Considerations for anti-PD1-based first-line treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma.

Anti-PD1-based first-line treatment holds great promise in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The management of immune-related adverse events in the context of time-limited combined checkpoint blockade and chemotherapy administered in curative intent is a challenge. Kuczmarski and Lynch provide a case-based approach to key toxicities observed in this setting. Commentary on: Kuczmarski et al. Managing common toxicities associated with checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combinations for untreated classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2024;205:100-108.

Treatment approaches for older Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) occurs at two age peaks around 25 and 60 years of age. Due to varying fitness and co-morbidities older patients are a heterogeneous group that has relatively poor treatment outcomes. The evolving therapeutic landscape for older HL is summarized herein. RECENT FINDINGS: Due to lack of data from larger trials and approval of novel drugs, first-line treatment of limited-stage HL (i.e. early-stage favourable and unfavourable) remains largely A(B)VD and radiotherapy based. For patients with advanced-stage HL, the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin is approved in combination with AVD chemotherapy (BV-AVD). Due to toxicities such as febrile neutropenia or polyneuropathy and lack of improvement in progression-free and overall survival in the older subgroup, fully concomitant BV-AVD is however not used widely. More recently, promising early data was reported with the combination of nivolumab and AVD (N-AVD) in patients >60 years with advanced-stage HL. Second-line treatment depends on fitness and might include high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation for selected patients. For unfit or multiply relapsed patients, anti-PD1 antibodies are the preferred treatment option. SUMMARY: The increasing number of older HL patients constitutes a therapeutic challenge despite recent advances and the increased usage of targeted agents.

Real-world response assessment of immune checkpoint inhibition: comparing iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (iRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for response assessment of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in a real-world setting in patients with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Two-hundred fifty-two patients with melanoma and NSCLC who received CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab or PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab or pembrolizumab and who underwent staging CT of the chest and abdomen were retrospectively included. Treatment response evaluation according to the RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST guidelines was performed for all patients. Response patterns, as well as overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and time to progression (TTP), were compared between RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST. RESULTS: Out of 143 patients with progressive disease (PD) according to RECIST 1.1, 48 (33.6%) did not attain confirmation of progression (iCPD) as per iRECIST and six patients who were treated beyond RECIST 1.1 progression reached PD at a later point in time in iRECIST, resulting in a significant difference in TTP between iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 (618.3 ± 626.9 days vs. 538.1 ± 617.9 days, respectively (p < 0.05)). The number of non-responders as per RECIST 1.1 was 79, whereas it was 60 when using iRECIST. ORR was 28.5% for RECIST 1.1 and 34.1% for iRECIST, and corresponding DCR of 67.4% for RECIST 1.1 and 74.6% for iRECIST. CONCLUSION: iRECIST was more suitable than RECIST 1.1 for capturing atypical response patterns to ICI therapy in patients with melanoma and NSCLC, resulting in differences in the assessment of treatment response. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Compared to RECIST 1.1, iRECIST may improve patient care and treatment decisions for patients with NSCLC or melanoma who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinical routine. KEY POINTS: RECIST 1.1 may incorrectly assess atypical treatment patterns to immune checkpoint inhibitors. iRECIST better captured atypical response patterns compared to RECIST 1.1. iRECIST was more suitable for assessing response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung carcinoma and melanoma.

