Response assessment in lymphoma: Concordance between independent central review and local evaluation in a clinical trial setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Independent central review of clinical imaging remains the standard for oncology clinical trials with registration potential. A limited independent central review strategy has been proposed for solid tumor trials based on concordance between central and local evaluation of response. Concordance between independent central review and local evaluation of response in hematological malignancies is not known. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated concordance between prospectively performed central and local assessments of response using the Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphoma across two international, open-label, single-arm, registration studies of brentuximab vedotin in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (N = 102) or systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (N = 58). RESULTS: Overall objective response rates were similar between assessors for both the trial in Hodgkin lymphoma (75% independent central review, 72% local evaluation) and the trial in anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (86% independent central review, 83% local evaluation). Patient-specific objective response concordance was also substantial (Hodgkin lymphoma: kappa = 0.68; anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: kappa = 0.74). Median progression-free survival was similar between assessors for patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (14.3 months by independent central review (95% confidence interval: 6.9, -); 14.5 months by local evaluation (95% confidence interval: 9.4, -)), but longer by local evaluation in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (5.8 months by independent central review (95% confidence interval: 5.0, 9.0); 9.0 months by local evaluation (95% confidence interval: 7.1, 12.0)). Median duration of response was longer by local evaluation in both malignancies, which was primarily attributable to earlier computed tomography and positron emission tomography-based scoring of progression by independent central review. CONCLUSION: A limited independent review audit strategy for clinical trials of some lymphomas appears feasible and practical based on substantial concordance in assessments of overall objective response by central and local evaluation in two international, prospective, registration trials in lymphoma. Some variability between assessors in the time-to-event endpoints was observed, which appeared attributable to earlier assignments of progression by independent central review compared with local evaluation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.109 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".