Survival Varies By Age and Histology in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Report from the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction While 5-year event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) generally exceed 85% and 95%, respectively, outcomes may not be as favorable in adolescents and young adults (15 - 39 years [y]) compared to children. Small clinical trials have reported better outcomes for pediatric but not adult patients with mixed cellularity (MC) vs. nodular sclerosing (NS) histology, suggesting the possibility of biologic differences across the age-spectrum in HL. We examined survival by age and histology in patients receiving risk-based, response-adapted therapy for de novo HL on contemporary Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials. Methods This was a pooled analysis of individual-level data from 1,907 patients enrolled on three Phase 3 COG clinical trials for treatment of low-risk (AHOD0431), intermediate risk (AHOD0031) and high-risk (AHOD0831) HL between 2002 and 2012. Histologic subgroups included MC, NS and classical HL, not-otherwise-specified (cHL, NOS). Five-year cumulative incidence of relapse, EFS and OS were compared by age group (<15 y vs. ≥15 y) in the pooled cohort, and in histologic subgroups (MC and non-MC) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Effect modification was confirmed between age and histology. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the influence of age on EFS and OS, adjusted for race/ethnicity, Ann Arbor stage, B symptoms, bulky disease, receipt of radiation therapy (RT), and the interaction between age and histology; COG study was also included in the model, given that the criteria for response adaptation differed across the trials. Results Between 2002 and 2012, N= 2155 patients 1 - 21 y enrolled on three COG trials, 1,907 (88%) of whom were included in this analysis. Mean age of the cohort was 14.6 y (± 3.5) with N= 871 (46%) <15 y and N= 1,036 (54%) ≥15 y. In total, N= 1,547 patients (81%) had NS histology, N= 108 (6%) had cHL, NOS, and N= 196 (10%) had MC histology; by age, MC histology was present in N= 66 patients (7%) ≥15 y and N= 130 patients (15%) <15 y (p< 0.01). A significantly higher proportion of those ≥15 y vs. younger had B-symptoms at diagnosis (29% vs. 21%, p< 0.01), however the presence of bulky disease did not differ by age. Finally, patients ≥15 y (vs. <15 y) were significantly more likely to receive RT as part of their treatment (72% vs. 63%, p<0.01). Survival: Median follow up was 6.9 years. In unadjusted analyses, 5-year EFS and OS were 83% and 97%, respectively. The 5-year EFS was lower for patients ≥15 y vs. <15 y (85% vs 89%, p<0.01), as was the 5-year OS (96% vs. 99%, p< 0.01). In multivariable models, age ≥15 y (vs. younger) was associated with a 1.4-fold increased risk of EFS (HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 1.8, p< 0.01), and more than a 3-fold increased risk of death (OS: HR: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.5, 6.4, p< 0.01). The effect of age on EFS varied by histologic subgroup. Among those with non-MC histology, cumulative incidence of relapse did not significantly differ by age in unadjusted models (Figure A), however 5-year EFS was significantly worse in the older group (Figure B). In multivariable analyses, age ≥15 y (vs. younger) was associated with a 1.3-fold increased risk of EFS (HR: 1.3; 1.03 - 1.7, p= 0.03) (Table). Among patients with MC histology, age ≥15 y (vs. younger) was associated with significantly higher relapse rate (22% vs. 5%, p< 0.01) (Figure C) and significantly worse 5-year EFS (75% vs. 94%, p< 0.01) (Figure D). This remained significant in multivariable models: patients with MC histology who were ≥15 y (vs. younger) had a 3.7-fold increased risk of EFS (HR: 3.7, 95% CI: 1.6, 8.9, p< 0.01) (Table). Conclusion In patients receiving response-adapted therapy for de novo HL on contemporary COG trials, adolescents ≥15 y had worse EFS and OS compared to younger groups. The magnitude of the effect of age was higher in patients with MC disease. Although recent pediatric trials in HL have indicated better survival for some children with MC histology, alternative approaches or novel therapies should be considered for older adolescents with MC disease, whose outcomes appear more like adults. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".