A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Lugano 2014 criteria are the standard for response assessment in lymphoma. We compared the prognostic performance of Lugano 2014 and the more recently developed response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017), which relies primarily on computed tomography and uses unidimensional measurements, in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials, respectively. Concordance between responses according to the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 criteria was analyzed. Landmark analyses of progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by end of treatment (EOT) and end of induction (EOI) response status according to RECIL 2017 and Lugano 2014 criteria, and prognostic value of response at EOT/EOI were also compared. Overall, 1333 patients were included from GOYA and 502 from GALLIUM. Complete response (CR) status according to RECIL 2017 criteria showed high concordance with complete metabolic response (CMR) status by Lugano 2014 criteria in both GOYA (92.5%) and GALLIUM (92.4%). EOT and EOI CR/CMR status by both criteria was highly prognostic for PFS in GOYA (RECIL 2017 [CR]: hazard ratio [HR], 0.35 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26–0.46]; Lugano 2014 [CMR]: HR, 0.35 [95% CI 0.26–0.48]; both p < .0001) and GALLIUM (RECIL 2017 [CR]: HR, 0.35 [95% CI 0.23–0.53]; Lugano 2014 [CMR]: HR, 0.21 [95% CI 0.14–0.31]; both p < .0001). In conclusion, response categorization by RECIL 2017 is similar to that by Lugano 2014 criteria, with high concordance observed. Both were prognostic for PFS and OS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".