Follow-up of the GHSG HD16 trial of PET-guided treatment in early-stage favorable Hodgkin lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary analysis of the GHSG HD16 trial indicated a significant loss of tumor control with PET-guided omission of radiotherapy (RT) in patients with early-stage favorable Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). This analysis reports long-term outcomes. Overall, 1150 patients aged 18-75 years with newly diagnosed early-stage favorable HL were randomized between standard combined-modality treatment (CMT) (2x ABVD followed by PET/CT [PET-2] and 20 Gy involved-field RT) and PET-2-guided treatment omitting RT in case of PET-2 negativity (Deauville score [DS] < 3). The study aimed at excluding inferiority of PET-2-guided treatment and assessing the prognostic impact of PET-2 in patients receiving CMT. At a median follow-up of 64 months, PET-2-negative patients had a 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 94.2% after CMT (n = 328) and 86.7% after ABVD alone (n = 300; HR = 2.05 [1.20-3.51]; p = 0.0072). 5-year OS was 98.3% and 98.8%, respectively (p = 0.14); 4/12 documented deaths were caused by second primary malignancies and only one by HL. Among patients assigned to CMT, 5-year PFS was better in PET-2-negative (n = 353; 94.0%) than in PET-2-positive patients (n = 340; 90.3%; p = 0.012). The difference was more pronounced when using DS4 as cut-off (DS 1-3: n = 571; 94.0% vs. DS ≥ 4: n = 122; 83.6%; p < 0.0001). Taken together, CMT should be considered standard treatment for early-stage favorable HL irrespective of the PET-2-result.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".