Treatment Patterns and Intensity Differ between Pediatric and Adult Centers in AYA with Hodgkin's Lymphoma but Result in Equivalent Outcomes: A Population-Based Study Using the IMPACT Cohort
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is one of the most common cancers in adolescents and young adults (AYA). Unlike acute lymphoblastic leukemia, few studies have compared AYA HL outcomes between pediatric and adult centers, or pediatric and adult protocols. Recently, a comparison of AYA (17-21 years) treated on a pediatric COG trial vs. an adult ECOG trial demonstrated superior survival in AYA treated on the pediatric trial, but other studies have not demonstrated a treatment center disparity. None of these studies were population-based. We therefore compared treatment patterns, intensity, and outcomes between AYA HL treated at pediatric vs. adult centers using a population-based clinical database. Methods: The IMPACT Cohort comprises all Ontario, Canada AYA aged 15-21 years diagnosed with one of six common cancers (including HL) between 1992-2012. Detailed demographic, disease, treatment, and outcome data were collected through chart abstraction and validated by content experts. Locus of cancer care (pediatric vs. adult cancer center vs. adult community hospital) was based on where the majority of therapy was delivered in the first three months after diagnosis. Linkage to population-based health administrative data identified additional cancer events (second cancers, relapse, death). The treatment modalities received [radiation vs. chemotherapy vs. combined modality treatment (CMT)] were compared by locus of care, as were cumulative doses of doxorubicin, bleomycin, and radiation. Predictors of CMT (vs. chemotherapy only) were examined using logistic regression. Event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using Kaplan-Meier methods. The impact of locus of care on EFS and OS was determined using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for demographic, disease, and treatment variables. Events included disease progression, relapse, death, and second malignancies. Results: Among 954 AYA with HL, 711 (74.5%) received therapy at an adult center (adult regional cancer center or community hospital). The proportion of AYA with limited stage disease did not vary between pediatric centers [90/221 (40.7%)] and adult centers [172/456 (37.7%); p=0.45]. While AYA treated at pediatric centers were more likely to receive radiation, radiation doses were higher at both adult cancer centers and adult community hospitals, as were cumulative doses of doxorubicin and bleomycin (Table 1). When adjusted for age, stage, and histology, AYA treated at pediatric centers were significantly more likely to receive CMT rather than chemotherapy alone as compared to AYA at adult cancer centers [odds ratio (OR) 5.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0-8.4; p<0.0001] or adult community hospitals (OR 3.9, CI 2.2-7.0; p<0.0001). 5-year EFS and OS for the cohort were 83.0%±1.2% and 94.9%±0.7%. 10-year EFS and OS were 81.1%±1.3% and 92.6%±7.4%. In multivariable analyses, CMT was associated with superior EFS as compared to chemotherapy alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.68; CI 0.50-0.93; p=0.02] but was not significantly associated with OS. Despite the significant differences in treatment modality and treatment intensity between pediatric and adult centers, locus of care was not significantly associated with either EFS or OS in either univariate or multivariable analyses (Table 2). Conclusions: In this large, population-based cohort, survival outcomes did not differ between AYA treated at pediatric vs. adult centers. However, treatment intensity patterns varied, with AYA treated at a pediatric center more likely to receive radiation (though at lower doses) but exposed to lower cumulative chemotherapy doses. These results imply that acute toxicities and the types and cumulative burden of late effects may differ by locus of care. Given equivalent outcomes, these results also suggest that a proportion of AYA are being over-treated. Future analyses will study these hypotheses. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».