Randomized Comparison of ABVD Chemotherapy With a Strategy That Includes Radiation Therapy in Patients With Limited-Stage Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We report results of a randomized trial comparing ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) chemotherapy alone with treatment that includes radiation therapy in patients with limited-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with nonbulky clinical stage I to IIA Hodgkin's lymphoma were stratified into favorable and unfavorable risk cohorts. Patients allocated to radiation-containing therapy received subtotal nodal radiation if favorable risk or combined-modality therapy if unfavorable risk. Patients allocated to ABVD received four to six treatment cycles. RESULTS: We evaluated 399 patients. Median follow-up is 4.2 years. In comparison with ABVD alone, 5-year freedom from disease progression is superior in patients allocated to radiation therapy (P = .006; 93% v 87%); no differences in event-free survival (P = .06; 88% v 86%) or overall survival (P = .4; 94% v 96%) were detected. In a subset analyses comparing patients stratified into the unfavorable cohort, freedom from disease progression was superior in patients allocated to combined-modality treatment (P = .004; 95% v 88%); no difference in overall survival was detected (P = .3; 92% v 95%). Of 15 deaths observed, nine were attributed to causes other than Hodgkin's lymphoma or acute treatment-related toxicity. CONCLUSION: In patients with limited-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, no difference in overall survival was detected between patients randomly assigned to receive treatment that includes radiation therapy or ABVD alone. Although 5-year freedom from disease progression was superior in patients receiving radiation therapy, this advantage is offset by deaths due to causes other than progressive Hodgkin's lymphoma or acute treatment-related toxicity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".