MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Rituximab Increases Response to ESHAP in Relapsed, Refractory, and Transformed Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma.

2006· article· en· W2585047090 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa K. Hicks, Rena Buckstein, Joy Mangel, Eugenia Piliotis, Kevin Imrie, Matthew C. Cheung, David Spaner, Marciano D. Reis, Zeina Ghorab, Violet Milliken, Nancy Pennell, Neil L. Berinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtoposideInternal medicineRituximabCytarabineSalvage therapyAutologous stem-cell transplantationOncologyGastroenterologyProgression-free survivalTransplantationSurgeryChemotherapyLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma, or transformed indolent lymphoma can achieve long-term survival with high dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant (HDT/ASCT), provided their disease is sensitive to salvage chemotherapy. Unfortunately, approximately 50% of patients are insensitive to standard salvage regimens. Objectives: This trial investigated whether adding Rituximab to ESHAP (etoposide, solumedrol, cytosine arabinoside, cisplatin) induction improved chemosensitivity. The primary outcome was overall response rate (CR + CRu + PR) to R-ESHAP. Secondary outcomes were toxicity, ability to undergo ASCT, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: The protocol was approved by the local ethics review board and all patients provided informed consent. Eligible patients received ESHAP every 28 days with GCSF support until < 15% bone marrow involvement was achieved (2–4 cycles). Rituximab was given weekly x 8 weeks concurrent with the first 2 cycles of ESHAP. GCSF mobilized stems cells were collected on day 10–11 of cycle 1 or 2. Results: The trial was stopped early after the complete response (CR) rate at a planned interim analysis exceeded 40% (a pre-specified criteria for stopping the trial). Final results of 26 patients are presented. Median age was 55.5 years (range 42–64). Twelve patients had relapsed aggressive lymphoma, 2 had refractory disease and 12 had transformed indolent lymphoma. Twenty-two of 26 patients were stage III/IV. The overall response rate to R-ESHAP was 92% (95% CI 82% to 100%). Twelve patients (46%; 95% CI 27% to 65%) had a CR or unconfirmed CR. Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia occurred in 57%, 40%, and 15% of R-ESHAP cycles respectively. Grade 3–4 infections complicated 7% of cycles. Median follow-up was 17 months (range 2.9 to 43.2) from enrollment. Twenty-three of 26 patients (88%) were transplanted. Notable post-transplant toxicity included 5 cases of herpes zoster, 2 cases of bacterial pneumonia, 1 case of pulmonary aspergillosis, and 1 fatal case of pneumocystis carnii pneumonia (PCP). Three patients did not proceed to HDT/ASCT; 2 were refractory to R-ESHAP and 1 died of a myocardial infarction after induction chemotherapy but prior to ASCT. Fifteen of 23 patients who received ASCT remain in remission, 6 have relapsed. Seven patients have died, 4 of progressive disease, 1 of myocardial infarction, 1 of PCP, and 1 of accelerated Parkinson’s Disease. Median PFS and median OS have not yet been reached. Conclusions: In this single-arm, phase II study of relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma and transformed indolent B-cell lymphoma, R-ESHAP induction therapy resulted in a very high ORR (92%) and enabled a large percentage of patients (88%) to proceed to HDT/ASCT. Toxicity of the R-ESHAP regimen was acceptable, and its efficacy compared favorably with other salvage regimens reported in the literature, including R-ICE.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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