PHASE 3 TRIAL OF SUBCUTANEOUS EPCORITAMAB + R‐CHOP VERSUS R‐CHOP IN PATIENTS (PTS) WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED DIFFUSE LARGE B‐CELL LYMPHOMA (DLBCL): EPCORE DLBCL‐2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CHOP (Clozel T et al., 2013).Early studies of azacitidine with R-CHOP showed promising efficacy and acceptable toxicity (Martin P et al., 2022).The availability of oral azacitidine is appealing, reduces the infusion burden of treatment, and is agnostic to cell-of-origin.Methods: S1918 is a randomized trial of R-miniCHOP � oral azacitidine in patients >75 y with newly diagnosed aggressive B-cell non Hodgkin lymphomas (NCT04799275).This is the first randomized study in this population conducted in North America by the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and will enroll 384 patients.Patients receive prephase therapy with prednisone 60-100 mg � 4-7 days to improve performance status and decrease early treatment-related mortality (Owens CN et al., 2015; Pfreundschuh M et al., 2008).A safety run-in has been completed.The phase II objective is to determine if oral azacitidine + R-miniCHOP should be tested further against R-miniCHOP based on estimates of 1-year PFS.The phase III objective is to compare OS at 2 years between arms.S1918 incorporates the FIL Tool for baseline frailty assessment and a serial comprehensive geriatric assessment to evaluate effects of therapy on quality of life and functional status.Key correlative tests include circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays to explore if ctDNA quantity and methylation patterns correlate with response.S1918 has potential to impact future trial design and change the standard of care for patients > 75 y with aggressive lymphoma with its randomized design, incorporation of baseline frailty and geriatric assessments, and utilization of ctDNA correlatives.The research was funded by: NIH
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".