MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Extranodal Follicular Lymphoma - a Retrospective Review and Comparison with Localized Nodal Follicular Lymphoma.

2004· review· en· W2980169763 on OpenAlexaff
Vishal Kukreti, Peter Petersen, Melania Pintilie, Richard Tsang, Michael Crump, Mary Gospodarowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFollicular lymphomaMedicineLymphomaFollicular phaseRadiation therapyGastroenterologyRetrospective cohort studyStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Follicular lymphoma arising in an extranodal site is uncommon and its natural history and treatment is poorly characterized in the literature. We retrospectively reviewed a large cohort of patients with stage I and II follicular lymphoma and analyzed the outcomes of patients with extranodal (EN-FL) presentations to identify sites of involvement and treatment outcome, and compared these to patients with nodal follicular lymphoma. From 1967 to 1999, 668 cases of limited stage follicular lymphoma (stage I and II) were treated at the Princess Margaret Hospital. Of these, 157 cases (23.5%) presented in extra-nodal sites. The most common site of presentation was in the head and neck area (42%) followed by gastro-intestinal tract (14.6%) then skin (10.8%). The majority of patients had stage I disease (61.8%). Pathological type was follicular grade I: 22.9%, grade II: 33.1%, and grade III: 43.9%. Treatment consisted of involved field radiation therapy in 72%, combined modality therapy in 22.3% and chemotherapy alone in 3.8%. The treatment changed over time with increased use of combined modality treatment (CMT) [1967–77: 10.5%, vs. 1989–99: 33%] mainly due to the adoption of CMT for follicular grade III lymphoma. Overall complete response rate (CR) to primary treatment was 93%; the CR rate for radiation alone was 97.3%. The cumulative incidence of relapse (RR) was 44% at 10 years. The RR at 10 years was higher for patients age >60 (62% vs. 49%; p =0.059) but did not vary according to stage, tumour bulk, gender or histologic grade. For extranodal lymphoma, the 10-year overall survival (OS) rate was 56% and the 10-year disease free survival (DFS) was 42% and was similar for major sites of presentation. Comparison of Stage I–II Nodal and Extra-nodal Follicular Lymphoma Nodal Follicular Lymphoma Extra-nodal Follicular Lymphoma 10 yr Overall Survival 61% 56% (p=0.97) 10 year Disease Free Survival 41% 42% (p=0.27) 10 yr Relapse Rate 50% 44% (p=0.11) In conclusion, a significant number of patients with localized FL present with extra-nodal disease, involving diverse sites. Patients with EN-FL were more likely to have follicular grade III histology. OS, DFS and RR were similar to nodal follicular lymphoma. These results suggest that the clinical management of stage I and II extra-nodal follicular lymphoma should be the same as for nodal, and that a significant proportion of patients have prolonged DFS with radiation-based therapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→