Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Document Type
- Article (6)
Keywords
- Multidisciplinary (2)
- Hematology (1)
Institute
- Medizinische Fakultät (5)
- Universitätsklinikum (4)
- Lehrstuhl für Innere Medizin mit Schwerpunkt Hämatologie und Onkologie (2)
- Fakultät für Angewandte Informatik (1)
- Institut für Informatik (1)
- Institut für Physik (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Allgemeinmedizin (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Biomedizinische Informatik, Data Mining und Data Analytics (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Datenmanagement und Clinical Decision Support (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Experimentalphysik I (1)
Background
Intensified systemic chemotherapy has the highest primary cure rate for advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma but this comes with a cost of severe and potentially life long, persisting toxicities. With the new regimen of brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone (BrECADD), we aimed to improve the risk-to-benefit ratio of treatment of advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma guided by PET after two cycles.
Methods
This randomised, multicentre, parallel, open-label, phase 3 trial was done in 233 trial sites across nine countries. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≤60 years) with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma (ie, Ann Arbor stage III/IV, stage II with B symptoms, and either one or both risk factors of large mediastinal mass and extranodal lesions). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to four or six cycles (21-day intervals) of escalated doses of etoposide (200 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1–3), doxorubicin (35 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1), and cyclophosphamide (1250 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1), and standard doses of bleomycin (10 mg/m2 intravenously on day 8), vincristine (1·4 mg/m2 intravenously on day 8), procarbazine (100 mg/m2 orally on days 1–7), and prednisone (40 mg/m2 orally on days 1–14; eBEACOPP) or BrECADD, guided by PET after two cycles. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Hierarchical coprimary objectives were to show (1) improved tolerability defined by treatment-related morbidity and (2) non-inferior efficacy defined by progression-free survival with an absolute non-inferiority margin of 6 percentage points of BrECADD compared with eBEACOPP. An additional test of superiority of progression-free survival was to be done if non-inferiority had been established. Analyses were done by intention to treat; the treatment-related morbidity assessment required documentation of at least one chemotherapy cycle. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02661503).
Findings
Between July 22, 2016, and Aug 27, 2020, 1500 patients were enrolled, of whom 749 were randomly assigned to BrECADD and 751 to eBEACOPP. 1482 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median age of patients was 31 years (IQR 24–42). 838 (56%) of 1482 patients were male and 644 (44%) were female. Most patients were White (1352 [91%] of 1482). Treatment-related morbidity was significantly lower with BrECADD (312 [42%] of 738 patients) than with eBEACOPP (430 [59%] of 732 patients; relative risk 0·72 [95% CI 0·65–0·80]; p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 48 months, BrECADD improved progression-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0·66 (0·45–0·97; p=0·035); 4-year progression-free survival estimates were 94·3% (95% CI 92·6–96·1) for BrECADD and 90·9% (88·7–93·1) for eBEACOPP. 4-year overall survival rates were 98·6% (97·7–99·5) and 98·2% (97·2–99·3), respectively.
Interpretation
BrECADD guided by PET after two cycles is better tolerated and more effective than eBEACOPP in first-line treatment of adult patients with advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma.
Background:
Real-world data (RWD) from sources like administrative claims, electronic health records, and cancer registries offer insights into patient populations beyond the tightly regulated environment of randomized controlled trials. To leverage this and to advance cancer research, 6 university hospitals in Bavaria have established a joint research IT infrastructure.
Objective:
This study aimed to outline the design, implementation, and deployment of a modular data transformation pipeline that transforms oncological RWD into a Health Level 7 (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) format and then into a tabular format in preparation for a federated analysis (FA) across the 6 Bavarian Cancer Research Center university hospitals.
Methods:
To harness RWD effectively, we designed a pipeline to convert the oncological basic dataset (oBDS) into HL7 FHIR format and prepare it for FA. The pipeline handles diverse IT infrastructures and systems while maintaining privacy by keeping data decentralized for analysis. To assess the functionality and validity of our implementation, we defined a cohort to address two specific medical research questions. We evaluated our findings by comparing the results of the FA with reports from the Bavarian Cancer Registry and the original data from local tumor documentation systems.
Results:
We conducted an FA of 17,885 cancer cases from 2021/2022. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis at 3 sites, prostate cancer ranked in the top 2 at 4 sites, and malignant melanoma was notably prevalent. Gender-specific trends showed larynx and esophagus cancers were more common in males, while breast and thyroid cancers were more frequent in females. Discrepancies between the Bavarian Cancer Registry and our data, such as higher rates of malignant melanoma (3400/63,771, 5.3% vs 1921/17,885, 10.7%) and lower representation of colorectal cancers (8100/63,771, 12.7% vs 1187/17,885, 6.6%) likely result from differences in the time periods analyzed (2019 vs 2021/2022) and the scope of data sources used. The Bavarian Cancer Registry reports approximately 3 times more cancer cases than the 6 university hospitals alone.
Conclusions:
The modular pipeline successfully transformed oncological RWD across 6 hospitals, and the federated approach preserved privacy while enabling comprehensive analysis. Future work will add support for recent oBDS versions, automate data quality checks, and integrate additional clinical data. Our findings highlight the potential of federated health data networks and lay the groundwork for future research that can leverage high-quality RWD, aiming to contribute valuable knowledge to the field of cancer research.
