Canadian cancer trials group <scp>LY</scp>.17: A randomized phase <scp>II</scp> study evaluating novel salvage therapy pre‐autologous stem cell transplant in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma—outcome of rituximab‐dose‐intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide, cisplatin (R‐<scp>DICEP</scp>) versus R‐<scp>GDP</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) LY.17 is an ongoing multi-arm randomized phase II trial evaluating novel salvage therapies compared with R-GDP (rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin) in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT)-eligible patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (RR-DLBCL). This component of the LY.17 trial evaluated a dose-intensive chemotherapy approach using a single cycle of inpatient R-DICEP (rituximab, dose-intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide and cisplatin) to achieve both lymphoma response and stem cell mobilization, shortening time to ASCT. This report is the result of the protocol-specified second interim analysis of the 67 patients who were randomized to either 1 cycle of R-DICEP or to 3 cycles of R-GDP. The overall response rate (ORR) was 65.6% for R-DICEP and 48.6% for R-GDP. The ASCT rate was 71.9% versus 54.3%, and 1-year progression-free survival rate was 42% versus 32%, respectively, for R-DICEP versus R-GDP. Although the improvement in ORR for R-DICEP versus R-GDP exceeded the pre-specified 10% threshold to proceed to full accrual of 64 patients/arm, higher rates of grade 3-5 toxicities, and the need for hospitalization led to the decision to stop this arm of the study. CCTG LY.17 will continue to evaluate different salvage regimens that incorporate novel agents.
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 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".