Rituximab Treatment of Primary Cutaneous Follicle Center Lymphoma: A Retrospective Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (PCBCL) presents only in the skin at the time of diagnosis with no evidence of extracutaneous disease, and primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma (PCFCL) is the most common subtype. There is currently a lack of prospective randomized control trials and large retrospective studies investigating the efficacy of different treatment options for PCFCL. This retrospective study was conducted to describe our local clinical experience and outcomes of patients treated with rituximab-containing regimens. OBJECTIVES: To describe our local clinical experience and treatment outcomes of patients treated with rituximab-containing regimens. METHODS: A retrospective study consisting of 25 PCFCL patients treated with different modalities. Patient records were reviewed and analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier estimation and SAS 9.4 software. RESULTS: After the initial treatment, all patients had CR except for 1 patient in the observation group. Further, 60% of patients in surgery, 20% in chemoimmunotherapy, 67% in rituximab monotherapy, 33% in steroid injection/systemic prednisone, and 33% in observation experienced a relapse. Although no significant difference was found between treatment groups due to the small sample size, time to relapse trends provides insight into treatment responses. Chemoimmunotherapy had the lowest relapse rate in the first 5 years post-treatment, whereas surgery had a higher tendency to relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential for rituximab-containing chemoimmunotherapy to yield adverse effects, it is effective in achieving a prolonged clinical remission in patients with PCFCL. It remains a reasonable treatment option for diffuse, extensive, or treatment-resistant 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".