MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936758797 · doi:10.2147/ott.s191179

<p>Rituximab-based combination therapy in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis</p>

2019· review· en· W2936758797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanhua Zheng, Li Xu, Chun Cao, Juan Feng, Hailong Tang, Mi-Mi Shu, Guangxun Gao, Xiequn Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueOncoTargets and Therapy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFourth Military Medical University
KeywordsMedicineRituximabWaldenstrom macroglobulinemiaMacroglobulinemiaMeta-analysisInternal medicineOncologyLymphomaMultiple myeloma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab-based combination therapy for Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), we conducted this meta-analysis by pooling the rates of overall response, major response, complete response, and grade ≥3 hematological adverse events. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched for relevant studies in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The qualitative assessment of all the included articles was conducted with reference to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was selected to perform all pooled analyses. RESULTS: We identified altogether 22 studies with a total of 806 symptomatic WM patients enrolled. The pooled analysis indicated that the rituximab-based combination therapy achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 84% (95% CI: 81%-87%), a major response rate (MRR) of 71% (95% CI: 66%-75%), and a complete response rate (CRR) of 7% (95% CI: 5%-10%). Rituximab plus conventional alkylating agents-containing chemotherapy (subgroup A) yielded an ORR of 86% (95% CI: 81%-89%), an MRR of 74% (95% CI: 69%-79%), and a CRR of 8% (95% CI: 4%-14%). Rituximab plus purine analog (subgroup B) resulted in an ORR of 85% (95% CI: 79%-89%), an MRR of 74% (95% CI: 66%-81%), and a CRR of 9% (95% CI: 4%-15%). Rituximab plus proteasome inhibitor (subgroup C) resulted in an ORR of 86% (95% CI: 81%-90%), an MRR of 68% (95% CI: 58%-77%), and a CRR of 7% (95% CI: 3%-11%). Rituximab plus immunomodulatory drug (subgroup D) attained relatively lower response rates, with an ORR of 67% (95% CI: 51%-81%), an MRR of 56% (95% CI: 27%-83%), and a CRR of 5% (95% CI: 1%-12%). Common grade ≥3 hematological adverse events consisted of neutropenia (33%, 95% CI: 17%-52%), thrombocytopenia (7%, 95% CI: 3%-11%), and anemia (5%, 95% CI: 3%-9%). CONCLUSION: Rituximab in combination with an alkylating agent, purine analog, or proteasome inhibitor is highly effective with tolerable hematological toxicities for WM.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.032
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncoTargets and TherapySame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207