MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes in Adolescents and Young Adults with Hodgkin Lymphoma Treated with and without Radiation Therapy On CCG 5942: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group

2012· article· en· W2582281568 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Punnett, Stephanie Terezakis, Lu Chen, Allen Buxton, Suzanne L. Wolden, Burton Appel

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyPopulationRandomizationYoung adultInternal medicinePediatricsCohortChemotherapyChemotherapy regimenDiseaseStage (stratigraphy)Randomized controlled trialSurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3659 Background Combined modality therapy with chemotherapy and radiation (RT) has resulted in excellent cure rates for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) but is associated with significant late effects. Modern therapeutic protocols attempt to limit cumulative doses of chemotherapy and minimize radiation therapy where possible. There is also growing attention to the optimal management of specific patient populations, including the adolescent and young adult (AYA) population. The CCG trial 5942 provides an opportunity to assess the role of RT in disease control for the AYA population (15–21 years of age) compared with a younger cohort (<15 years of age). Methodology The CCG 5942 study included 826 eligible patients (339 AYA) accrued during the years 1995–1998. Patients were assigned to risk-adapted chemotherapy based on stage and presence or absence of unfavourable risk factors (B symptoms, bulk disease, hilar lymphadenopathy, number of involved nodal sites). Disease response was assessed at the completion of chemotherapy and patients in CR were eligible for randomization to receive 21 Gy IFRT or no further therapy. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the CCG 5942 data to compare demographics, treatment response and survival outcomes of children and AYA. Results Patient demographics are shown in Table 1. The AYA patients were more likely to present with nodular sclerosing histology (NS), B symptoms, mediastinal bulk disease, and higher stage. The CR rates for children and AYA were 393/487 (80.7%) and 243/339 (71.7%) (p=.003). Of the 636 patients in CR, 498 (181 AYA) participated in the randomization. The AYA patients were less likely to be compliant with randomization to no further therapy (2/165 children vs 5/84 AYA, p=.045). The 8y EFS and OS for all children compared to AYA were 85.7% vs 80.2% (p=.052) and 94.3% vs 90.7% (p=.060) respectively. The 8y EFS and OS for all randomized children compared to AYA were 89.8 vs 81.3 (p=.011) and 97.2% vs 95.1% (p=0.30). A Cox model adjusting for both age group and histology (NS vs. lymphocyte predominant (LP) and mixed cellularity (MC)) demonstrated age to be an insignificant predictor (p=0.30) and NS histology to be a significant predictor (p=.001, HR 2.6) of worse EFS. EFS for all randomized patients with NS histology by age group and treatment received are shown in Figure 1. There is a significant difference among the groups in the overall comparison (p=0.018). There was no difference in OS with all pairwise comparisons p>0.5. Conclusions The AYA were more likely to present with higher risk disease and less likely to enter CR compared to younger children on the CCG 5942 trial. Among randomized patients with NS histology, both young and AYA populations show an EFS advantage with RT, though this advantage does not reach statistical significance for the AYA group. There was no difference in OS for randomized patients with NS histology in either age group. This analysis is limited by the retrospective methodology but supports further study of therapy assignment of the AYA population. Elimination of RT from AYA with NS histology may prove more challenging than for younger children. Analysis of current protocols using a uniform chemotherapy backbone and early disease response assessment with PET/CT will be particularly informative. 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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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