The influence of age on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) endpoints on the S1826 cross-network Phase III trial of advanced-stage, classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Patients (pts) with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage cHL are at risk for poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL) due to their underlying disease and its treatment. We assessed PROs in S1826, a trial showing that nivolumab plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (N+AVD) resulted in longer progression-free survival compared to brentuximab vedotin plus AVD (BV+AVD). Methods S1826 was a phase 3 multicenter, cross-network trial for pts >12 years old with stage III or IV newly diagnosed cHL. PROs assessment was required for pts able to complete questionnaires in English, Spanish, or French, and was obtained before registration (“baseline”) and at cycle 3, at 4-8 weeks after the end of treatment (EOT), and at 1 and 3 years (yrs) after randomization. The PROMIS-Fatigue 7a (or Ped PROMIS-Fatigue 10a), the FACT-GOG-Ntx, and the PROMIS-Global Health (Adult and Pediatric) scales were collected at each assessment. Two primary endpoints for fatigue (at EOT and 1 year) and two for neuropathy (at 1 and 3 yrs) were pre-specified, each tested using a two-sided alpha=.0125 test. Linear regression was used, adjusting for the baseline PRO score, age at randomization (12-17 vs 18-60 vs >60 yrs), the International Prognostic Score (IPS; 0-3 vs 4-7), and intent to use radiation (yes vs no). An effect size of 0.3 for both fatigue and neuropathy endpoints was targeted, corresponding to minimal clinically meaningful differences (MCID) of 3.6 points and 3.0 points, respectively. MCID, established separately for each questionnaire, characterizes the level at which a treatment tangibly affects a patient’s daily life in terms of their well-being and HRQoL. We previously reported worse fatigue at cycle 3 and EOT for pts on the N+AVD arm, and worse neuropathy in the BV-AVD arm at the EOT and Year 1. In this update, we examine whether fatigue and neuropathy results differed by age group, using interaction tests, for mature data through 1 year (yr). We also report on the PROMIS-Global Health findings by arm and age group. Results The N=970 eligible pts included 236 (24.3%) aged 12-17 yrs, 639 (65.9%) aged 18-60 yrs, and 95 (9.8%) aged >60 yrs. Pts were predominantly male (56.1%); 11.8% identified as Black, and 32.0% had an IPS score of 4-7. PRO completion rates ranged from 98% at baseline to 70% at 1 yr post registration. For pre-specified primary endpoints, the adjusted PROMIS-Fatigue score was 1.7 (95% CI, -3.1 to -0.4, p=.01) points lower (i.e., more fatigue) for the N+AVD arm at EOT, although the difference did not exceed the MCID. At 1 year, there was no significant difference in fatigue from baseline (p=.83). While fatigue scores did not meaningfully differ by study arm (interaction p>.70 for all assessments), they did vary by participant age, with younger pts (12-17 yrs) and older pts (>60 yrs) reporting worse fatigue on treatment. In contrast, neuropathy scores at 1 yr were better for pts on the N+AVD arm, exceeding the MCID (3.0 points, 95% CI, 2.0-3.9, p<.001), and, secondarily, at EOT (5.6 points, 95% CI, 4.4-6.3, p<.001). However, the MCID in neuropathy at EOT and Yr 1 were only observed for pts aged 18-60 and >60 but not for pts 12-17 yrs (age interaction p<.05). Global health (HRQoL) scores were better for patients on the N+AVD arm among adults in both age groups (18-60 and >60 yrs through EOT; this pattern of improvement was not seen among adolescents, aged 12-17 yrs in the between-arm comparison. Conclusions Worse fatigue was found at the EOT, and less neuropathy was reported by yr 1, for pts on the N+AVD arm, results that were consistent across age groups. Worse neuropathy was found in the BV-AVD arm over time, specifically among pts aged 18 yrs and over. Global HRQoL was better for adult pts on the N+AVD arm through EOT, but did not differ by arm for adolescents. Trial results support the feasibility of serial collection of PROs, as indicated by high response rates, despite participants' advanced stage disease and broad institutional participation. Future analyses will address the planned 3-year outcomes as well as formal evaluation of missing data.
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 | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».