MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2986592300 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-122019

Outcome of Limited Stage Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma (NLPHL) and Evaluation of a PET-Adapted Approach

2019· article· en· W2986592300 on OpenAlexaff
Phoebe T. M. Cheng, Diego Villa, R. Petter Tonseth, David W. Scott, Alina S. Gerrie, Ciara L. Freeman, Christina Parsons, Tom Pickles, Andrea Lo, Don Wilson, Brian Skinnider, Laurie H. Sehn, Joseph M. Connors, Kerry J. Savage

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencySpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsABVDMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Positron emission tomographyNuclear medicineRadiation therapyLymphomaOncologyChemotherapyInternal medicineVincristineCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Limited stage nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) is a highly curable malignancy with an excellent prognosis. Given disease rarity, there are few prospective studies and as a result, diverse treatment approaches are used in both the adult and pediatric populations. At BC Cancer, provincial treatment guidelines for limited stage NLPHL have largely followed that of classical HL: Prior to 2005, radiotherapy (RT) was integrated usually as combined modality therapy (CMT); after 2005, an adaptive approach using 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) was adopted. Herein, we evaluated the impact of using this approach. Methods: Adult (>16 years [y]) patients (pts) diagnosed with limited stage NLPHL (stage 1A, 1B or 2A, non-bulky [<10cm]) from January 1995 to February 2019 were identified in the BC Cancer Lymphoid Cancer Database. Pts were treated based on era-specific guidelines: 1995 to 2005 (CMT era), 2 cycles of ABVD (or ABVD-like chemotherapy [CHT]) and RT, or RT alone in stage 1A high neck node disease; 2005 to present (PET era), 2 cycles of ABVD followed by interim PET (PET2). If PET2 was negative (PETneg), 2 further cycles of ABVD (after 2017, AVD alone) were given; if PET2 was positive (PETpos), RT was administered. PET scans were performed and centrally reviewed at BC Cancer. Prior to 2014, interpretation was based on the International Harmonization Project (IHP) criteria. This was subsequently replaced by the 5-point Deauville (D) scale (PETneg = DX, D1-2, PETpos = D3-5). Results: A total of 98 pts were identified. Of these, 93 (95%) received active therapy. Patient characteristics did not differ between the two eras: median age 38 y (range 16 - 82 y); male n=73 (74%); stage 2 n=43 (44%); median largest mass size 4 cm (range 2 - 9 cm). In the CMT era (n=37), all pts received active therapy: 84% were treated with ABVD (like) CHT (ABVD n=30 [including ABVD alone n=2], MOPP/ABV n=1); 6 pts with stage 1A received RT alone. In the PET era (n=61), 92% received active therapy (n=56), of which 52 received CHT (ABVD n=49, modified CVPP/ABO with bleomycin omitted n=1, R-CHOP n=2) and 4 pts were treated with RT alone. The remaining 5 pts were observed/refused therapy. With a median follow up of 7.7 y for all pts (range 0.3 - 20.5 y) (CMT era 13.5 y [3.3 - 20.5 y], PET era 5.5 y [0.3 - 13.5 y]), the time to progression (TTP), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease specific survival (DSS) at 5 y were 93%, 92%, 98%, and 99%, respectively. There was no difference in outcomes by era comparison (p >0.1) or by stage (1 vs 2) (p=0.93). Overall, there have been 7 lymphoma recurrences (CMT era n=3, PET era n=4), including 3 (3%) with transformed disease (biopsy proven T cell rich B cell lymphoma n=1, presumed aggressive lymphomas based on new splenic nodules n=2). In total, there were 48/52 cases that had a PET2 scan interpreted using the D criteria, including 30 in the IHP time period that were re-reviewed: 85% were PETneg (n=41); 15% were PETpos (n=7). Four CHT treated pts did not receive a PET2 scan: RT added (CHT toxicity) n=3; death (diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA] post cycle 1 ABVD) n=1. All PETpos cases and only 4 PETneg cases (CHT toxicity n=2, PETpos by IHP criteria n=2) received RT. Considering PET-specific outcomes, the 5 y PFS and TTP were both 92% for PETneg and 80% for PETpos cases (p=0.56) (Figure 1). Three recurrences occurred in PETneg pts (DX n=1, D2 n=2), all of which had received ABVD alone but only 1 would have been solely in a RT field. The single recurrence among the PETpos cases (D5) was outside of the RT field. In the whole cohort, 9 pts have died (CMT era n=5, PET era n=4). Two deaths in the PET era were deemed related to NLPHL: 1 patient refused primary therapy and died of progressive disease and the other died during ABVD of DKA, possibly treatment related. The remaining deaths were due to other malignancies (lung n=2 [one within RT field], vulvar n=1, anaplastic large cell lymphoma n=1) or unknown causes (n=3). Conclusions: Consistent with other modern series, the outcome of pts with limited stage NLPHL is excellent with both 5 y PFS and OS exceeding 90%. Pts with an interim PETneg scan have a favorable outcome although longer follow-up is needed given the long natural history of NLPHL. This represents the largest experience of a PET-adapted approach in NLPHL and supports that ABVD alone is a viable option in selected patients with consideration of both acute and long term toxicities. Disclosures Villa: Roche, Abbvie, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Lundbeck, AstraZeneca, Nanostring, Janssen, Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding. Gerrie:Lundbeck, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Freeman:Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pickles:TarSera: Honoraria, Other: Participated in advisory board meeting; Astellas Inc.: Research Funding; Abbvie, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sehn:Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apobiologix: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Connors:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Savage:BMS, Merck, Novartis, Verastem, Abbvie, Servier, and Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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