MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949614109 · doi:10.1002/hon.106_2630

PHASE 1B KEYNOTE‐013 STUDY OF PEMBROLIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH CLASSIC HODGKIN LYMPHOMA AFTER BRENTUXIMAB VEDOTIN FAILURE: RESULTS OF >4 YEARS OF FOLLOW‐UP

2019· article· en· W2949614109 on OpenAlexaff
Pier Luigi Zinzani, Philippe Armand, Vincent Ribrag, Jean‐Marie Michot, John Kuruvilla, Ying Zhu, Mohammed Z.H. Farooqui, Akash Nahar, Craig H. Moskowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrentuximab vedotinInternal medicinePembrolizumabAutologous stem-cell transplantationOncologyCohortPopulationLymphomaProgression-free survivalSurgeryChemotherapyHodgkin lymphomaCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

outcome with combined modality therapy (CMT) or chemotherapy (CT) only, although relapses occurred in both treatment arms.We analyzed the type of salvage treatment and outcome of these relapsing patients.Methods: In the H10 trial, previously untreated patients, 15-70 years old, with classical supradiaphragmatic stage I-II HL, both favorable (F) and unfavorable (U) according to EORTC/LYSA criteria, were eligible.The primary protocol treatment for earlyPET (after 2xABVD) negative patients consisted of: in F patients, 3xABVD+involved-node radiotherapy (INRT) or 4xABVD; in U patients 4xABVD+INRT or 6xABVD.In 2010, the H10 trial was amended since more early relapses occurred in the CT arm of the trial and from that moment on, all early PETnegative patients received CMT.All earlyPET negative patients who relapsed were included in the current analysis and grouped in the CMT or CT group, dependent of the actually delivered primary treatment.The type of salvage treatment was left to the discretion of the investigator.Second progression/relapse (PFS2) was defined as the time from randomization to objective tumor progression on next-line treatment or death from any cause.Results: Ninety-four earlyPET negative patients relapsed, 28 of those after initial CMT and 66 after CT.Their demographic and disease characteristics are described in table 1.In CMT, almost all relapses occurred in the U group whereas in CT relapses both in F and in U. Regarding salvage treatment, 69 patients received 1 line of treatment, 9 received 2 lines and 15 received 3 lines or more; for one patient, this information is missing.Overall, 66 (71%) patients received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and 29% received CT and/or RT.After CMT, the first salvage treatment was ASCT in 25/28 patients, while after CT the ASCT was first line salvage in 41/66.Overall, relapsed patients had a similar number of treatment lines whether they were initially treated with CMT or CT, but the type of treatment differed significantly with more ASCT in the CMT group (89.3% vs 63.1%, p = 0.012).There was no significant difference in OS or PFS2 between relapsing patients treated initially with CMT or CT: 3y-OS of 89% (95% CI: 69.7-96.3)vs 93.9% (95% CI: 84.6-97.7 resp.) and PFS2 (3y-PFS2 of 79.6 (95% CI:57.5-91)vs 78% (95% CI:65.7-86.3,resp.).The 3y-PFS2 and OS of patients undergoing ASCT was 62.8% and 93.9% and the 3-y PFS and OS of patients treated with CT and/or RT only was 88.9% and 88.6% respectively. Conclusion:The outcome of earlyPET negative patients relapsing after first line treatment is good, irrespective of initial treatment with CMT or CT.More patient received ASCT as first line salvage in the CMT group.The PFS2 and OS were comparable in patient treated with initial CMT and CT.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207