MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ABVD (8 cycles) versus BEACOPP (4 escalated cycles => 4 baseline) in stage III-IV high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): First results of EORTC 20012 Intergroup  randomized phase III clinical trial.

2012· article· en· W2346632551 on OpenAlexaff
Patrice Carde, Matthias Karrasch, Catherine Fortpied, Pauline Brice, Hussein Khaled, Denis Caillot, Isabelle Gaillard, Serge Bologna, Christophe Fermé, Pieternella J. Lugtenburg, Franck Morschhauser, Igor Aurer, Bertrand Coiffier, Guy Cantin, Matthew D. Seftel, Max Wolf, Bengt Glimelius, Anna Sureda, Nicolas Mounier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaHôpital du Saint-Sacrement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineABVDInternal medicineClinical endpointRandomizationDiscontinuationStage (stratigraphy)Clinical trialHazard ratioGastroenterologySurgeryChemotherapyConfidence intervalVincristineCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8002 Background: Escalated BEACOPP and derivatives achieved superior time to treatment failure (FFTF) over COPP/ABVD, resulting in higher overall survival (OS) for advanced HL. However, later clinical trials have failed to confirm OS superiority over ABVD. Methods: Eligibility criteria: clinical stage III/IV HL, International prognostic score (IPS) ≥ 3, age<60. We compared ABVD (8 cycles) vs. BEACOPP (escalated 4 cycles ≥ baseline 4), without irradiation. Randomization was stratified for institution and IPS. Primary endpoint was EFS, defined as treatment discontinuation, no complete response (CR) after 8 cycles, progression, relapse or death. Additional endpoints were CR, progression free survival (PFS), OS, quality of life and secondary malignancies. Outcomes were reviewed by study coordinators to ensure consistency across pts. Results: From 2002-2010, 549 pts were randomized (ABVD 275, BEACOPP 274): stage IV 74%, PS 0, 1, 2: 34, 48 and 17%, B-symptoms 81%, median age 35.2y, males 75%. IPS was 4 or higher for 59% of pts. Histology reviewed no HL in 4 cases. CR was 83% in both arms. With a median follow-up of 3.8 yrs, EFS at 4 yrs was 63.7% vs. 69.3% (HR = 0.86, 95%CI=0.64 to 1.15, p=0.312). PFS at 4 yrs was 72.8% vs. 83.4% (HR = 0.58, 95%CI=0.39 to 0.85, p=0.005). OS at 4 yrs was 86.7 vs. 90.3 (HR = 0.71, 95%CI=0.42 to 1.21, p=0.208). Toxic deaths occurred in 6 and 5 pts, with early discontinuation (prior to cycle 5) in 12 & 26 pts, respectively. There were 5 crossovers to BEACOPP and 10 to ABVD. Second malignancies occurred in 8 ABVD and 10 BEACOPP pts (myelodysplasia/leukemia 2 and 4, lung 2 and 1, NHL 3 and 2, other 1 and 3); cumulative incidence curves did not differ significantly. Conclusions: The primary endpoint (EFS) was similar between treatment arms. However, more progressions/relapses were observed with ABVD, while early discontinuations were more frequent with BEACOPP. Nevertheless, even in this high-risk group, OS was not improved with BEACOPP. Additional considerations (treatment burden and cost, fertility issues, long term relapses and immediate and late morbidity) may guide physician/patient decisions toward ABVD or BEACOPP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207