P009: Improved Overall Survival with First-Line Brentuximab Vedotin plus Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Stage III/IV Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: An Updated Analysis of ECHELON-1
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Figure 1: Overall Survival in the Intent-to-Treat Population. New first-line treatment strategies for classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have not improved overall survival (OS) compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). Five-year data from ECHELON-1 (NCT01712490) supported long-term progression-free survival (PFS) with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) in patients (pts) with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL vs ABVD, with a manageable long-term safety profile. We report an OS analysis from ECHELON-1 after a median of 6 years of follow-up (data cutoff June 1, 2021). Randomized pts (1:1) received ≤6 cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15, every 28 days. The key secondary end point was OS (event-driven, type-1 error controlled) in the intent-to-treat population. Analysis of OS in prespecified subgroups was exploratory and not adjusted for multiplicity. PFS per investigator was reported for long-term follow-up. Deaths during follow-up, including reported causes of death per investigator, were summarized. We observed 39 OS events in the A+AVD arm vs 64 with ABVD, favoring A+AVD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–0.88; p=0.009; median follow-up 73 months; Figure). OS was examined in prespecified subgroups; in a multivariable analysis adjusting for baseline demographic and disease factors, OS benefit was preserved (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.34–0.83). PFS favored A+AVD (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53–0.86), consistent with prior reports. Subsequent therapy use was less frequent with A+AVD vs ABVD (135 [20%] vs 157 [24%]) including fewer autologous (44 [7%] vs 59 [9%]) and allogeneic stem cell transplants (4 [<1%] vs 12 [2%]) while use of radiation was similar (55 [8%] vs 58 [9%]), suggesting that the OS benefit was not due to undertreatment of pts in the ABVD arm. Fewer second malignancies (23 vs 32) and fewer deaths related to cHL or treatment complications (32 vs 45) or to second malignancies (1 vs 11) were reported with A+AVD vs ABVD, respectively; treatment-related deaths were comparable (8 vs 7). While fertility was not formally assessed, a total of 191 pregnancies were reported among pts and their partners (A+AVD 113; ABVD 78). More pts had peripheral neuropathy with A+AVD (443 [67%]) vs ABVD (286 [43%]), but most improved or resolved at last follow-up (379 [86%] vs 249 [87%]). To conclude, A+AVD significantly reduced risk of death vs ABVD by 41%. The long-term safety profile was manageable, consistent with prior reports.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».