MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417020279 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-3612

A retrospective population-based study of long-term treatments and outcomes inwaldenstrom macroglobulinemia in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4417020279 on OpenAlexaffabout
Arjun Pandey, Barbara Gunka, Mohammed A. Aljama, Lee Mozessohn, Sho Podolsky, Andrew Calzavara, Neil L. Berinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaldenstrom macroglobulinemiaRituximabLymphoplasmacytic LymphomaMacroglobulinemiaRetrospective cohort studyIbrutinibLymphomaChemotherapy regimenSurvival analysisCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare B-cell malignancy characterized by periods of low burden disease not requiring treatment eventually leading to active disease requiring therapy. Treatment approaches have evolved over time including chemotherapy ± monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab and most recently targeted agents including Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors. We sought to characterize treatments and real-world long-term outcomes in a contemporary cohort of Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia/Lymphoplasmacytic Lymphoma patients. Methodology: This was a retrospective population-based study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative databases. All eligible patients >18 years diagnosed from 2005 to 2023 identified within the Ontario Cancer Registry were included. All provincially funded treatment regimens were documented; however, treatments funded by compassionate access, private insurance or investigational regimens as part of clinical trials were not captured. In total, n=1,986 patients identified as having either Lymphoplasmacytic Lymphoma or Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia were included in this study. We evaluated outcomes including types of treatment, time to second line therapy and overall survival using the Kaplan Meier method. Results: Out of the 1,986 patients with Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia/Lymphoplasmacytic Lymphoma included in the cohort, the median age was 73 (IQR: 64-80) and 39% were female. Patients were followed for a median of 4 years (IQR: 2-8). In total, 55% of patients (n=1,093) received provincially funded treatment for Waldenstrom's during the follow-up period; median Kaplan Meier estimate of time from diagnosis to first-line treatment was 1.9 years. Of those who received frontline therapy, 52% of patients (n=569) went on to receive rituximab maintenance therapy and 23% of patients (n=250) went on to receive second-line treatment; median Kaplan Meier estimate of time to second line therapy was over 13 years. In total, 80 patients (4% of the overall cohort and 7% of those who received frontline therapy) received three or more lines of treatment. In total, 37% (n=727) of patients died within with the follow-up period, with median Kaplan Meier survival estimate of 9.9 years after diagnosis. The most common frontline treatment regimens (each +/- anti-CD20 antibody) were Bendamustine (60%), CVP (21%), Bruton Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor (5%), rituximab monotherapy (5%), Chlorambucil (4%) or CHOP (2%). Comparison of overall survival, time to second line therapy and depth of response based on IgM for different treatment regimens is under active investigation. Conclusion: We characterized real-world long-term outcomes in a large population-based cohort of Waldenstrom's patients. Newly diagnosed patients over the past two decades have received multiple frontline treatment regimens and overall have robust long-term survival outcomes.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207