MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Chemoresistance Can Be Reliably Overcome with High-Dose Therapy and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (HDT/ASCT) for Relapsed and Refractory Hodgkin's Lymphoma

2011· article· en· W2564817673 on OpenAlexaff
Alina S. Gerrie, Maryse Power, Kerry J. Savage, John D. Shepherd, Joseph M. Connors

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAutologous stem-cell transplantationABVDInternal medicineSalvage therapyOncologyChemotherapyChemotherapy regimenSurgeryProgressive diseaseCyclophosphamideVincristine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2022 Background: HDT/ASCT is the preferred treatment for relapsed and refractory HL patients (pts) with chemosensitive disease, with cure rates approximating 40–60%. The role for HDT/ASCT in chemoresistant HL is less well defined and many centers do not offer this treatment to such patients. Since 1985, HDT/ASCT has been recommended in British Columbia (BC) for all HL pts with progressive disease despite primary ABVD-type therapy, irrespective of response to salvage therapy. We sought to evaluate the long-term outcomes of HL pts whose disease was resistant to chemotherapy preceding HDT/ASCT. Methods: We reviewed all HL pts who underwent HDT/ASCT for primary progression (PP) or first relapse (1REL) after initial treatment with chemotherapy +/− radiation. Primary progression (PP) was defined as progression during or within 3 months of completion of initial therapy. Pts were considered to have: chemoresistant (R) disease = stable disease or progression on chemotherapy preceding HDT/ASCT; chemosensitive (S) disease = clinical and/or radiographic response to chemotherapy preceding HDT/ASCT; or untested (U) if no salvage chemotherapy was given. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from the BC Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer Database, the Leukemia/BMT Program of BC Database and from hospital, clinic, and physician records. Results: 251 pts underwent HDT/ASCT for PP (n=90 36%) or 1REL (n=161 64%) between 1985–2011: male 53%; median age at diagnosis 28 y (range 16–59 y), at HDT/ASCT 31 y (range 31–62 y). Characteristics at diagnosis were: advanced stage(stage IIB, II bulky, III or IV) 94%; stage 3–4 60%; B symptoms 57%; bulk (≥10 cm) 42%; primary therapy: ABVD/ABVD-like, 95%; MOPP-like 5%; combined modality therapy 31%. Salvage therapy prior to HDT/ASCT included MVPP (28%); COP/COPP (22%); GDP (27%); no chemotherapy (13%); other (11%). RT was given with salvage therapy in 19%: alone, 27%; with chemotherapy, 73%. Conditioning regimen was with CBV/CBVP in the majority of cases (88%); BEAM (11%); other (1%). At a median follow-up for living pts of 8 y (range 0.2 – 25 y), 136 pts (54%) were alive free of HL; 89 pts (35%) have relapsed. For all pts, median overall (OS) and progression free survivals (PFS) were 21.7 y (95% CI 16.0–27.5) and 17.3 y (95% CI 9.8–24.8), respectively. 13 pts (5%) died of complications related to or within 1 month of HDT/ASCT, 6 (2%) from secondary malignancies, 7 (3%) from unrelated causes. 199 pts (56 PP, 143 1REL) had information available regarding response to salvage therapy. Of the 56 PP pts, 14 (25%) had chemoresistant disease (PP/R); 21 (38%) did not receive salvage therapy and thus were untested (PP/U); 21 (38%) had chemosensitive disease (PP/S). 10-y PFS for PP/R, PP/U, and PP/S groups were 27%, 24%, and 40%, respectively; 10-y OS were 53%, 27%, and 53%, respectively. Of the 143 1REL pts, 26 (18%) had chemoresistant disease (1REL/R); 12 (8%) did not receive salvage therapy (1REL/U); 105 (73%) had chemosensitive disease (1REL/S). 10-y PFS for 1REL/R, 1REL/U, and 1REL/S groups were 49%, 57%, and 58%, respectively; 10-y OS were 55%, 65%, 69%, respectively. OS and PFS for the chemoresistant groups (PP/R, PP/U, 1REL/R) and 1REL/U are shown in Figures 1A and 1B respectively. To evaluate impact of chemoresistance on outcomes, PP/R (pts resistant to both primary and salvage therapy, “double-resistant”) and PP/U pts (resistant to primary therapy, “single-resistant”) were grouped together (n=35) and compared to PP/S pts. There was a significant difference in OS (P =.05) but not PFS (P =.12). When pts with 1REL/R were compared to 1REL/S, there was no significant difference in OS (P =.25) or PFS (P =.26). Conclusion: In this large uniformly treated cohort of HL pts with long-term follow-up, chemoresistance preceding HDT/ASCT was identified as a poor prognostic factor, particularly for PP pts; however, this poor prognostic factor could be partially overcome by HDT/ASCT, resulting in cure in 25–50% of pts across all chemoresistant groups. Importantly, even pts who were double-resistant to both primary and salvage therapy were cured in 27% of cases. HDT/ASCT should therefore be considered in all transplant eligible pts, regardless of responsiveness to salvage chemotherapy. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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