MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes after initial refusal of curative treatment in patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in British Columbia.

2021· article· en· W3171525383 on OpenAlexaffabout
Manik Chahal, Aixiang Jiang, Anna Hayden, Kerry J. Savage, Diego Villa, David W. Scott, Alina S. Gerrie, Andrea Lo, Matthew Chan, Tom Pickles, Joseph M. Connors, Laurie H. Sehn, Ciara L. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineABVDCohortStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineCancerLog-rank testRadiation therapyB symptomsSurgeryStatistical significanceSurvival analysisChemotherapyVincristineCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e19518 Background: Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is considered a highly curable cancer. With standard combination chemotherapy regimens, long-term survival exceeds 95% for limited-stage and 85% for advanced-stage patients. Despite these excellent outcomes some patients delay or decline conventional treatment for cHL. We retrospectively assessed the impact of initial treatment refusal on outcomes of patients with cHL in British Columbia (BC). Methods: Using the BC Cancer Lymphoid Cancer Database, we identified all patients aged 18-70 diagnosed between 1st Jan 1999- 31st Dec 2020 that had documented treatment refusal at initial presentation (‘refusers’ defined as not receiving or delaying treatment > 16 weeks). We identified a control cohort (min. 3 controls/refuser) treated within 8 weeks of diagnosis, matched for age, stage, diagnosis date within 3 years, and blinded for outcome. All patients had centrally reviewed biopsies and were treated with ABVD or ABVD-like regimens +/- radiotherapy if appropriate. Patient and disease characteristics at baseline and at time of treatment were analyzed with Chi-squared test and one-way ANOVA test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and statistical significance between groups was determined using the log-rank test. Results: We identified a cohort of 15 patients who initially refused treatment and 47 matched controls. The control cohort was well-matched, with no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (age, sex, Ann Arbor stage, B symptoms, International Prognostic Score (IPS) score, ECOG PS, and disease bulk) between groups. The most common reason for initial treatment refusal was to pursue alternative therapy (73%). 13 of 15 refusers eventually accepted treatment (mean time to treatment 76 weeks [range 26-214] vs. 5 weeks [range 1-8] for controls, p < 0.001). At time of treatment, the proportion of refusers with advanced-stage disease increased from 20% to 62% (p = 0.03) and had an associated alteration of treatment plan, and 62% of patients developed higher risk disease with increased IPS score (p = 0.02). At median follow-up of 5 years (0.4-21 years) for all living patients, estimated 5-year PFS was 65% vs 84%, and 5-year OS was 93% vs 98% for refusers and controls respectively. With extended follow up, 13% of refusers (1 late death at 8 years) compared to only 4% of controls died of cHL specifically. Conclusions: This study highlights the impact of treatment refusal in this highly curable malignancy. Initial refusal of treatment is associated with progression of stage, worsening prognostic score, escalation to more prolonged treatment than required at diagnosis, and increased risk of death from cHL. This analysis may help to provide guidance to counselling physicians, as well as inform patients who may be considering alternatives to standard of care for cHL.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→