MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027359939

Chemotherapy Treatments for Burkitt Lymphoma: Systematic Review of Interventional Studies

2021· other· en· W7027359939 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Repository of the University of Porto (University of Porto) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemotherapyLymphomaBurkitt's lymphomaConfidence intervalQuality of life (healthcare)MEDLINEPublic health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report was the first comparing chemotherapy protocols in Burkitt lymphoma patients classified according to the World Health Organization (2008 version or later). Nine studies with a high heterogeneity regarding the composition of protocols (CODOX-M/IVAC, EPOCH, BFM, and protocols without rituximab) and outcome reporting (the overall survival for CODOX-M/IVAC varied from 72% to 84% [1-5 years data]) were identified. Background: Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is an aggressive hematologic cancer. This study synthetized the evidence about the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy treatments used in patients with BL using the World Health Organization classification. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of interventional studies was performed. A search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, with additional manual and gray literature searches. The methodological quality of articles was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: We identified 1358 studies; 9 nonrandomized studies satisfied the eligibility criteria (n = 544 patients). The BL epidemiologic variants were sporadic BL (44.5%), endemic BL (47.2%), and immunodeficiency-associated BL (8.3%). Regarding chemotherapy protocols, 4 groups were identified: based on CODOX-M/IVAC (n = 4), EPOCH (n = 1), BFM (n = 1), and simplified treatment schemes used in African countries (n = 3). Most studies had moderate quality. Empirically and qualitatively, the best options for adults with sporadic BL were 'DA-EPOCH-R' (7-year overall survival [OS], 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82-100), 'HDR + LD into CODOX-M/IVAC' (2-year OS, 84%), and 'RD-CODOX-M/IVAC' (4-year progression-free survival, 92%; 95% CI, 77100); in pediatric patients, the 'BFM-NHL-90-like' showed promising results (3-year OS, 90%). For immunodeficiencyassociated BL, the 'SC-EPOCH-RR' demonstrated a good therapeutic profile (6-year OS, 90%; 95% CI, 60-98). The 'Malawi 2012-2014' (1-year OS, 73%; 95% CI, 61-85) could be the treatment choice in endemic BL (Afr ican countr ies). The main adverse events were hematologic. Conclusion: Selecting chemotherapy protocols for BL should be grounded in its epidemiologic variants. Further studies with greater methodological quality are needed to strengthen the evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Repository of the University of Porto (University of Porto)Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207