MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic Factors in Localized Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: How To Define Intermediate/Unfavourable Disease?.

2004· article· en· W2552673806 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Gisselbrecht, Nicolas Mounier, Olivier Casanovas, Oumédaly Reman, Catherine Sebban, Marine Diviné, Pauline Brice, Josette Brière, Christophe Hennequin, Pierre Feugier, Christophe Fermé

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineLymphomaNomogramMediastinumChemotherapyGastroenterologyClassical Hodgkin lymphomaHodgkin lymphomaOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Actually, the prognosis of localized Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) patients may be assessed by different scoring systems. Although many similar characteristics have been identified, these scoring systems are not easy to relate to advanced stage HL. The aim of the present study was to refine the assessment of risk using the published scoring systems and to construct a statistical model for predicting risk of death. We report here the results of the EORTC, GHSG and Canadian-ECOG scoring systems obtained in 1156 patients for whom hematological data were available among the 1390 patients with localized HL prospectively treated within GELA centres in H8 (518 pts) and H9 (638 pts) trials. The International prognostic score (IPS) was available only for the H9 subset. All patients have been treated with radio-chemotherapy of different intensity or duration according to their prognostic factors. Median age was 30 yr [14–69] and age≥45yr.: 18%, female 50%; stage 1: 25%; stage 2: 75%; B symptoms with elevated ESR: 40%; number of nodal sites 1–2: 52%; ≥3: 48%; extra nodal involvement: 8%, bulky mediastinum> 0.35, 28%; elevated ESR> 50:33%; Hb< 10.5 g/dl: 7%; Lymphocytes < 600/μl: 6%; WBC > 15000/μl:11 %; albumin< 40g/l: 37%. With the EORTC scoring system 36% of patients had favourable HL, with GHSG 35% and with Canadian-ECOG 38%. The IPS was 0 in 19% and 1 in 45%. With a median follow up of 42 months, 54 patients died. Survival curves according to the different scoring systems significantly discriminated favourable and unfavourable patients outcomes (5 yrs OS 95% vs 92%, p=0.01). By multivariate Cox analysis, age > 45yr (RR=2.0), sex male (RR=2.5), haemoglobin <10.5g/dl (RR=2.3), lymphocytes < 600/μL (RR=3.6), B symptoms with elevated ESR (RR=3.6), extra nodal sites (RR=1.2) retained a significant prognostic value. The 5 yrs OS was 99%, 98%, 92%, 82%, 73% for patients with 0,1, 2, 3, 4–5 factors respectively (p< 0.0001, see figure). 10% of the patients had 3–5 factors. The covariates selection was validated by the bootstrap method. The introduction of albumin< 40g/l in the H9 subset population did not bring more significant information. In conclusion, these factors are similar with those described in the IPS when stages 3–4 are replaced by extra nodal (E) localization. They should be validated in other prospective trials because such a scoring system could unify the assessment of the prognosis for HL patients and facilitate the treatment choice. Figure Figure

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)0.006
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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