MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2551433805 · doi:10.1182/blood.v116.21.417.417

Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients with Stage II B or Stage II Bulky Disease Have Advanced Disease and Should Not Be Included In Limited Stage Trials

2010· article· en· W2551433805 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M. Connors, Randy D. Gascoyne, Paul Hoskins, James Morris, Tom Pickles, Laurie H. Sehn, Tamara Shenkier, Richard Klasa, Nicholas Voss, Kerry Joanne Savage

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsABVDNodular sclerosisMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineB symptomsGastroenterologyLymphomaCancerSurgeryChemotherapyHodgkin lymphomaCyclophosphamideVincristine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 417 Background: Trials enrolling patients with limited stage Hodgkin lymphoma conducted by European cooperative groups including EORTC, GELA and the GHSG frequently include patients with stage II B or stage II bulky (≥ 10 cm) disease in either “favorable” or “unfavorable” subgroups. Similar patients are usually excluded from North American trials of limited stage disease and rather are included in trials of advanced stage lymphoma. We sought to clarify the appropriateness of these approaches. Methods: All adult (age > 15 but < 66 y) HIV antibody negative patients with stage II A bulky, II B non-bulky or II B bulky Hodgkin lymphoma treated in British Columbia since 1981, when ABVD-type chemotherapy became standard, were identified using the BC Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer Database. Characteristics: n=416; male 54%; age range 16–64 y (median = 30); histologic subtype nodular sclerosis 86%, mixed cellularity 5%, not subclassifiable 6%, other 3%; subdiaphragmatic 3%; stage II A bulky 32%, II B non-bulky 32%, II B bulky 36%; localized extranodal extension (E lesion) 35%; largest mass diameter non-bulky range 1–9 cm (median 6 cm), bulky range 10–25 cm (median 12 cm); IPFP prognostic score 0, 9%; 1, 33%; 2, 32%; 3, 19%; 4, 6%; 5, 1% (data missing 36%). Results: Planned treatment consisted of 6–8 cycles of ABVD-type chemotherapy followed by radiation for a persistent residual mass (only if PET positive since 2005). 50% of patients received radiation (extended field 24%, involved field 76%). Thus, patients were treated with the same approach that is used for stage III or IV. Patients with bulky disease were much more likely to receive radiation: II A bulky 72%; II B non-bulky 11%; II B bulky 65%. For all 416 patients, with a median follow-up of 8 y, 5 and 10 y progression free survivals (PFS) were 81% and 76%; time-to-progression (TTP) estimates 83% and 81% (Fig. 1); and overall survivals (OS) were 94% and 90%. Although there is some variation, survivals were very similar across the three stage groups. This experience is instructive and indicates that when patients with stage II B bulky or non-bulky or stage II A bulky Hodgkin lymphoma are treated with the same approach as is used for advanced stage disease at least 20% of patients relapse. Conclusion: It is inappropriate to include patients with stage II B or stage II A bulky Hodgkin lymphoma on trials designed for limited stage disease. With an estimated relapse rate of at least 20% inclusion of these patients can grossly distort outcomes and compromise interpretation of the results of the trial since the expectation for the rest of the patients (stage I A and II A, low bulk) is that no more than 5% of patients will relapse. Patients with stage II B or stage II A bulky Hodgkin lymphoma should be included in trials for patients with advanced stage disease. Disclosures: Klasa: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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