Effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin monotherapy in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (BV) in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) in the clinical practice setting using most recent results. A total of 32 observational studies reporting on treatment patterns, overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events were found. After four cycles, a random-effect model yielded pooled ORR and CR rates of 62.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 56.0–68.9; I2 = 9.7%) and 32.9% (95% CI, 20.8–46.3, I2 = 64.8%), respectively. Regarding survival, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year PFS ranged from 52.1% to 63.2%, 45.2% to 56.2%, and 31.9% to 33.0%, respectively. OS rates were 68.2–82.7%, 58.0–81.9%, and 58.0–62.0%, respectively. Most common adverse events were hematological toxicities (neutropenia: 13.3–23%, anemia: 8.8–39.0%, and thrombocytopenia: 4–4.6%), and grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy (3.3–7.3%). This study supports the effectiveness and safety of BV in R/R cHL patients in the real-world setting.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".