MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951720456 · doi:10.1002/hon.5_2629

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

2019· article· en· W2951720456 on OpenAlexaff
Umberto Vitolo, Thomas E. Witzig, Randy D. Gascoyne, David W. Scott, Q. Zhang, Wojciech Jurczak, Muhıt Özcan, Xin Hong, Jun Zhu, Jie Jin, David Belada, Juan Bergua, Francesco Piazza, Heidi Móciková, Anna Lia Molinari, Dok Hyun Yoon, Federica Cavallo, Monica Tani, Koji Izutsu, Koji Kato, M. S. Czuczman, S. J. Hersey, Adrian Kilcoyne, Jacqueline Russo, Krista Hudak, J. Zhang, Annalisa Chiappella, Grzegorz S. Nowakowski

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideMedicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaCHOPInternal medicineRituximabClinical endpointPlaceboGastroenterologyLymphomaVincristineOncologyPathologyRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyCyclophosphamideMultiple myeloma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.309
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations84
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207