Phase II Trial of Nivolumab Plus Doxorubicin, Vinblastine, Dacarbazine as Frontline Therapy in Older Adults With Hodgkin Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We conducted a phase I/II study evaluating nivolumab plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (N-AVD) as frontline therapy for treatment-naïve older adults (OA) with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03033914). METHODS: Patients age ≥60 years with newly diagnosed, any stage, cHL were treated with six cycles of AVD at standard doses plus nivolumab 240 mg intravenously once every 2 weeks (on days 1 and 15) of each cycle. A geriatric assessment was performed before therapy initiation. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Patient characteristics (N = 40) included median age of 66 years (range, 60-78 years) with 38% ≥70 years, 78% with stage III/IV disease, 68% with International Prognostic Score of ≥3, 82% dependent in ≥1 activities of daily living, 23% dependent in ≥1 instrumental activities of daily living, 50% with impaired timed up and go test, and 40% with polypharmacy. Among 37 response-evaluable patients, the median follow-up was 49 months and 3-year PFS and overall survival (OS) were 79% and 97%, respectively. Overall, 50% patients experienced grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), including febrile neutropenia in 8%. Four (10%) patients stopped therapy due to TRAEs. There was no correlation between baseline geriatric impairments and survival outcomes or toxicities. Positron emission tomography-2 was not predictive of PFS or OS. CONCLUSION: N-AVD is a highly effective and well-tolerated frontline regimen in OA with cHL across a wide range of geriatric impairments.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".