Final Analysis of a Randomized Comparison of ABVD Chemotherapy with a Strategy That Includes Radiation Therapy (RT) in Patients with Limited-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL): NCIC CTG/ECOG HD.6
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 590FN2 Background: The NCIC CTG / ECOG HD.6 trial is based on the hypothesis that for patients with limited-stage HL, treatment with single-modality ABVD provides comparable disease control, is associated with a reduced incidence of deaths due to late treatment effects and thus might improve long-term survival in comparison with treatment that includes extended-field RT. In this randomized controlled phase III trial, our primary objective was to compare the 12-yr overall survivals (OS) of limited-stage HL patients treated with ABVD alone with those receiving therapy that includes RT. Secondary outcomes include freedom from disease progression (FFDP), in which those dying prior to disease progression are censored, and event-free survival (EFS), in which the first of disease progression or death is considered an event. In 2005, we published 5-yr outcomes (median follow-up 4.2 yrs [Meyer, J Clin Oncol]). We now report results of the final analysis. Methods: Eligible patients had non-bulky clinical stage I-IIA HL; patients with subdiaphragmatic disease were eligible if disease was confined to the iliac, inguinal and/or femoral regions. Prior to randomization, patients were stratified into low and high-risk categories; low-risk patients had all of lymphocyte predominant or nodular sclerosis histology, age < 40 yrs, ESR < 50, and involvement of 3 or fewer disease-site regions; all others were high-risk. Patients randomized to therapy that includes RT received single-modality subtotal nodal irradiation (STNI) if low-risk and combined-modality ABVD (2 cycles) plus STNI if high-risk. All patients randomized to the experimental arm received single-modality ABVD (4 cycles); those not demonstrating a complete remission with restaging after 2 cycles received 6 cycles. Between March 1994 and April 2002, 405 patients were entered; 399 were eligible and included in the primary analysis (modified intent–to-treat [ITT]). The clinical cut-off date for follow-up was 2010/DEC/31 and the database was locked on 2011/JUL/15. All P-values are 2-sided. Results: The median duration of follow-up is 11.3 yrs. The OS was superior in patients randomized to ABVD (P=.04; HR=0.5; 12-yr estimates 94% vs. 87%). In comparison with patients randomized to therapy that includes RT, FFDP trended to being inferior in patients randomized to ABVD (P=.07; HR=1.82; 12-yr estimates 88% vs. 92%); no differences in EFS were detected (P=.5; HR=0.87; 12-yr estimates 86% vs. 80%). Sensitivity analyses included a true ITT evaluating all randomized patients and adding data obtained between the clinical cut-off and data-lock dates; results were robust and yielded similar findings. Causes of death in ABVD vs. RT-arm patients (N = 12 vs. 24) included HL or early treatment complication (6 vs. 4), second cancers (4 vs. 9), and other (2 vs. 11). Analysis of high-risk patients allocated to ABVD (N=137) vs. ABVD+STNI (N=139) showed similar respective results to the primary analysis: in comparison with those randomized to RT, OS was superior in the ABVD arm (12-yr estimates 92% vs. 81%; HR=.47; P=.04), FFDP was inferior (12-yr estimates 87% vs. 94%; HR=3.03; P=.01) and no differences in EFS were detected (12-yr estimates 84% vs. 78%; HR=.87; P=.6). Late-effects trended to being less frequent in ABVD patients, including second cancers (6.1% vs. 10.8%) and cardiac events (9.7% vs. 14.8%). Conclusions: We conclude that in patients with limited-stage HL, ABVD improves OS as compared with treatment that includes STNI, including combined modality therapy, because it is associated with fewer deaths from causes other than HL. The HD.6 trial hypothesis was thus confirmed. With respect to modern RT approaches, the implications of our results are: i) at 12 years, 88% of patients are disease-free and more than 90% are alive when initially treated with ABVD alone; ii) limitations exist in using FFDP as a proxy measure for OS when late treatment effects may occur; and, iii) when treatment strategies have competing risks, long-term follow-up provides crucial insights into the interpretations of best therapy. Disclosures: Connors: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Crump:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ortho Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
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 | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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 ».