MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dose-intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide, cisplatin reinduction for relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r-aNHL).

2012· article· en· W2981559551 on OpenAlexaff
Jan‐Willem Henning, Qiuli Duan, Nizar J. Bahlis, Andrew Daly, Peter Duggan, Mona Shafey, Douglas A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBaker Hughes (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabInternal medicineEtoposideGastroenterologySalvage therapyCyclophosphamideInternational Prognostic IndexRefractory (planetary science)OncologyUrologyChemotherapySurgeryLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6548 Background: Approximately 2/3 r/r-aNHL patients (pts) respond to salvage R-ICE or R-DHAP, 1/2 proceed to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and 1/3 achieve 3 year (yr) progression-free survival (PFS); however, PFS is only 20% if prior Rituximab, time to progression (TTP)<1yr, or age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI)=2-3 [JCO 2010;28: 4184-90]. Since 1995, we re-induced poor prognosis r/r-aNHL with dose-intensive Cyclophosphamide 5.25g/m2, Etoposide 1.05g/m2 and Cisplatin 105mg/m2 (DICEP), G-CSF days (d) 14-19, and apheresis d19,20, or 21. Rituximab was added d0,7 after 2006. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 113 consecutive transplant eligible r/r-aNHL pts [diffuse large B-cell=95, transformed=9, peripheral T-cell=6, other=3] who received one cycle of DICEP (n=93) or R-DICEP (n=20) from 1995-2009. Patient characteristics included: median age=49yr (22-69); primary refractory=68; TTP<1yr=85; elevated LDH=60; ECOG 2-4=42; aaIPI 2-3=59; bulk>10cm=26. Results: Of 113 pts, 77% responded to DICEP and 90% (102) proceeded to ASCT. The median CD34+ cells collected was 19x106/kg (0.3-142). Early treatment-related mortality (TRM) occurred in 3 pts (2.7%), and 4 others developed late second cancers (MDS/AML=2). With 94 months median follow-up (26-194), 5 and 10yr OS rates for all 113pts are 48% and 41%, and PFS rates are 42% and 37%, respectively. 5 year PFS rates for ASCT vs no-ASCT are 46% vs 9%, for relapse aaIPI=0-1 vs aaIPI=2-3 are 53.3% vs 32.1% (p=0.01), and for TTP>1yr vs <1yr are 63.9% vs 35.2% (p=0.009). Other predictors of inferior PFS in univariate analysis were elevated LDH, ECOG 2-4, no response to DICEP; however, PFS for 27 pts who failed prior Rituximab-chemotherapy (56%) was similar to other 86 pts (38%) (logrank p=0.09). Predictors of PFS and OS in multivariate analysis include: TTP<1yr, elevated LDH, bulk, no response to DICEP. Conclusions: (R)DICEP is an effective re-induction regimen for r/r-aNHL, leading to excellent stem cell mobilization and a high chance of proceeding to ASCT. Long-term PFS and OS rates compare favourably to reports of other re-induction regimens, and a prospective multicentre trial is warranted.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→