PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF PET‐CT AFTER FIRST‐LINE IMMUNOCHEMOTHERAPY FOR FOLLICULAR LYMPHOMA IN THE PHASE III GALLIUM STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET-CT (PET) response assessment after first-line (1 L) immunochemotherapy for advanced-stage symptomatic follicular lymphoma (FL) has been reported in several smaller trials. We evaluated the prognostic value of PET complete remission (PET-CR) status for the large FL patient (pt) cohort enrolled in the prospective Phase III GALLIUM study (NCT01332968; Marcus 2016). Methods: 1202 pts with previously untreated FL (ITT population) were randomised 1:1 to receive induction therapy comprising chemotherapy plus 1000 mg obinutuzumab (G; D1, 8, 15 C1 then D1 subsequent cycles) or 375 mg/m2 rituximab (R; D1 each cycle), for 8 x 21-day cycles (CHOP, CVP) or 6 x 28-day cycles (bendamustine). PET scans, introduced after an early protocol amendment (July 2011), were taken at baseline and end of induction (EOI) visits and assessed by the investigator (INV) and an independent review committee (IRC) comprising two radiologists, with a third adjudicator; final response was determined by a clinician. Response was assessed by CT and PET plus bone marrow biopsy, applying the revised International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson 2007, Juweid 2007). EOI PET-CR status was compared with pt characteristics, CT-based response, PFS and OS. Conclusions: This large prospective analysis confirms that PET status after 1 L immunochemotherapy, applying IWG 2007 criteria, is an early prognostic factor for PFS and OS in FL. Further analyses, including PET assessment by the INV, according to treatment arm, and IRC review applying a ≥ 4 point cut-off on the recommended 5-point scale for response assessment (Barrington 2014) will be presented. Pooled analyses of these and other data with longer follow-up may determine PET response as a reliable surrogate for PFS and OS, providing a platform for study of response-adapted therapy. Keywords: follicular lymphoma (FL); positron emission tomography (PET); prognostic indices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".