Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors and Incidence of Interstitial Pneumonia With CHOP-Like Regimens for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Interstitial pneumonitis (IP), a potentially fatal complication of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) patients received CHOP (cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin and vincristine and prednisone)-like chemotherapy, negatively affected patients’ clinical outcome and quality of life. We aimed to explore patient-related, disease-related and drug-related risk factors associated with IP and gain a better understanding of the incidence in NHL patients. Methods Databases, including PubMed, Ovid, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and Wanfang Database from inception to January 20, 2022, were searched to identify studies evaluating the risk factors and incidence of IP. The included studies were assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale and above 7 points was considered high quality. The statistical analysis of risk factors was assessed by RevMan software (version 5.3) and incidence of IP was calculated by R software (version 4.1.2). Fixed-or random-effects models were applied to estimated the relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (Cl). Results A total of 12 studies comprised of 3423 NHL patients were included in the analysis. Among the 3 available patient-related risk factors, 6 disease-related risk factors and 3 drug-related risk factors, it was found that only drug-related risk factors were significantly associated with IP development: pegylated liposomes doxorubicin (PLD) replacement (RR = 3.25, 95% CI = 1.69-6.27, I2 =64%), rituximab (RTX) addition (RR = 4.24, 95% CI = 2.58-6.96, I2 =0) and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration (RR = 5.80, 95% CI = 3.05-11.05, I2 =0). The pooled incidence of CHOP, R-CHOP, and R-CDOP regimen was 1.0% (95% CI 0.00-0.01, I2 = 8%), 7.0% (95% CI 0.05-0.09, I2 = 64%) and 22.0% (95% CI 0.13-0.32, I2 = 87%) respectively. Conclusion PLD replacement, RTX addition and G-CSF administration were significant risk factors of IP for NHL patients received the CHOP-like chemotherapy. Clinicians should focus on these patients to detect and treat the IP development timely, which might bring benefit in patients’ survival. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022309884.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".