Cardiovascular training versus resistance training for fatigue in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: With prevalence estimates between 50% and 90% of people with cancer, cancer-related fatigue is one of the most common morbidities related to cancer and its treatment. Exercise is beneficial for the treatment of cancer-related fatigue. However, the efficacy of different types of exercise (i.e. cardiovascular training and resistance training) have not yet been investigated systematically and compared directly in a meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of cardiovascular training versus resistance training for treatment or prevention of cancer-related fatigue in people with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases in January 2023. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We integrated results from update searches of previously published Cochrane reviews. In total, our searches included trials from inception to October 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials investigating cardiovascular training compared with resistance training, with exercise as the main component. We included studies on adults with cancer (aged 18 years and older), with or without a diagnosis of cancer-related fatigue, for any type of cancer and any type of cancer treatment, with the intervention starting before, during, or after treatment. We included trials evaluating at least one of our primary outcomes (cancer-related fatigue or quality of life). We excluded combined cardiovascular and resistance interventions, yoga, and mindfulness-based interventions. Our primary outcomes were cancer-related fatigue and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were adverse events, anxiety, and depression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. For analyses, we pooled results within the same period of outcome assessment (i.e. short term (up to and including 12 weeks' follow-up), medium term (more than 12 weeks' to less than six months' follow-up), and long term (six months' follow-up or longer)). We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool, and certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies with 447 participants with prostate, breast, or lung cancer who received radiotherapy or chemotherapy, had surgery, or a combination of these. All studies had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. Three studies had an additional high risk of bias domain; one study for attrition bias, and two studies for selection bias. Interventions in the cardiovascular training groups included training on a cycle ergometer, treadmill, an elliptical trainer, or indoor bike. Interventions in the resistance training group included a varying number of exercises using bodyweight, weights, or resistance bands. Interventions varied in frequency, intensity, and duration. None of the included studies reported including participants with a confirmed cancer-related fatigue diagnosis. The interventions in four studies started during cancer treatment and in two studies after cancer treatment. Before treatment No studies reported interventions starting before cancer treatment. During treatment The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training for short-term cancer-related fatigue (mean difference (MD) -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.52 to 1.84; 4 studies, 311 participants; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) scale where higher values indicate better outcome; very low-certainty evidence) and long-term cancer-related fatigue (MD 1.30, 95% CI -2.17 to 4.77; 1 study, 141 participants; FACIT-Fatigue scale; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training for short-term quality of life (MD 1.47, 95% CI -1.47 to 4.42; 4 studies, 319 participants; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General scale where higher values indicate better outcome; very low-certainty evidence) and for long-term quality of life (MD 3.40, 95% CI -4.85 to 11.65; 1 study, 141 participants; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anemia scale where higher values indicate better outcome; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training on the occurrence of adverse events at any follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 2 studies, 128 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported medium-term cancer-related fatigue or quality of life. After treatment The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training for short-term cancer-related fatigue (MD 1.47, 95% CI -0.09 to 3.03; 1 study, 95 participants; Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 General Fatigue subscale where higher values indicate worse outcome; very low-certainty evidence). Resistance training may improve short-term quality of life compared to cardiovascular training, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -10.96, 95% CI -17.77 to -4.15; 1 study, 95 participants; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 Global Health subscale where higher values indicate better outcome; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported outcomes at medium-term or long-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training on treatment of cancer-related fatigue in people with cancer. Larger, well-conducted studies including people with different cancer types receiving different treatments are needed to increase the certainty in the evidence and to better understand who may benefit most from cardiovascular or resistance training. Moreover, studies comparing the effects of cardiovascular and resistance training initiated before as well as after cancer treatment are needed to understand the prophylactic and rehabilitative effects of these exercise types on cancer-related fatigue.

Low B-cell content is associated with a CD73-low tumour microenvironment and unfavourable prognosis in classic Hodgkin lymphoma.

B-cell content in the tumour microenvironment (TME) of classic Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is known to be associated with prognosis. Here we demonstrate that whole slide image analysis using routinely available slides predicts outcomes in patients treated with ABVD in a prospective trial with a high B-cell content being associated with a favourable prognosis. B cells in the TME did not correlate with B cells in peripheral blood. In the TME maturation, stages of B cells (naive and memory) were consistent. However, we detected down-regulation of CD73 in HL with low B cells suggestive of an antibody-independent function of B cells in the TME of HL.

Reinduction therapy with everolimus in combination with dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabin and cisplatinum in patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma: an experimental phase I/II multicentre trial of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG HD-R3i).

Reinduction chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (HDCT + ASCT) is second-line standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r cHL) but has a high failure rate. Because response to reinduction is predictive of the outcome after HDCT + ASCT, we aimed to improve the standard dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine and cisplatinum (DHAP) reinduction regimen by addition of the oral mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus (everDHAP). Transplant-eligible patients aged 18-60 years with histologically confirmed r/r cHL were included in this experimental phase I/II trial. Everolimus (10 mg/day, determined in phase-I-part) was administered on day 0-13 of each DHAP cycle. From July 2014 to March 2018, 50 patients were recruited to the phase II everDHAP group; two were not evaluable, three discontinued due to toxicity. Randomization to a placebo group stopped in October 2015 due to poor recruitment after nine patients. The primary end-point of computed tomography (CT)-based complete remission (CR) after two cycles of everDHAP was expected to be ≥40%. With a CT-based CR rate of 27% (n = 12/45) after two cycles of everDHAP the trial did not meet the primary end-point. Adding everolimus to DHAP is thus feasible; however, the everDHAP regimen failed to show an improved efficacy.

