Treatment patterns and outcomes in adolescents and young adults with Hodgkin lymphoma in pediatric versus adult centers: An IMPACT Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a common adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer. While outcome disparities between pediatric vs. adult centers [locus of care (LOC)] have been demonstrated in other AYA cancers such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia, they have not been well studied in HL. We therefore compared population-based treatment patterns and outcomes in AYA HL by LOC. The IMPACT Cohort includes data on all Ontario, Canada AYA (15-21 years) diagnosed with HL between 1992 and 2012. Linkage to population-based health administrative data identified late effects. We examined LOC-based differences in treatment modalities, cumulative doses, event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and late effects. Among 954 AYA, 711 (74.5%) received therapy at adult centers. Pediatric center AYA experienced higher rates of radiation therapy but lower cumulative doses of doxorubicin and bleomycin. 10-year EFS did not differ between pediatric vs. adult cancer vs. community centers (83.8% ± 2.4% vs. 82.8% ± 1.6% vs. 82.7%±3.0%; P = .71); LOC was not significantly associated with either EFS or OS in multivariable analyses. Higher incidences of second malignancies in pediatric center AYA and of cardiovascular events in adult center AYA were observed, but were not significant. In conclusion, while pediatric and adult centers used different treatment strategies, outcomes were equivalent. Differences in treatment exposures are however likely to result in different late-effect risks. Protocol choice should be guided by individual late-effect risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".