ROBUST: First report of phase III randomized study of lenalidomide/R‐CHOP (R<sup>2</sup>‐CHOP) vs placebo/R‐CHOP in previously untreated ABC‐type diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The activated B-cell-like (ABC) subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) continues to convey inferior survival despite efforts to enhance outcomes with novel R-CHOP combinations. Phase II studies have suggested that the addition of the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide to R-CHOP could ameliorate the poor prognostic effect of the ABC phenotype and improve treatment outcome in this subgroup of patients. Methods: The global phase III ROBUST trial (NCT02285062) is the first to compare lenalidomide/R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) vs placebo/R-CHOP in previously untreated, prospectively selected, CD20+ ABC-type DLBCL. Patients included adults with Ann Arbor stage II-IV disease, IPI score ≥ 2, and ECOG PS ≤ 2. Confirmation of histology and cell-of-origin type were prospectively analyzed from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded excisional/surgical or core needle biopsy samples by central pathology using the NanoString Lymphoma Subtyping Test (LST), based on the Lymph2Cx GEP assay (Scott, Blood 2014). ABC-DLBCL patients were stratified by IPI score (2 vs ≥ 3), bulky disease (< 7 vs ≥ 7 cm) and age (< 65 vs ≥ 65 y), and randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide PO 15 mg/d, d1-14/21 + standard R-CHOP21 vs placebo/R-CHOP21 for 6 cycles, with 2 additional, optional doses of rituximab per local practice. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent central radiology per 2014 NHL IWG criteria, and defined as time from randomization to PD or death from any cause. Results: A total of 570 ABC-DLBCL patients met eligibility criteria and were enrolled in ROBUST (n = 285 per arm). Baseline demographics were similar between arms, with a median age for all patients of 65 y (52% ≥ 65 y), 42% IPI 2 score/58% IPI ≥ 3 score, 88% stage III/IV disease, and 34% bulky disease. The primary endpoint of PFS was not met with an HR = 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63-1.14) and P = 0.29; median PFS was not reached for either arm (Figure). Positive PFS trends favoring R2-CHOP over placebo/R-CHOP were observed with disease stage III/IV (HR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.60-1.10]) and IPI score ≥ 3 (HR = 0.74 [95% CI, 0.53-1.05]). Median EFS was not reached for either arm (HR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.34; P = 0.73). At a median follow-up of 27.1 mo (range, 0-47) for survivors, 2-y OS was 79% for R2-CHOP and 80% for placebo/R-CHOP (medians not reached). ORR was 91% for both arms, with 69% vs 65% CR for R2-CHOP vs placebo/R-CHOP, respectively. 74% R2-CHOP and 84% placebo/R-CHOP patients completed 6 cycles of treatment; AEs (mainly neutropenia) were the most common reason for treatment discontinuation. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (≥ 10%) for R2-CHOP vs placebo/R-CHOP were neutropenia (60% vs 48%), anemia (22% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (17% vs 11%), leukopenia (14% vs 15%), febrile neutropenia (14% vs 9%), and lymphopenia (11% vs 8%).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".