MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcome of Hodgkin Lymphoma after Progression Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

2016· article· en· W2588774828 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M. Connors, Alina S. Gerrie, Maryse Power, Kerry J. Savage

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of CanadaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrentuximab vedotinAutologous stem-cell transplantationInternal medicineOncologyABVDPopulationSurgeryProgression-free survivalTransplantationChemotherapy regimenLymphomaChemotherapyHodgkin lymphomaVincristineCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Clinical trials have demonstrated a high level of effectiveness for brentuximab vedotin (BV) for patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL); however, how patients fare in routine clinical practice if their HL recurs after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is less clear. Our primary objective was to characterize overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among a cohort of real-world patients treated with BV after ASCT. The secondary objective was to characterize the outcome of treatment after failure of ASCT or ASCT and BV. Methods We screened the population-based British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA) Lymphoid Cancer Database to identify patients with classical HL (excluding lymphocyte predominant HL) who were aged >16 years at initial diagnosis, staged and treated in BC, had primary treatment with ABVD or equivalent chemotherapy, underwent ASCT as part of first treatment for refractory or relapsed disease and relapsed again after ASCT. We excluded patients who have been treated at any time with a checkpoint inhibitor. We determined Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) from the date of the progression that occurred after ASCT and, for those treated with the agent, after subsequent BV. Therapies given in sequence without a pause between therapies were considered part of the same line of therapy. Results Between 1986 and 2015 93 patients experienced recurrence of HL after ASCT. Their median age at initial diagnosis was 30 years and 51% were male. After failure of ASCT 23 (25%) received radiation monotherapy and 61 received chemotherapy (66%), either as a single agent or in various combinations and of these 9 (10%) also received radiation; 6 (6%) received a second transplant (5 allogeneic and 1 repeat ASCT); and 5 refused or were too frail for treatment other than with corticosteroids. The median PFS and OS from the time of relapse after ASCT for these 93 patients were 7.1 (range 0.2-352) and 16.2 months (range 0.2-352), respectively. Of those 93, 17 patients received BV alone or BV+bendamustine at some point following ASCT. The median age of BV-treated patients was 33 years at the time of their original diagnosis and 29% were male. Among those 17 patients, 9 received single agent BV and 8, BV+bendamustine as part of a clinical trial. The median time from ASCT to the start of BV was 27.5 months. Counting ASCT as 2nd line treatment, 10 individuals received BV as 3rd line, 6 as 4th line and 1 as 5th line therapy. For all 17 patients the subsequent median PFS and OS from the time of BV initiation were 5.1 (range 1.5-34.6) and 18.8 months (range 2.4-40.5), respectively. 12 of these patients relapsed again and their subsequent median PFS and OS were 0.6 (range 0.5-29) and 3 (range 0.5-30) months, respectively. All 9 patients who received single agent BV relapsed again at a median of 2 months (range 1.2-9.7); 5 of the 8 patients treated with BV+bendamustine remain in remission 6 to 36 months later. Conclusions These data highlight the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed or refractory cHL, particularly for those whose lymphoma recurs after brentuximab vedotin as well as the highly individualized management of patients whose lymphoma has recurred after ASCT. Future therapies that prevent or significantly delay relapse will help in alleviate the substantial clinical burden due to relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Disclosures Connors: Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squib: 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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