MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7093121247

C034 | THE ROLE OF STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY CLASSICAL HODGKIN LYMPHOMA TREATED WITH CHECKPOINT INHIBITORS: ITALIAN MULTICENTER EXPERIENCE

2025· article· en· W7093121247 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutologous stem-cell transplantationTransplantationClassical Hodgkin lymphomaBrentuximab vedotinNivolumabPembrolizumabSalvage therapyHodgkin lymphoma
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. There is no agreement on the role of stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) treated with checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). The aim of this study is to evaluate the real-life outcomes of R/R cHL pts treated with CPI, focusing on consolidation with autologous (autoSCT) and allogeneic SCT (alloSCT). Methods. Observational, retrospective, multicenter study enrolling consecutive R/R cHL pts aged 18-70 years, treated with CPI monotherapy in Italy (Jan 2016 - Jun 2023). Primary objective: proportion of pts who received alloSCT. Results. We enrolled 126 pts from 15 centers. Median age at CPI start was 36 years (18-70), 54% male, 95% received first-line ABVD, 51% had prior autoSCT. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab were used in 86 patients (68%) and 40 (32%), respectively. Overall response rate to CPI was 81%, with 49% complete responses (CRs). Ultimately, 41 pts (32%) received alloSCT (29 pts in this groups had already received autoSCT before CPI), 36 (29%) consolidated with autoSCT and 49 (39%) received no consolidation. Reasons for no SCT consolidation after CPI were age/comorbidity (n=19), center’s choice (n=9), alloSCT refusal or donor unavailability (n=9), PD (n=7), other (n=5). In pts consolidated with alloSCT or autoSCT, median PFS and OS were not reached at a median follow-up from CPI start of 27 months (range 7-90) for alloSCT and 47.5 months (range 4-99) for autoSCT. 48-months PFS probability were 80.6% and 81% for alloSCT and autoSCT recipients, respectively. Transplant-related mortality was 14.6% after alloSCT and 0% after autoSCT. In non-SCT consolidated pts median PFS was 27 months (median follow-up 21 months). 17 pts (35%) were still receiving CPI at last follow-up; the main reason for interruption was PD in 18/32 pts (56%). Among SCT-consolidated patients, CR status before SCT did not affect PFS (P=0.93 alloSCT, p=0.6 autoSCT). Instead, non-consolidated pts without CR had poorer PFS (not reached vs 11 months; p<0.001) -Figure1. Conclusions. This retrospective real-life analysis shows that outcomes after autoSCT and alloSCT consolidation are excellent regardless the achievement of CR with CPI, though alloSCT carries higher toxicity. Pts achieving CR with CPI have good outcomes even without SCT consolidation. Pts who don’t achieve/loss the CR and have already had autoSCT may benefit from alloSCT. Those who don’t achieve CR and don’t consolidate have the worst outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→