↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Comparison of first‐line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP versus chemotherapy including ABVD for people with early unfavourable or advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
260 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Comparison of first‐line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP versus chemotherapy including ABVD for people with early unfavourable or advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007941.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Skoetz, Andrea Will, Ina Monsef, Corinne Brillant, Andreas Engert, Bastian von Tresckow

Abstract

There are two different international standards for the treatment of early unfavourable and advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): chemotherapy with escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin/etoposide/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/procarbazine/prednisone) regimen and chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine) regimen. To determine the advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP compared to chemotherapy including ABVD in the treatment of early unfavourable or advanced stage HL as first-line treatment. We searched for randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings (January 1985 to July 2013 and for the update to March 2017) and Embase (1985 to November 2008). Moreover we searched trial registries (March 2017; www.controlled-trials.com, www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search, clinicaltrials.gov, www.eortc.be, www.ghsg.org, www.ctc.usyd.edu.au, www.trialscentral.org/index.html) SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining chemotherapy including at least two cycles of escalated BEACOPP regimens compared with chemotherapy including at least four cycles of ABVD regimens as first-line treatment for patients with early unfavourable stage or advanced stage HL. The effect measures we used were hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and freedom from first progression.We used risk ratios (RRs) relative risks to analyse harms: treatment-related mortality, secondary malignancies (including myeloid dysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukaemia (AML)), infertility and adverse events.Quality of life was not reported in any trial, therefore not analysed. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials. We screened 1796 records and identified five eligible trials in total i.e. one trial could be added on the previous review. These trials included only adults (16 to 65 years of age). We included all five trials with 3427 people in the meta-analyses: the HD9 and HD14 trials were co-ordinated in Germany, the HD2000 and GSM-HD trials were performed in Italy and the EORTC 20012 was conducted in Belgium. The overall risk of performance and detection bias was low for overall survival (OS), but was high for other outcomes, as therapy blinding was not feasible. The remaining 'Risk of bias' domains were low and unclear.All trials reported results for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). In contrast to the our first published review (2011) the addition of results from the EORTC 20012 BEACOPP escalated increases OS (3142 participants; HR 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.97; high-quality evidence). This means that only 90 (70 to 117) patients will die after five years in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 120 in the ABVD arm. This survival advantage is also reflected in an increased PFS with BEACOPP escalated (3142 participants; HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64); moderate-quality evidence), meaning that after five years only 144 (121 to 168) patients will experience a progress, relapse or death in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 250 in the ABVD arm.There is no evidence for a difference for treatment-related mortality (2700 participants, RR 2.15 (95% CI = 0.93 to 4.95), low-quality evidence).Although the occurrence of MDS or AML may increase with BEACOPP escalated (3332 participants, RR 3.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 11.21); low-quality evidence)), there is no evidence for a difference between both regimens for overall secondary malignancies (3332 participants, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.48), low-quality evidence). However, the observation time of the studies included in the review is too short to be expected to demonstrate differences with respect to second solid tumours which would not be expected to show significance until around 15 years after treatment.We are very uncertain how many female patients will be infertile due to chemotherapy and which arm might be favoured (106 participants, RR 1.37 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.26), very low-quality evidence). This is a very small sample, and the age of the patients was not detailed. No analysis of male fertility was provided.Five trials reported adverse events and the analysis shows that the escalated BEACOPP regimens probably causes more haematological toxicities WHO grade III or IV ((anaemia: 2425 participants, RR 10.67 (95% CI 7.14 to 15.93); neutropenia: 519 participants, RR 1.80 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.13); thrombocytopenia: 2425 participants, RR 18.12 (95% CI 11.77 to 27.92); infections: 2425 participants, RR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.38), all low-quality evidence).Only one trial (EORTC 20012) planned to assess quality of life, however, no results were reported. This meta-analysis provides moderate- to high-quality evidence that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable and advanced stage HL benefit regarding OS and PFS from first-line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP. The proven benefit in OS for patients with advanced HL is a new finding of this updated review due to the inclusion of the results from the EORTC 20012 trial. Furthermore, there is only low-quality evidence of a difference in the total number of secondary malignancies, as the follow-up period might be too short to detect meaningful differences. Low-quality evidence also suggests that people treated with escalated BEACOPP may have a higher risk to develop secondary AML or MDS. Due to the availability of only very low-quality evidence available, we are unable to come to a conclusion in terms of infertility. This review does for the first time suggest a survival benefit. However, it is clear from this review that BEACOPP escalated may be more toxic that ABVD, and very important long-term side effects of second malignancies and infertility have not been sufficiently analysed yet.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 260 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 15%
Student > Master 36 14%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 45 17%
Unknown 83 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 97 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2019.
All research outputs
#3,374,942
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,981
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,714
of 327,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.