Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42490007›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2026

A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of PET-Guided BrECADD Versus PET-Guided ABVD, BEACOPP, and eBEACOPP in Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Alexa Molinari, Fjoralba Kristo, Victoria Paly, Zhiyi Lan, Athanasios Zomas, Vanessa Stache, Zijiao Yuan, Abbey Poirier, Christian Jaworek, Hishan Tharmaseelan and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Alexa MolinariTakeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA. alexa.molinari@takeda.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-4618-876X
Fjoralba KristoTakeda Development Center, Americas, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Victoria PalyTakeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Zhiyi LanCytel Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Athanasios ZomasTakeda Pharmaceuticals International AG, Zurich, Switzerland.
Vanessa StacheTakeda Pharmaceuticals International AG, Zurich, Switzerland.
Zijiao YuanCytel Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Abbey PoirierCytel Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Christian JaworekDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf (CIO ABCD), German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Hishan TharmaseelanDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf (CIO ABCD), German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Hoora MoradianCytel Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Thomas MelchardtParacelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the absence of head-to-head trial data, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to compare the effectiveness, with respect to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), of PET-guided BrECADD versus PET-guided ABVD, BEACOPP, and eBEACOPP in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

methodsIndividual patient data (IPD) from patients in HD21 and aggregate data from the SWOG S0816, RATHL, HD9, and Mondello 2020 studies were utilized. Potential effect modifiers and prognostic variables for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma were identified via literature review, clinician input, and statistical analysis. As there was no common arm between HD21 and the comparator trials, unanchored MAICs were conducted. Data from patients in HD21 were weighted to align with published aggregate characteristics of the comparator trials.

resultsBrECADD was associated with significantly improved PFS and OS compared with PET-guided ABVD among patients aged 18-60 (SWOG S0816; PFS HR: 0.24, 95% CI 0.16, 0.35, p < 0.001; OS HR: 0.30, 95% CI 0.14, 0.63, p = 0.004) and patients aged 18 to 75 (RATHL; PFS HR: 0.24, 95% CI 0.16, 0.36, p < 0.001; OS HR: 0.47, 95% CI 0.25, 0.89, p = 0.01). In the comparison of BrECADD versus BEACOPP (per the Mondello et al. 2020 study cohort), there was a trend in PFS improvement [HR = 0.58 (95% CI 0.29, 1.19), p = 0.194)] in favor of BrECADD in adults aged 18-75 years of age. Additionally, a trend was observed among patients aged 66-75, favoring BrECADD for freedom from treatment failure [HR = 0.63 (95% CI 0.28, 1.44), p = 0.260] when compared to BEACOPP (HD9).

conclusionThese findings provide robust evidence and further support for the use of BrECADD in adult patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsHodgkin DiseasePositron-Emission TomographyAdolescentAdultBendamustine HydrochlorideBleomycinBrentuximab VedotinCyclophosphamideDacarbazineDoxorubicinEtoposideFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBendamustine HydrochlorideBleomycinBrentuximab VedotinCyclophosphamideDacarbazineDoxorubicinEtoposidePrednisoneProcarbazineVinblastineVincristineAdvanced Hodgkin lymphomaIndirect treatment comparisonMatching-adjusted indirect comparisonPopulation-adjusted indirect comparison

Identifiers

PMID42490007
PMCPMC13619665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.