Impact of low‐dose involved‐field radiation therapy on pediatric patients with lymphocyte‐predominant Hodgkin lymphoma treated with chemotherapy: A report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of pediatric lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (LPHL) is controversial but has typically consisted of both chemotherapy and radiation. Radiation therapy is associated with potential late effects in children and adolescents. We examined the impact of radiation therapy on long-term outcome of patients with LPHL treated on CCG-5942, a large pediatric cooperative group study of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). PROCEDURE: Eighty-two patients with LPHL were registered on CCG-5942. Fifty-two patients (63%) received chemotherapy alone; 29 patients (35%) received chemotherapy followed by involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT). RESULTS: The median follow-up of the LPHL patients is 7.7 years; 63 patients (77%) have >5 years of follow-up. The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 97% and 100%. Two relapses occurred, both in patients who did not receive IFRT. There were no significant differences in EFS or OS between patients who received or did not receive IFRT. CONCLUSIONS: This subset analysis demonstrates the chemosensitivity of pediatric LPHL. Patients who had a complete response to chemotherapy had an excellent EFS and OS without the addition of radiotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".