MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379981760 · doi:10.1002/hon.3165_523

THE LOW‐RISK EARLY‐STAGE HODGKIN LYMPHOMA PATIENTS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO CHEMOTHERAPY. THE PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE FROM THE RAFTING TRIAL

2023· article· en· W4379981760 on OpenAlexaff
K. Filonenko, Eva Domingo‐Doménech, Manuel Gotti, J. Núñez, Alessandro Rambaldi, Á. Rodríguez, Corrado Tarella, Marcin Bednarek, Andrea Gallamini, Jan Maciej Zaucha

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsABVDMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Radiation therapyInternal medicineDacarbazineChemotherapyOncologySurgeryVincristineCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Early-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma (eHL) treated with a combined modality approach (CMT): chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) is a highly curable disease. However, for 70% of eHL patients (pts.) CT alone might be sufficient for cure. The RAFTING trial is a phase 2, multicenter, international prospective study investigating risk-adapted treatment strategy in eHL pts. We hypothesized that CT alone will be sufficient for to cure low-risk pts. Here we would like to present the clinical characteristics of low-risk pts. for whom CT was not sufficient to achieve a complete response (CR). Methods: Treatment intensity in RAFTING is tailored to two risk categories: low or high risk. Low-risk pts. are defined by low baseline metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and negative interim PET after 2 ABVD cycles. High-risk pts. were defined by high baseline MTV and/or positive iPET2. Within the low-risk group the pts. without any risk factors according to modified EORTC (mEORTC) criteria (largest nodal mass (LNM) 5–10 cm, Age > 50 yo, ESR > 50 mm/h, ≥4 nodal areas (NA)) (group 1a) are treated with 2 ABVD cycles only whereas pts. with at least 1 risk factor (group 1b)—with 4 ABVD cycles. High-risk pts. (group 3) receive “triple” therapy (4 ABVD cycles, RT and nivolumab for 12 months; RT-NIV). In case of “limited relapse” (i.e., within initially involved lymph nodes and/or up to 3 new nodal areas) pts. receive delayed RT-NIV. Results: In a per-protocol analysis, out of 77 stratified pts. in March 2023, seven pts. (9%) with low-risk disease, had inadequate response to ABVD alone (defined as achievement less than CR or early relapse (<6 months after the end of the CT): 2 pts. from group 1a and 5 pts. from group 1b. Specifically, one pt. from Group 1a had an extended and symptomatic (B symptoms) relapse, and underwent salvage therapy with ASCT and two pts. from group 1b were withdrawn due to PI decision. While 4 pts. (1 in Group 1a and 3 in Group 1b) with less than CR (2 pts.) or early relapse (2 pts.) received RT + NIV. The most frequent risk factor among 1b pts. was LNM, which was observed in 4 pts., age >50 yo—in 2 patients, and ≥4 NA—in 1 pt. More than 1 risk factor had 2 pts. In 4 cases the confirmatory biopsy was done and was positive for HL in 3 out of 4 cases. Conclusion: The frequency of inadequate response after CT alone observed in the RAFTING trial was similar to that reported by the literature. The most frequent adverse prognostic factor presented in these small pts. subset was a LNM. Keywords: combination therapies, Hodgkin lymphoma, radiation therapy No conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207