Pembrolizumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: a post hoc analysis of KEYNOTE-204 by prior lines of therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THIS REPORT FOCUSES ON A POST HOC EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE PHASE 3 KEYNOTE-204 STUDY COMPARING PEMBROLIZUMAB AND BRENTUXIMAB VEDOTIN BY NUMBER OF PRIOR LINES OF THERAPY IN PARTICIPANTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY (R/R) CLASSICAL HODGKIN LYMPHOMA (CHL). OF 304 PARTICIPANTS RANDOMLY ASSIGNED (1: 1) to pembrolizumab or brentuximab vedotin, 55 received 1 prior therapy and 249 received ≥2. For 1 prior therapy, median progression-free survival (PFS) at primary analysis (including clinical imaging data after autologous stem cell transplant [auto-SCT]) was 16.4 months with pembrolizumab and 8.4 months with brentuximab vedotin; objective response rate (ORR) was 66.7% and 53.6%. For ≥2 prior therapies, median PFS at primary analysis was 12.6 months with pembrolizumab and 8.2 months with brentuximab vedotin; ORR was 65.3% and 54.4%. Pembrolizumab improved PFS and ORR versus brentuximab vedotin regardless of prior therapies. Data suggest pembrolizumab may be a promising second-line therapy for participants with R/R cHL ineligible for auto-SCT. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02684292.
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".