Long-term results of PET-guided radiation in patients with advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consolidative radiation therapy (RT) for advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains controversial, with routine practice continuing to include RT in patients with initial bulky disease or residual masses. Positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography is a sensitive modality for detecting the presence of residual disease at the end of treatment (EOT). A PET-guided approach to selectively administering RT has been the policy in British Columbia since 2005. Patients with advanced-stage DLBCL diagnosed from 1 January 2005 to 1 March 2017 and treated with at least 6 cycles of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), who underwent EOT PET, were included in this analysis. Those with complete metabolic response (PET-negative [PET-NEG]) were observed; those with PET-positive (PET-POS) scans were offered consolidative RT, when feasible. Of the patient records reviewed, 723 were identified, with median follow-up of 4.3 years: 517 (72%) were PET-NEG; 206 (28%) were PET-POS. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years were 83% vs 56% and 87% vs 64%, in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively. PET-POS patients with nonprogressing disease treated with consolidative RT (109 and 206; 53%) had outcomes approaching those of PET-NEG patients, with 3-year estimates of 76% and 80% for TTP and OS. PET-NEG patients who had bulky disease (≥10 cm) at diagnosis had outcomes indistinguishable from those without bulk, despite the omission of RT. These data suggest that patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who are PET-NEG at EOT and receive no RT have excellent outcomes. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET can reliably guide selective administration of consolidative RT, even in patients with initially bulky disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".