MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fludarabine Monophosphate in Indolent Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) - Clinical Experience (1995–2006).

2006· article· en· W2587866472 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.E. Novoa, B. Beñaran, A.L. Rojo, R. Draper, H. Calvo, Nilsa Iriondo, Lilián Díaz, M. Rivero, Juan Antonio Martínez Segura, Antonio Arbo Sosa, S. Brignoni, A. Luongo, R. De Bellis

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFludarabineMedicineInternal medicineVincristineCyclophosphamideGastroenterologyNon-Hodgkin's lymphomaPrednisonePerformance statusLymphomaSurgeryChemotherapyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: fludarabine (F) is licensed for the management of indolent non Hodgkin’s lymphoma in countries such as Canada and Switzerland. Clinical evidence suggests that fludarabine monotherapy is as least as effective, than conventional therapies such as cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (CVP) for the first and second line treatment of NHL achieving objective response rates. The non Hodgkin’s lymphomas are a heterogeneous group of lymphomas involving predominantly malignant populations of B lymphocytes, although T or natural killer type (NK) may be present. Aims: to assess the efficacy, safety and quality of life of F in previously untreated indolent NHL in a Group of Medical Institutions in Uruguay during 11 years (1995–2006). Methods: 98 patients between the period 1995 – 2006 were evaluated. 72 of them received the intravenous formulation (1995–2006) and 26 the oral one (2002–2006). Age: 38 – 85 years old, media 58 years old. Gender: male 52% & female 48%. Inclusion criteria for NHL-LG was: non previous treatment, Ann Arbor stage III or IV (nodal or extradonal), a meassurable mass, age > 18 years old, WHO performance status 0–2 and written informed consent. WHO performance status 0: 60 pts, 1: 24 pts and 2: 14 patients. Ann Arbor staging: IIIA:16/98 IIIB:9/98 IVA:51/98 and 22 IVB. Treatment: all the patients received (minimum): 6 cycles of i.v. Fludarabine (Fludara®, Schering) 25 mg/m2/daily (5 days) e/30 days or Oral Fludarabine, 40 mg/m2/daily (5 days), 6 cycles. Results: on this NHL-LG cohort the overall response rate (PR+CR) was 78% (ORR), 44% complete response and 34% partial response. Stable disease 2%. Progressive disease 23%. Time to progression 15 months. Overall survival at 60 months was 68%. LDH in serum was an adverse prognostic factor for time to progression and overall survival. Safety: on the 622 cycles in 98 patients, the toxicity was: 1 AIHA, 2 pancytopenia, 1 plaquetopenia. Grade 3–4 infection rate was 1,3%. No alopecia was observed in any patient. Mortality rate: 1,02% (1/98 patients). Other adverse factors to overall survival were, age over 65 years old (p=0,0001) and hepatic impairment (p=0,0001). Toxicity: (WHO>2): granulocytopenia 18%, thrombocytopenia 10%, infection 6%. Although fludarabine-treated patients experienced more significant myelossuppresion, no difference in the treatment group was demonstrated. Causes of death: sepsis 10%, associated disease 46%, second malignancy 7% and others 37%. Comparing oral with intravenous formulation in overall survival the results were: NHL-LG 77% vs 73% (p= NS). Conclusions: fludarabine monofosfate (Fludara®) is an effective and safe treatment for NHL-LG. The oral and intravenous formulations have a similar response rate in elderly and young patients. A longer follow up and a larger trial, might be needed to confirm these results in a multicenter, randomized study.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207