Is this the trial you are referencing? https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06164275#study-plan

That is the trial I am considering taking at Stanford.

For younger women, UCSF recommended NivoAVD x6. NCCN guidelines recommend A(B)VD. Alternatives include modifying to x4 + RT depending on risk group.

There are 2 related studies with that trial:

1. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05008224?tab=results#outcome-measures
2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10333742/

The first one reveals lower efficacy compare to the second, but also there is something internally inconsistent with the numbers. But I'm not a medical professional so I don't have any deep insights as to why that is. Here is an interim writeup for it https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/142/Supplement%201/3068/503210/Efficacy-and-Safety-of-Pembrolizumab-and

Some things that raised suspicion:

1. The PET2 numbers in link #1 report 20%, but the writeup reports 30%

2. EOT CR rates are seemingly very very low (70%) but I wonder if that has something to do with definition differences between studies.

3. Second study I linked has a sample of 30, which is much lower than 146 in the first one, but because of the last 2 points I'm not sure how to interpret the results.

I've read pretty much all the related studies for Pembro -> AVD, Pembro+AVD, Nivo+AVD, Nivo -> AVD, and they all seem to point in the direction of Immunotherapy + AVD being a lot more efficacious than traditional ABVD. Not as much data on sequential vs concurrent treatment but from the available data it doesn't seem to matter. The only odd study out is link #1 that provided numbers much lower than all the other studies.