Efficacy and safety of frontline rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone plus bortezomib (VR-CAP) or vincristine (R-CHOP) in a subset of newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma patients medically eligible for transplantation in the randomized, phase 3 LYM-3002 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This post-hoc subanalysis of the LYM-3002 phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of substituting vincristine in rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (R-CHOP; n = 42) for bortezomib (VR-CAP; n = 38) in a subgroup of 80 mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients aged <60 years who did not receive stem cell transplantation (SCT) despite medical eligibility. Complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR (CRu) rates were 67 vs. 39% (odds ratio 3.69 [95% CI(confidence interval): 1.31, 10.41]; p = .012). After 40 months median follow-up, median progression-free survival by independent radiology committee with VR-CAP vs. R-CHOP was 32.6 vs. 12.0 months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% CI: 0.31, 1.13]; p = .108); median overall survival was not reached vs. 47.3 months (HR 0.81 [95% CI: 0.33, 1.96]; p = .634). Adverse events included neutropenia (92/76%), thrombocytopenia (70/10%) and leukopenia (65/50%). VR-CAP represents a potential alternative to R-CHOP in combined and/or alternating regimens for younger, SCT-eligible MCL patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".