Trial reportInvestigational new drugs2009
Results of a Phase II trial of gemcitabine, mitoxantrone, and rituximab in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
Trial report in Investigational new drugs, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical pharmacology and clinical trials of ribonucleotide reductase inhibitors: is it a viable cancer therapy?Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2017Review
- Mantle cell lymphoma in the era of precision medicine-diagnosis, biomarkers and therapeutic agents.Oncotarget · 2016Review
- How to manage mantle cell lymphoma.Leukemia · 2014Article
- Mantle cell lymphoma: are current therapies changing the course of disease?Current oncology reports · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGemcitabine (G) has shown activity in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) as a single agent. The combination of mitoxantrone (M) and rituximab (R) is also active in MCL. The primary objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of G+M+R in relapsed or refractory MCL. PATIENTS AND
methodsSixteen patients were enrolled between April 2005 and January 2007, 88% had Stage IV MCL, Median patient age was 74 years. Patients received gemcitabine 900 mg/m(2) IV (30-60 min infusion) on Days 1 and 8, mitoxantrone 10 mg/m(2) IV (5-10 min infusion) on day 1, and rituximab 375 mg/m(2) IV on Day 1 (max 400 mg/hour) of the 21-day cycle. Patients received a median of 6 cycles (range, 1-8).
resultsBest responses were CR 20% (95%CI, 0, 40.2), PR 27% (95%CI, 4.3, 49.1), SD 40% (95%CI, 15.2, 64.8), and PD 13% (95%CI, 0, 30.5). Median survival and PFS have not been reached with a median follow-up of 10.7 months. The most common Grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (100%), thrombocytopenia (67%), leukopenia (53%), and anemia (33%). The study was closed early due to slow accrual owing to an alternative treatment which became available at the time.
conclusionThe combination of G+M+R in MCL was well-tolerated with manageable toxicity using growth factors to minimize neutropenia; further studies are warranted.
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.