MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2584502966 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.235.235

Quality of Life Results From Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Protocol E4402 (RESORT): A Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Two Different Rituximab Dosing Strategies for Indolent Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

2012· article· en· W2584502966 on OpenAlexaff
Lynne I. Wagner, Fengmin Zhao, Michael E. Williams, Randy D. Gascoyne, John C. Krauss, David Cella, Sandra J. Horning, Brad S. Kahl

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyRituximabRandomizationRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleFollicular lymphomaQuality of life (healthcare)Coping (psychology)Physical therapyLymphomaPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 235 Background: The RESORT trial (E4402) found comparable time to treatment failure (TTTF) and disease-related outcomes in previously untreated, indolent, follicular lymphoma randomized to maintenance rituximab (MR) versus rituximab retreatment (RR), and possible benefit of MR for patients with non-follicular lymphoma. The effects of MR versus RR on patient anxiety and health-related quality of life has not previously been examined. Methods: Pt received R 375 mg/m2 weekly × 4 and responders were randomized to MR (single dose R q 3 mo) or RR (R weekly × 4 at disease progression). Each strategy was continued until treatment failure. Participants enrolled after 5/2005 completed a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment. Patient preferences regarding treatment were measured at randomization using 4 patient self-report items developed for this trial. These 4 items asked patients to rate the extent to which medical visits and cancer treatment reduces their anxiety and increases perceived control, and the extent to which they prefer to avoid medical care due to an increase in anxiety in response to reminders of illness. Participants were categorized based on their responses as using “active coping” (medical care decreases anxiety) or “avoidant coping” (prefer to avoid medical care). Participants completed PRO assessment following R induction at randomization, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months post-randomization, and at R failure. PRO assessment included standardized, validated questionnaires to measure general anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), post-traumatic stress-type anxiety (Impact of Events Scale-Revised, IES-R), and health-related quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, FACT-G). Individual items were selected from existing measures or were developed for this trial to assess illness-specific anxiety about the future (Illness Impact). Primary PRO analysis compared change scores from randomization-12 months between MR and RR treatment arms. Differences between participants categorized as using active or avoidant coping were also examined. Results: 253 patients (92% of E4402 randomized sample) completed PROs at randomization. 125 patients were randomized to MR and 128 were randomized to RR. Demographic and disease characteristics were comparable between arms. Median age 60 years, 54% female, 95% White. All patients PS 0–1; 83% follicular lymphoma, 17% non-follicular. The study had 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.4 for the primary endpoint (change scores randomization to 12 months). There were no statistically significant differences between MR and RR on (1) any PRO measure and (2) PRO change scores from randomization to 12 month follow-up (p=NS). Figure 1 illustrates HADS Anxiety scores and Figure 2 shows FACT-G scores from randomization-48 months. The proportion of participants exceeding established clinical cut-off scores on the HADS Anxiety and IES-R did not differ between MR and RR. At randomization, 70% of participants were categorized as using an avoidant coping style and 30% as using active coping. Among participants using avoidant coping, 6–10% exceeded HADS Anxiety clinical cut-off at randomization, 3, 6, and 12 month assessments, and 16% at R failure. A lower proportion of those using active coping (0–3%) reported clinically significant anxiety at all time points (p<0.05). A higher proportion of avoidant coping patients exceeded IES-R clinical cut-off (10–18%), indicating greater post-traumatic anxiety than active coping patients (34%; p<0.01). Conclusion: In previously untreated, indolent, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, MR and RR are comparable with regard to patient-reported anxiety, post-traumatic anxiety, illness-specific anxiety about the future, and overall HRQL. MR did not result in reduced anxiety or better HRQL compared to RR, even among patients who report that medical visits and ongoing treatment reduce anxiety (“active coping”). RR did not result in lower anxiety or better HRQL among patients who reported a preference to avoid medical visits due to increased anxiety (“avoidant coping”). Administration of R q 3 months was not associated with functional improvements or detriments to HRQL, indicating R is well-tolerated. For MR and RR, avoidant coping was associated with a higher likelihood of clinically significant general anxiety and post-traumatic anxiety. Disclosures: Williams: Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: 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)0.005
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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