PET/CT Response Assessment in Pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma: Does Deauville Score 3 Reflect Negativity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: FDG PET is required for the staging and response evaluation of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of pediatric patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma based on interim PET CT assessments of early response following second-cycle chemotherapy using the Deauville score (DS). It also determines whether DS-3 is providing an adequate or inadequate response. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including 504 pediatric patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated with chemotherapy based on the Euro-Net protocol at the Children Cancer Hospital Egypt from March 2019 till the end of October 2022. RESULTS: Patients with adequate response DS 1/2 and DS 3 showed nearly the same 3-year event-free survival (EFS) of 91.9% and 91.5%, respectively, compared with those patients with inadequate response DS 4/5, who showed an EFS of 80.4% ( P =0.001). Patients with a DS 3 at interim PET evaluation were considered negative as DS 1/2. Patients of DS 3 group who did not receive radiotherapy had a much worse 3-year EFS by the existence of positive B symptoms, an ESR>30, or an advanced stage. Radiation therapy did not improve the 3-year EFS in patients with an inadequate response (DS4/5) and poor prognostic characteristics. They still need more advanced treatment. CONCLUSION: DS 1/2 and DS 3 had about the same 3-year EFS, which is better than the 3-year EFS of patients with DS 4/5. Therefore, we can classify DS 3 as having negative FDG PET CT uptake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".