Outcomes of patients with indolent lymphoma treated with bendamustine plus rituximab compared to rituximab plus <scp>CVP</scp> or <scp>CHOP</scp> chemoimmunotherapy in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bendamustine (B) with rituximab (R) has become the preferred regimen for patients with indolent lymphoma in Ontario, Canada, compared to R with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (CVP) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP). We conducted a propensity-matched retrospective cohort population-based study of patients treated with R-CVP/CHOP from 2005 to 2012 and patients treated with BR from 2013 to 2018. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes included toxicities and healthcare utilization. The 5-year OS for patients treated with BR (n = 2023) and R-CVP/CHOP (n = 2023) was 80% and 75% respectively. Treatment with BR was associated with improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91). During the first 9 months, patients treated with BR versus R-CVP/CHOP had a higher number of admissions for infection (22% compared to 17%, p < 0.01) and a higher number of mean ED visits (mean 1.01 ± 1.68 visits vs. 0.85 ± 1.51 visits, p < 0.01). This trend persisted for 3 years. The adjusted 5-year OS for patients 75 years and older did not differ based on treatment regimen (55.5% for BR vs. 55.4% for R-CVP/CHOP). Our study supports the use of BR for patients with indolent lymphoma requiring treatment but suggests increased risk of certain toxicities warranting careful patient selection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".