Randomized Comparison of the Stanford V Regimen and ABVD in the Treatment of Advanced Hodgkin's Lymphoma: United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Lymphoma Group Study ISRCTN 64141244
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy and toxicity of two chemotherapy regimens in advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL): the weekly alternating Stanford V and the standard, twice-weekly regimen of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had stage IIB, III, or IV disease or had stages I to IIA disease with bulky disease or other adverse features. Radiotherapy was administered in both arms to sites of previous bulk (> 5 cm) and to splenic deposits, although this was omitted in the latter part of the trial for patients achieving complete remission (CR) in the ABVD arm. A total of 520 patients were randomly assigned and were assessed for the primary outcome measure of progression-free survival (PFS). Five hundred patients received protocol treatment, and radiotherapy was administered to 73% in the Stanford V arm and to 53% in the ABVD arm. RESULTS: The overall response rates after completion of all treatment were 91% for Stanford V and 92% for ABVD. During a median follow-up of 4.3 years, there was no evidence of a difference in projected 5-year PFS and overall survival (OS) rates (76% and 90%, respectively, for ABVD; 74% and 92%, respectively, for Stanford V). More pulmonary toxicity was reported for ABVD, whereas other toxicities were more frequent with Stanford V. CONCLUSION: In a large, randomized trial, the efficacies of Stanford V and ABVD were comparable when given in combination with appropriate 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".