Excellent Outcomes Following Response-based Omission of Radiotherapy in Children and Adolescents With Intermediate or High-risk Hodgkin Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) consortia have demonstrated safe omission of radiotherapy (RT) in early stage HL, whereas feasibility of omitting RT in advanced HL is still under investigation. This is a single institution retrospective analysis of 27 patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk HL (age 22 y and younger), treated with a modification of the dose-intensive OEPA-COPDAC (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, dacarbazine) regimen, with radiation restricted to only sites of inadequate early response (Deauville ≥3 and/or ≤75% tumor shrinkage). Their outcome was compared with a historical cohort (n=42) treated with Stanford V or ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine), who received consolidative involved-field RT. RT was omitted in 15 of 27 (56%) of patients treated with OEPA-COPDAC, majority of whom (67%) had high-risk disease. At a median follow-up of 3.1 years, the 3-year progression-free survival was 100% in patients who received OEPA-COPDAC, versus 83.3% (95% confidence interval, 68.2%-91.7%) in the historical cohort, P=0.03. Our analysis demonstrates excellent survival with omission of RT in more than 50% of patients with pediatric advanced HL, treated with a dose-intensive chemotherapy regimen. When administered, RT was restricted to only sites of inadequate early response. Results of large prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".