (IRC) using International Working Group revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. Investigator assessments were compared with those of the IRC. Results Of 447 randomized patients, 436 received treatment (BR n=221; R-CHOP/R-CVP n=215 [R-CHOP n=99; R-CVP n=116]) and were evaluable for safety. Of these, 419 patients (BR n=213; R-CHOP/R-CVP n=206 [R-CHOP 97; R-CVP n=109]) were evaluable for efficacy. The randomized groups were well matched for age (median 60 and 58 years), sex (male, 61% and 59%), ECOG status (64% performance status 0, both groups), lymphoma type (83% indolent NHL, both groups), and Ann Arbor stage (62% stage IV, both groups). Among randomized patients and efficacy evaluable patients, the IRC-assessed CR rate was numerically higher for BR than R-CHOP/R-CVP and statistically noninferior (Table). In the randomized groups, CR rates for indolent NHL were numerically similar between BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP; however, in MCL, BR was statistically superior (P=0.018) (Table). Investigator-assessed response in randomized patients found superiority of BR vs R-CHOP/R-CVP (P=0.0013). IRC and investigator assessments differed mainly in quality of response (CR vs partial) rather than in whether a patient was a responder. For randomized patients, the ORR was 94% for BR and 84% for R-CHOP/R-CVP. Time-to-event data are immature and will be analyzed later. At time of data cut-off, 8% of the BR group had progressed, relapsed, or died, compared with 4% of R-CHOP/R-CVP group. Most patients completed 6 cycles (92% for BR and 91% for R-CHOP/R-CVP), with high relative dose intensity (>96%). Dose delays were more common for BR-treated patients (35% vs 19%), and dose reductions were less common (22% vs 29%). Most common AEs for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP, respectively, were nausea (139 vs 102 patients), fatigue (113 vs 107), neutropenia (76 vs 85), constipation (65 vs 90), and alopecia (8 vs 74). Laboratory grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP were lymphopenia (137 vs 64), neutropenia (98 vs 151), leukopenia (84 vs 116), thrombocytopenia (16 vs 15), and anemia (6 vs 9), respectively. The most frequent investigator-reported nonhematologic grade 3/4 AEs for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP were infusion-related reaction (13 vs 8 patients). Granulocyte colony stimulating factors were given at investigator discretion (per ASCO recommendations) to 29% of the BR group and 43% of the R-CHOP/R-CVP group. Fatal AEs occurred in 6 BR patients (pneumonia, respiratory failure, and sepsis; acute respiratory failure; cardiac arrest; pneumonia; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; lung cancer) and 1 R-CHOP/R-CVP patient (sepsis). Conclusion In patients with advanced indolent NHL and MCL, BR produces a CR rate that is noninferior to that of R-CHOP/R-CVP. In the subgroup of patients with MCL, BR produces a significantly higher CR rate (51% vs 24%). High ORRs were attained in both treatment groups. The AE profile of BR was distinct from that of R-CHOP/R-CVP. Support: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Disclosures: Flinn: Teva Pharmaceuticals : Research Funding. Off Label Use: Bendamustine is FDA-approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that has progressed during or within six months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen. Van der Jagt:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Sponsorship Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, sponsorship, sponsorship Other; Roche: Consultancy, sponsorship, sponsorship Other; Cephalon: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Xanthus: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb : Consultancy. Kahl:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacDonald:Lundbeck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Munteanu:Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.: Employment. Clementi:Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.: Employment. Chen:Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.: Employment. Burke:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207