MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The International Prognostic Factor Project Score (IPS) in Advanced Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma Has Limited Utility in Patients Treated in the Modern Era.

2009· article· en· W2551225699 on OpenAlexaff
Moccia A. Moccia, Jane Donaldson, Mukesh Chhanabhai, Paul Hoskins, Richard Klasa, Kerry J. Savage, Tamara Shenkier, Brian Skinnider, Randy D. Gascoyne, Joseph M. Connors, Laurie H. Sehn

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineABVDInternal medicineNodular sclerosisDacarbazinePopulationChemotherapy regimenStage (stratigraphy)VinblastineSurgeryCancerOncologyGastroenterologyLymphomaChemotherapyHodgkin lymphomaVincristineCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1554 Poster Board I-577 Introduction The International Prognostic Factor Project Score (IPS) is the most widely utilized risk stratification index for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) (Hasenclever, N Engl J Med, 1998). Based on patients treated before 1992, it incorporates 7 adverse risk features (male gender, age ≥45 y, stage IV, hemoglobin <105 g/L, WBC ≥15 × 109/L, lymphocyte count <0.6 × 109/L or <8% of differential, albumin <40 g/L) and predicts for a 5-year freedom-from progression (FFP) ranging from 42-84%.The IPS has not been validated in a more recently treated population, where more accurate pathologic diagnosis, routine use of growth factors and enhanced supportive care may have improved outcomes compared with historic results. Methods This retrospective population-based analysis used the British Columbia Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer Database to identify all patients ages 15-65 y diagnosed from January 1st,1990 to June 30th, 2008 with advanced stage HL (stage III/IV, or stage I/II with B symptoms or bulky disease ≥10 cm), who were treated with curative intent with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) or an ABVD-equivalent regimen and had complete information including all IPS variables. Primary endpoint was FFP, defined as the interval from diagnosis to first progression or relapse or death due to treatment toxicity; deaths from unrelated causes were censored. Results 579 patients were identified. Median age was 29 y (range 15-65); 11 (2%) stage I, 239 (41%) stage II, 202 (35%) stage III and 127 (22%) stage IV; 245 (42.3%) had bulky disease; and 359 (62%) had B symptoms. Histologies included: 455 (79%) nodular sclerosing, 35 (6%) mixed cellularity, 7 (1%) lymphocyte-rich, 11 (2%) lymphocyte depleted, 13 (2%) nodular lymphocyte predominant, 58 (10%) HL NOS. 161 (28%) patients received IFRT with primary treatment. Adverse prognostic factors were present as follows: 119 (21%) age≥45, 375 (65%) albumin <40 g/L, 88 (15%) WBC ≥15 × 109/L, 116 (20%) hemoglobin <105 g/L, 57 (10%) lymphocyte count <0.6 × 109/L or <8%, 302 (52%) male, 127(22%) stage IV. Only 37 (6.4%) patients had a prognostic score ≥5. With a median follow-up of 73 months (range, 1-222), 512 (88.4%) patients were alive and 67 (11.6%) had died (39 with HL, 7 due to toxicity and 21 from unrelated causes). Five year FFP and overall survival (OS) were 79% and 91%, respectively. The IPS was prognostic for both FFP (p=.0035) and OS (p<.0001), with 5-y FFP ranging from 66% to 86% and 5-y OS ranging from 74% to 98% (Table 1). In univariate analysis only stage IV (p=.003) and hemoglobin (P=.001) were prognostic for FFP. Albumin (p=.054), age (p=.082) and WBC (p=.094) were borderline significant, but gender (p=.329) and lymphocyte count (P=.496) appeared to have a weaker prognostic value for FFP. Only stage IV (HR=1.63, CI 1.10-2.40, p=.014) and hemoglobin (HR=1.73, CI 1.17-2.57, p=.006) were prognostic for FFP in a multivariate Cox regression. Conclusion The IPS remains prognostic for patients with advanced stage HL treated in a more modern era. However, it does not identify risk groups with sufficiently good or poor outcome to justify deviation from standard therapy. Identification of truly low or high risk populations will require supplementation with molecular markers and/or the use of early PET scanning. Caution should be used when comparing results from current clinical trials to historic controls, since more recent outcomes with standard therapy are clearly superior to those previously reported. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→