THE LOW‐RISK EARLY‐STAGE HODGKIN LYMPHOMA PATIENTS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO CHEMOTHERAPY. THE PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE FROM THE RAFTING TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of pts (n = 143, 89.9%) presented CD30 positive malignant cells.Among 159 pts, 1 was cured by radiotherapy alone and the other 158 received induction chemotherapy.Median 5 cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) was the most common first (1 st ) line treatment (n = 148, 93.1%).The average dose intensity of ABVD was 86.7% for each cycle.Average intensity of bleomycin dosage was 84.9% for each cycle and 41.9% (n = 62) of pts received reduced dose of bleomycin.Except 39 pts whose treatment responses were not evaluable, response rate including complete remission and partial remission after 1 st line therapy was 96.7% in total population.Thirty pts received second (2 nd ) line chemotherapy.The major cause of not proceeding to 2 nd line therapy was continuous remission after 1 st treatment (n = 75, 58.1%).Grade 3, 4 adverse events (AE) were observed in 46.8% (n = 74).Cytopenia was the most common grade 3, 4 AE.Among 148 pts who received ABVD induction, pneumonitis was observed in 27.0% (n = 40) and among these pts, 55.0% presented grade 3, 4 AE.The 1 st 3-yr progression-free survival rate was 73.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.38-80.64)and 5-yr overall survival (OS) was 65.1% (95% CI 55.53-73.04).B symptom (hazard ratio [HR] 1.96, p = 0.016), poor performance status (HR 1.95, p = 0.000), elevated LDH (HR 1.17, p = 0.031), relapse/refractory disease (HR 1.27, p = 0.000), pulmonary AE (HR 2.50, p = 0.001) were adverse factors for OS.Conclusions: Although the major portion of Korean elderly HL pts presented advanced-stage disease and received reduced intensity of induction, treatment response was adequate.Pneumonitis was the most important adverse factor for OS.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".