9p24.1 alterations and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression in early stage unfavourable classical Hodgkin lymphoma: an analysis from the German Hodgkin Study Group NIVAHL trial.

High programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein expression and copy number alterations (CNAs) of the corresponding genomic locus 9p24.1 in Hodgkin- and Reed-Sternberg cells (HRSC) have been shown to be associated with favourable response to anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibition in relapsed/refractory (r/r) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In the present study, we investigated baseline 9p24.1 status as well as PD-L1 and major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II protein expression in 82 biopsies from patients with early stage unfavourable cHL treated with anti-PD-1-based first-line treatment in the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) NIVAHL trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03004833). All evaluated specimens showed 9p24.1 CNA in HRSC to some extent, but with high intratumoral heterogeneity and an overall smaller range of alterations than reported in advanced-stage or r/r cHL. All but two cases (97%) showed PD-L1 expression by the tumour cells in variable amounts. While MHC-I was rarely expressed in >50% of HRSC, MHC-II expression in >50% of HRSC was found more frequently. No obvious impact of 9p24.1 CNA or PD-L1 and MHC-I/II expression on early response to the highly effective anti-PD-1-based NIVAHL first-line treatment was observed. Further studies evaluating an expanded panel of potential biomarkers are needed to optimally stratify anti-PD-1 first-line cHL treatment.

Tumor and microenvironment response but no cytotoxic T-cell activation in classic Hodgkin lymphoma treated with anti-PD1.

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is the cancer type most susceptible to antibodies targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) and is characterized by scarce Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells (HRSCs), perpetuating a unique tumor microenvironment (TME). Although anti-PD1 effects appear to be largely mediated by cytotoxic CD8+ T cells in solid tumors, HRSCs frequently lack major histocompatibility complex expression, and the mechanism of anti-PD1 efficacy in cHL is unclear. Rapid clinical responses and high interim complete response rates to anti-PD1 based first-line treatment were recently reported for patients with early-stage unfavorable cHL treated in the German Hodgkin Study Group phase 2 NIVAHL trial. To investigate the mechanisms underlying this very early response to anti-PD1 treatment, we analyzed paired biopsies and blood samples obtained from NIVAHL patients before and during the first days of nivolumab first-line cHL therapy. Mirroring the rapid clinical response, HRSCs had disappeared from the tissue within days after the first nivolumab application. The TME already shows a reduction in type 1 regulatory T cells and PD-L1+ tumor-associated macrophages at this early time point of treatment. Interestingly, a cytotoxic immune response and a clonal T-cell expansion were not observed in the tumors or peripheral blood. These early changes in the TME were distinct from alterations found in a separate set of cHL biopsies at relapse during anti-PD1 therapy. We identify a unique very early histologic response pattern to anti-PD1 therapy in cHL that is suggestive of withdrawal of prosurvival factors, rather than induction of an adaptive antitumor immune response, as the main mechanism of action.

JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib in relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Final results of a phase II, open label, multicentre clinical trial (JeRiCHO).

OBJECTIVES: Patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) relapsing after second-line therapy have a dismal prognosis and novel approaches are required for this patient group. Based on promising (pre-)clinical data and the favourable toxicity profile, we performed a phase II clinical trial with the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients with relapsed or refractory cHL (r/r cHL). METHODS: Patients ≥18 years with histologically confirmed r/r cHL who failed second-line treatment were included. Ruxolitinib was given orally at a dose of 25 mg twice daily in continuous 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was the PET/CT-based overall response rate (ORR; complete response (CR) or partial response (PR)) after 2 cycles; secondary endpoints included progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as well as feasibility. The Jericho Trial adopted a 2-stage phase 2 design (Simon 1989). RESULTS: Among the 12 included patients in stage 1, 2 had a PR, 3 had a stable disease (SD) and 6 had progressive disease (PD) after two treatment cycles (ORR: 2/12 evaluable patients, 16.7%). Median PFS was 3.6 months, the 1-year OS estimate was 50.6% (median not reached). The toxicity profile was favourable with only one grade IV adverse event (7.1%) reported. CONCLUSION: Ruxolitinib exhibited a favourable side effect profile but modest activity in r/r cHL. Although the formal stopping criterion after stage 1 was not met, the trial did not continue to stage 2 due to the low response and PFS rates observed in stage 1.

