Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2008
Results of a phase III clinical trial: CHOP versus CMED in peripheral T-cell lymphoma unspecified.
Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Controversies in the Treatment of Peripheral T-cell Lymphoma.HemaSphere · 2020Review
- Primary hepatic peripheral T-cell lymphoma associated with Epstein-Barr viral infection.World journal of hepatology · 2018Article
- Redefining the role of etoposide in first-line treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma.Blood advances · 2017Article
- Primary pulmonary peripheral T-cell lymphoma: A case report and review of the literature.Thoracic cancer · 2014Article
- The Outcome of HyperCVAD Combined with Alemtuzumab for the Treatment of Aggressive T-Cell and NK-Cell Neoplasms.Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed a controlled clinical trial to define the use of a brief therapy: CMED (cyclophosphamide, etoposide, methotrexate, and dexamethasone) compared with standard CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma unspecific (PTCLu). The end point to the study was to assess efficacy, measured from complete response rate (CRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in 217 previously untreated patients with PTCLu. In an intent-to treat analysis all patients were evaluable. CRR was 76% in CMED regimen and 57% in CHOP arm (P<0.05); actuarial curves at 10 years showed that PFS was 70% and 43%, respectively (P<0.01); overall survival was 60% and 34%, respectively (P<0.01). Adjuvant radiotherapy was employed in 48 cases (54% of patients who achieve CR in CMED arm) and 30 patients (47% of patients who achieve CR in CHOP arm). Acute toxicity was mild and well tolerated. Our results showed that the CMED regimen is feasible and effective in PTCLu.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.