MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

First-line treatment with Bendamustine plus Rituximab for patients with indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or Mantle cell lymphoma: Real-world experience.

2021· article· en· W3167315086 on OpenAlexaff
Rouslan Kotchetkov, David Susman, Lauren Gerard, Erica DiMaria, Derek Nay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreWestern UniversityBarrie Urology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBendamustineRituximabMantle cell lymphomaFollicular lymphomaLymphoplasmacytic LymphomaInternal medicineLymphomaMarginal zone B-cell lymphomaGastroenterologyB symptomsMalignancySurgeryOncologyWaldenstrom macroglobulinemiaB cellImmunologyMarginal zoneAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e19540 Background: Bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R) was established as a preferred first line therapy for patients with previously untreated indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma based on the BRIGHT and STIL trials. However, only few reports on efficacy and safety data of this combination in the real-world setting are available to-date. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who received therapy with standard doses of B+R in our cancer center from June 2013 to January 2021. Patients with indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (iNHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who received more than one cycle of B+R were evaluated. Results: Amongst a total of 201 patients 56% were males and 44% females. Median age at B+R initiation was 72 years (range 34-94). Follicular lymphoma (FL) (50.3%), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) (19.4%), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL) (14.5%) were the most common iNHL. Stage 3 and 4 diseases represented 19.9% and 68.6% of patients. Extranodal disease was found in 35.8%. The proportion of patients with high risk disease was 48.5% for FL (FLIPI ≥3), 86.6% for LPL (WMISS score ≥2), and 80.5% for MCL (MIPI score ≥6.2). Prior history of secondary malignancy had 23.4% of patients; 11.4% patients had ECOG 3. Most common indications for B+R initiation were bulky symptomatic lymphadenopathy (69.1%), cytopenia (36.8%) and constitutional symptoms (36.8%). Fifty-eight percent of patients had more than one indication for therapy. Median number of B+R cycles delivered was 6 (range: 1-6), median dose of bendamustine was 90 mg/m2 (range 45-90). Full doses of treatment were given in 66.7% of patients, reduced in 33.3% with mean dose 78.3 mg/m2. A total of 50.8% completed 6 cycles with no delays, in 49.2% treatment was delayed (mean delay time 1.8 weeks). Overall response was 94.5%, with 77.6% complete and 16.9% partial remission. Median duration of follow-up was 35 months (range: 4-91). At the end of follow-up, event free survival (EFS) was 77.1% and overall survival (OS) was 79.6%. Six percent of patients relapsed, 8% developed secondary hematological malignancies, including 14 cases of aggressive B-cell lymphoma and 2 cases of MDS. 16.9% of patients required support with G-CSF. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was recorded in 22.4%, febrile neutropenia in 7.5%, grade 3-4 anemia in 7.9%, and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia in 3.9% of patients. Rituximab-associated infusion reactions, skin rash, thrombophlebitis, and infection were the most common non-hematological adverse events. A total of 80.6% of patients proceeded to rituximab maintenance. Conclusions: B+R chemoimmunotherapy is feasible to administer in non-clinical trial setting. Despite more dose reduction as compared to STIL trial, B+R retained its efficacy with comparable EFS and OS. No new adverse events or increase in secondary malignancies were found.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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