Results of a UK National Cancer Research Institute Phase II study of brentuximab vedotin using a response‐adapted design in the first‐line treatment of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma unsuitable for chemotherapy due to age, frailty or comorbidity (BREVITY)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard treatment for classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is poorly tolerated in older patients and results disappointing. We assessed safety and efficacy of brentuximab vedotin (BV), in previously untreated patients with cHL unfit for standard treatment due to age, frailty or comorbidity. The primary outcome was complete metabolic response (CMR) by positron emission tomography/computed tomography after four BV cycles (PET4). The secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. In all, 35 patients with a median age of 77 years and median total Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) score of 6 were evaluable for toxicity and 31 for response. A median of four cycles were given (range one-16). In all, 14 patients required dose reduction due to toxicity and 11 patients stopped treatment due to adverse events (AEs). A total of 716 AEs were reported, of which 626 (88%) were Grade 1/2 and 27 (77%) patients had at least one AE Grade ≥3. At PET4, CMR was 25·8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13·7-42.2%] and objective response rate 83·9% (95% CI 63·7-90·8%). Median PFS was 7·3 months (95% CI 5·2-9·0), and OS 19·5 months. Our results suggest that BV monotherapy is tolerable but suboptimal in the front-line therapy of elderly or comorbid patients with cHL. Combining BV with other agents may be more effective. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02567851.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".