Oral Chemotherapy Application in Elderly Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: An Alternative Regimen in Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is considered the standard treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, no standard treatment has been established for older patients (age ≥ 75 years). This study retrospectively analyzed different treatment strategies in older patients with DLBCL with different chemotherapy regimens and compared the survival rate of patients using oral or intravenous form cyclophosphamide and etoposide in a single center. Methods: We reviewed the records of older patients with DLBCL, aged ≥ 75 years, from January 2010 to August 2019. The different treatment combinations, clinical characteristics, response rates, and toxicity profiles were analyzed. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Cox regression model was used to identify the risk factors. Results: . The median OS was 17.2 months and median PFS was 7.7 months. The PFS of R-CHOP is better than R-mini-CHOP and R-CVOP without statistical significance, but OS of R-CHOP is not better than the other regimens. Conclusion: The toxicity, efficacy, and KM curve for OS and PFS in the non-ACR group were lower compared to ACR group, without statistical significance. R-CVOP had similar OS with R-mini-CHOP in our study. The result does not mean etoposide could totally substitute for anthracycline, but etoposide did have lower early progression rate (12.5%), and it may be an option for frail patients with comorbidity. Oral form cyclophosphamide and etoposide could be considered as a substitute for intravenous administration because of the similar effect and toxic profile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".