Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage 3/4 classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Three-year update of the ECHELON-1 study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7532 Background: The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated that BV with AVD (A+AVD) was superior to ABVD for the frontline treatment of Stage 3/4 cHL. Maturing data from RATHL and SWOG S0816 show limitations to PET2-adapted strategies, including short and long-term toxicities in PET2+ patients (pts) switched to BEACOPP and still frequent relapse in PET2- pts. Pts in the RATHL trial with Stage 3/4 disease ≤60 yrs had a 3-yr PFS of 79.8% (82.1% PET2-); SWOG S0816 reported a 5-yr PFS of 74% (76% PET2-) in the same population. As an alternative to PET-adapted therapy, here we present a 3-year update of the ECHELON-1 study, including ITT PFS and outcomes by PET status. Methods: Pts with Stage 3/4 cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670). Interim PET scan after cycle 2 was conducted. All analyses of PFS are exploratory and per investigator assessment. Results: At a median follow-up of 37 months, analysis of PFS in the ITT population favors the A+AVD treatment arm (Table), with a 3-yr PFS of 83.1% for A+AVD vs 76.0% for ABVD; the 3-yr PFS for PET2- pts <60 yrs was 87.2% vs 81.0%, respectively. Trend toward benefit for PET2+ pts <60 yrs treated with A+AVD was also observed, with a 3-yr PFS of 69.2% vs 54.7% with ABVD. Data from prespecified subgroups and safety follow-up, including peripheral neuropathy, will be presented. Conclusions: Follow-up at 3-yrs demonstrates that frontline treatment of Stage 3/4 cHL with A+AVD provides a durable treatment benefit vs ABVD that is independent of PET2 status. While direct comparisons cannot be made, A+AVD compares favorably to PET-adapted strategies without requiring interim PET assessment, escalation of therapy, or bleomycin. Clinical trial information: NCT01712490. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".