SynthesisFuture oncology (London, England)2026
Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of A+AVD vs PET-guided ABVD in newly diagnosed advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.
Synthesis in Future oncology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe study team investigated the relative efficacy of brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) versus positron emission tomography (PET)-guided doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) among previously untreated adults with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma via matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). MATERIALS &
methodsA systematic literature review identified ECHELON-1 (A+AVD), RATHL, and SWOG S0816 as feasible trials referencing a targeted comparator (PET-guided ABVD). Effect modifiers/prognostic variables were identified by clinical expert opinion and Cox regression using long-term ECHELON-1 individual patient-level data. Weighted Cox regressions generated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) representing A+AVD versus PET-guided ABVD relative treatment effect on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
resultsOS improved significantly with A+AVD versus PET-guided ABVD (HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.32, 0.73], p < 0.001 [RATHL]; 0.49 [0.26, 0.92], p = 0.043 [SWOG S0816]). PFS significantly favored A+AVD over PET-guided ABVD in both trial comparisons. While the proportional hazards assumption did not hold for these comparisons, 8-year restricted mean survival time and piecewise Cox regression results aligned with the main results.
conclusionMAIC results indicated durable A+AVD treatment benefits in adults with newly diagnosed advanced Hodgkin lymphoma versus PET-guided regimens evaluated in RATHL and SWOG S0816.
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.