ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Baseline prognostic predictors in classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: a retrospective, single-center analysis on patients treated with PET/CT-guided ABVD.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term results of the HD0607 trial on interim PET-adapted treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma beyond 10 years of follow-up.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Predictors of sensitivity to immune therapies in classic Hodgkin lymphoma.Blood neoplasia · 2026Review
- Outcome of Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma Treated with ABVD Regimen- A Single Center Experience.Journal of cancer & allied specialties · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The identification of baseline prognostic factors in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma could help in tailoring a risk-based approach as the therapeutic landscape expands. Currently, the International Prognostic Score (IPS) represents the most used prediction tool in clinical practice, but other potential baseline risk predictors have been identified. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis in a cohort of 274 patients treated with Results: Among the considered risk factors, stage IV disease (HR 1.83), leukocytosis (HR 2.28), anemia (HR 3.23) and low LMR (HR 2.01) significantly predicted PFS, whereas male sex (HR 2.93), stage IV disease (HR 3.00) and lymphopenia (HR 7.84) significantly predicted OS. A 4 variable and a 3 variable prognostic system was subsequently proposed for PFS and OS, respectively. In both cases, a stark decrease in the survival probability was documented as the score increased. Moreover, by selecting only the significant IPS items and considering a more recently proposed prognostic factor (LMR) we were able to better identify patients at higher risk of relapsing after PET/CT-guided ABVD. Discussion: Although the IPS was still able to identify a subgroup of high-risk patients within our cohort of individuals treated with PET/CT-guided ABVD, not all the risk factors that it considers were found to have an impact on survival times. Moreover, by selecting only the significant IPS items and considering a more recently proposed prognostic factor (LMR) we were able to better identify patients at higher risk of relapse, in an effort to contribute to the building of a modern risk prediction tool that can help guide treatment choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.