MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Genomic profiling in a subgroup analysis of patients (pts) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and extranodal (EN) sites of involvement in the phase 3 Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP (POLARIX) study.

2024· article· en· W4399481113 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Kimberly Lue, Franck Morschhauser, Hervé Tilly, Georg Lenz, Fabrice Jardin, Alex F. Herrera, Jeff P. Sharman, Christopher R. Flowers, Jonathan W. Friedberg, Marek Trněný, Charles Herbaux, Mark Yan, Yanwen Jiang, Jamie Hirata, Connie Lee Batlevi, Deniz Şahin, Wilfred Leung, Will Harris, Gilles Salles, Laurie H. Sehn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCRoche (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaLymphomaCHOPPathologyCancer researchOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7061 Background: The prognosis and survival outcomes of pts with EN involvement remain a challenge for DLBCL management. In the Phase 3 POLARIX study (NCT03274492), Pola-R-CHP demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with R-CHOP in previously untreated DLBCL (Tilly et al. 2022). This retrospective analysis assessed clinical outcomes and genomic patterns of pts with DLBCL and EN disease. Methods: POLARIX methods were previously described (Tilly et al. 2022). Using a data cutoff of June 15, 2022, this analysis assessed pts with EN involvement as determined by investigators. Additional outcomes and genomics analyses were performed on pts whose EN status was confirmed from documented radiographic lesions or bone marrow biopsy with denotation of EN disease sites. Hazard ratios (HRs) for investigator-assessed PFS were adjusted for age (≤60 vs >60) and sex. Cell of origin (COO) by NanoString, mutation analysis by whole exome sequencing, and global gene expression profiling by RNAseq were performed centrally. Results: In POLARIX, 616/879 pts (70%) had identified EN involvement. After a median follow-up of 39.7 months, pts showed improved PFS with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (HR 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55–0.96), with a 2-year PFS of 75% vs 66%. A total of 556 pts (Pola-R-CHP, n=279; R-CHOP, n=277) had confirmed sites of EN involvement, defined as pts with EN radiographic lesions or bone marrow disease. In these pts, PFS favored Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.63–1.13). Of pts with confirmed EN disease, 429 had COO results (activated B-cell, 145 [34%]; germinal center B-cell, 223 [52%]; unclassified DLBCL, 61 [14%]). Mutation data and frequencies of select clinically relevant mutations (Ptashkin, 2023) across EN sites were available for 364 pts (Table). Gene expression data were available for 418 pts; genes involved in proliferation (E2F or PI3K signaling targets and checkpoint genes) and regulated by IRF4, OCT2 and XBP1, were commonly upregulated in pts with EN disease. Conclusions: Results in pts with DLBCL with EN involvement suggest superior PFS with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP. Ongoing analyses will further assess the independent impact of EN status on outcome. POLARIX represents the largest cohort of pts with annotated EN disease and systematic genomic analysis, providing new insights into the genomics of these pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03274492 . [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→