Brief Chemotherapy and Involved-Region Irradiation for Limited-Stage Diffuse Large-Cell Lymphoma: An 18-Year Experience From the British Columbia Cancer Agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcome of patients with limited-stage diffuse large-cell lymphoma (DLCL) treated with three cycles of chemotherapy followed by involved-region irradiation (IRRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with limited-stage DLCL were treated with brief doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy regimens between 1980 and 1998. IRRT was administered 3 to 4 weeks after the third chemotherapy treatment in a dose equivalent to 30 Gy in 10 fractions. RESULTS: Three hundred and eight patients (median age, 64 years) were included, and 299 experienced complete remission. After a median follow-up of 86 months, 64 patients developed progressive disease, and 104 patients died (43 from lymphoma, three from toxicity, and 58 from other causes). Actuarial overall and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were, respectively, 80% and 81% at 5 years and 63% and 74% at 10 years. For subgroups identified using the Miller modification of the International Prognostic Index (IPI), the overall survival rates at 5 and 10 years were, respectively, 97% and 89% (no factors), 77% and 56% (one or two factors), and 58% and 48% (three or four factors), and the 5-year and 10-year PFS rates were, respectively, 94% and 89% (no factors), 79% and 73% (one or two factors), and 60% and 50% (three or four factors). Men with testicular presentation, had a definitely inferior outcome. CONCLUSION: Long-term outcome with three cycles of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy and IRRT confirms that this is a successful approach for the majority of patients with limited-stage DLCL. Subgroups with worse prognoses can be identified, and these patients should be offered alternative treatment approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".