MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Front-Line Therapy with Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Vincristine, and Prednisone (R-CVP) Followed by 2 Years of Rituximab Maintenance for Follicular Lymphoma (FL) Is Associated with Excellent Outcomes and Improved Progression-Free Survival (PFS) In Comparison to No Maintenance

2010· article· en· W2980200289 on OpenAlexaff
Alden A. Moccia, Paul Hoskins, Richard Klasa, Kerry J. Savage, Tamara Shenkier, Graham W. Slack, Randy D. Gascoyne, Joseph M. Connors, Laurie H. Sehn

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabMaintenance therapyPopulationFollicular lymphomaVincristineInternal medicineHazard ratioSurgeryInterim analysisChemotherapy regimenPrednisoneCyclophosphamideOncologyCancerChemotherapyRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1803 Introduction: The recently reported PRIMA trial was the first to evaluate the benefit of rituximab maintenance (R-maintenance) following first-line immunochemotherapy in FL (Salles G, ASCO 2010). In that trial, the majority of patients (pts) received R-CHOP induction and R-maintenance was administered bi-monthly for 2 years, yielding a substantial benefit in PFS. We assessed outcomes in an unselected population of chemotherapy-naïve pts with FL treated in British Columbia (BC) with R-CVP followed by observation or 2 years of R-maintenance. Patients and Methods: Since 2004, the standard treatment policy in BC has recommended 8 cycles of R-CVP as first-line systemic therapy for symptomatic advanced stage FL. Since 2006, R-maintenance (rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV every 3 months for 2 years) has been recommended for pts achieving a complete (CR/CRu) or partial (PR) remission following induction therapy. Asymptomatic pts generally undergo a period of watchful waiting, with systemic therapy initiated only when clinically indicated. We performed a retrospective population-based analysis using the BC Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer Database and included all pts with FL who received first-line R-CVP between March 2004 and January 2010. Outcome of pts who received R-maintenance was compared to the group of pts who responded to R-CVP but did not receive maintenance (i.e. prior to routine maintenance policy). Primary endpoint was PFS, defined as the interval from the beginning of R-CVP to first progression, relapse or death from any cause. Pts who progressed while on R-CVP or did not achieve at least a PR were considered to have refractory lymphoma. Results: 251 pts were identified. Clinical characteristics at diagnosis were: median age 60 y (range 31–86 y), 58% male, 83% stage III/IV, 30% bulky disease ≥10cm, 20% B symptoms, 16% elevated LDH. FLIPI variables were retrievable on 95% pts: 27% low-risk, 29% intermediate-risk, 45% high-risk. Histology: 56% FL grade 1, 29% FL grade 2, 14% FL grade 3, 1% FL NOS. 48 pts (19%) were on observation before systemic treatment was initiated with a median time between diagnosis and first cycle of R-CVP of 19 m (range 4–130 m). At a median f/u of 36 m (range 0–74 m), 33 pts (13%) have died (24 from lymphoma, 3 from treatment toxicity, 6 from unrelated causes while in sustained remission). 27 pts (11%) had lymphoma refractory to R-CVP and an additional 8 pts (3%) failed to complete therapy (3 due to poor tolerance, 3 died from treatment toxicity, 2 died from unrelated causes). Pts with refractory disease were treated as follows: 6 purine analog-based regimens, 13 R-CHOP, 3 radiation therapy, 3 palliative care and 2 other chemotherapy regimens. Outcome of refractory pts was extremely poor, with a 3-year OS of 48%. 216/251 pts responded to R-CVP (ORR 86%: CR/CRu 44%, PR 37%, 5% detailed radiologic response not available). Following response to R-CVP, 59 pts were observed and 167 pts received R-maintenance. These 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics in terms of age, stage, gender and FLIPI score; however, median f/u was longer for observation pts compared to R-maintenance pts, 59m vs 34m. Eighteen pts (11%) developed progressive disease while receiving R-maintenance and within the subset of pts with available imaging studies for review, 23% pts in PR after R-CVP converted to CR/CRu while on R-maintenance. The 3-y PFS was significantly improved for pts receiving R-maintenance compared to pts on observation alone after having responded to R-CVP, 83% vs 62%, p=0.002 (see figure). The 3-y OS was similar in the 2 cohorts (93% vs. 93%, p=0.985). Conclusions: This population-based analysis confirms the benefit of R-maintenance following immunochemotherapy in pts with untreated FL. R-CVP followed by 2 years of R-maintenance is a well-tolerated and effective therapy with outcomes that compare favorably with more intensive combinations. Patients with lymphoma refractory to R-CVP have a dire prognosis; improved therapeutic approaches are needed for this high-risk subgroup. Disclosures: Connors: Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Sehn:Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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