Nivolumab-AVD Versus Brentuximab Vedotin–AVD in Older Patients With Advanced-Stage Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma Enrolled on S1826
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have inferior survival compared with younger patients. We report a subset analysis of older patients (60 years and older) enrolled in the phase three S1826 trial conducted by SWOG that randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage (III-IV) cHL to six cycles of nivolumab (N)–AVD or brentuximab vedotin (BV)–AVD. Of 103 enrolled patients 60 years and older, 99 were eligible. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years, the 2-year progression-free survival was 89% after N-AVD (n = 50) and 64% after BV-AVD (n = 49, HR 0.24, 95%CI 0.09-0.63, 1-sided stratified log-rank P = .001). The 2-year OS was 96% with N-AVD versus 85% with BV-AVD (HR 0.16, 95%CI 0.03-0.75 stratified 1-sided log-rank P = .005). Six cycles were delivered without dose reduction in 69% on N-AVD and 26% on BV-AVD; 55% discontinued BV, and 14% discontinued nivolumab. The nonrelapse mortality was 16% with BV-AVD and 6% with N-AVD. Despite more neutropenia with N-AVD, febrile neutropenia, sepsis, and infections were higher with BV-AVD, as was peripheral neuropathy. Patient-reported outcomes of key adverse events confirmed the improved toxicity profile of N-AVD over BV-AVD. N-AVD was better tolerated and more effective than BV-AVD and is therefore a new standard of care for older patients with advanced-stage cHL fit for anthracycline-based combination therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".