Reduced versus full doses of irradiation after 3 cycles of combined doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine in early stage Hodgkin lymphomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The combination of 3 cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) and a tailored, extended irradiation schedule has been used to treat patients with early Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the authors' group since 1981. The randomized H97-E trial (1997-2004) was designed to assess the impact of a slightly reduced irradiation dose on the freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) rate. METHODS: Patients with supradiaphragmatic HL at clinical stages I and II who had </=2 affected lymph node areas and a mediastinal mass ratio <0.33 were randomized into an experimental arm (EA) and a control arm (CA). Patients in the EA received 3 cycles of ABVD followed by irradiation at 36 grays (Gy) to initially involved sites and 24 Gy to adjacent sites, the upper infradiaphragmatic area, and the spleen. Patients in the CA received the same chemotherapy regimen and the same irradiation given at doses of 40 Gy and 30 Gy, respectively. Two hundred two patients who had received the CA treatment in 2 previous trials served as a historic control group (HCG). RESULTS: The 10-year FFTF and overall survival rates were similar for the 89 patients in the EA (88.6% and 97.8%, respectively), for the 99 patients in the CA (92.6% and 95%, respectively), and for the 202 patients in the HCG (91.9% and 92.9%, respectively). Surprisingly, the 10-year incidence of severe or fatal complications was nil in the EA but reached 15.5% in the CA (P < .003) and 11.1% in the HCG. CONCLUSIONS: Slightly lowering the radiation dose did not have an impact on the excellent cure rate among patients with early HL but significantly reduced the rate of long-term, radiation-induced complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".