Impact of timing and precision of histopathological diagnosis on outcomes of patients with Burkitt lymphoma and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHL) with a generally favorable prognosis after immunochemotherapy. The outcome of BL is superior to DLBCL. In 2016, a distinct group of lymphomas displaying characteristics of both BL and DLBCL (high grade B-cell lymphoma, HGBL) was introduced into the WHO classification. Histopathological discrimination of BL, DLBCL, and HGBL may be challenging. Data on the frequency of histopathological difficulties resulting in revision of the final diagnosis of BL/DLBCL/HGBL and its impact on the prognosis are limited. METHODS: We assessed histopathological features and clinical outcomes of 66 patients with suspected diagnosis of BL at the reporting institution between 2010 and 2020. RESULTS: The median age was 51 years (range 19-82) and final histopathological diagnosis revealed BL (n = 40), DLBCL (n = 12), or HGBL (n = 14). Patients with DLBCL and HGBL were either treated with DLBCL-directed (83.3% and 35.7%) or BL-directed (16.7% and 64.3%) protocols. Patients in whom diagnosis was revised from DLBCL to BL after initiation of DLBCL-directed treatment had a significantly inferior progression-free survival (PFS) than patients initially diagnosed with BL (p = 0.045), thus resembling rather the prognosis of DLBCL/HGBL. There was no difference between patients with DLBCL and HGBL, respectively, regarding PFS and OS (p = 0.38 and p = 0.27). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that timely and precise histopathological diagnosis as well as reference histopathological review of the underlying lymphoma is critical to determine up-front treatment strategies. Consequently, selection of more aggressive treatment protocols in case of difficulties with discrimination between DLBCL/HGBL/BL may be a reasonable approach.

Immunity after COVID-19 vaccination in people with higher risk of compromised immune status: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: High efficacy in terms of protection from severe COVID-19 has been demonstrated for several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, patients with compromised immune status develop a weaker and less stable immune response to vaccination. Strong immune response may not always translate into clinical benefit, therefore it is important to synthesise evidence on modified schemes and types of vaccination in these population subgroups for guiding health decisions. As the literature on COVID-19 vaccines continues to expand, we aimed to scope the literature on multiple subgroups to subsequently decide on the most relevant research questions to be answered by systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the availability of existing literature on immune response and long-term clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters, and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 6 December 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that published results on immunity outcomes after vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, Sputnik V or Sputnik Light, BBIBP-CorV, or CoronaVac on predefined vulnerable subgroups such as people with malignancies, transplant recipients, people undergoing renal replacement therapy, and people with immune disorders, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children. We included studies if they had at least 100 participants (not considering healthy control groups); we excluded case studies and case series. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently and in duplicate onto an online data extraction form. Data were represented as tables and as online maps to show the frequency of studies for each item. We mapped the data according to study design, country of participant origin, patient comorbidity subgroup, intervention, outcome domains (clinical, safety, immunogenicity), and outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Out of 25,452 identified records, 318 studies with a total of more than 5 million participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Participants were recruited mainly from high-income countries between January 2020 and 31 October 2021 (282/318); the majority of studies included adult participants (297/318).  Haematological malignancies were the most commonly examined comorbidity group (N = 54), followed by solid tumours (N = 47), dialysis (N = 48), kidney transplant (N = 43), and rheumatic diseases (N = 28, 17, and 15 for mixed diseases, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively). Thirty-one studies included pregnant or breastfeeding women. The most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2 (N = 283), followed by mRNA-1273 (N = 153), AZD1222 (N = 66), Ad26.COV2.S (N = 42), BBIBP-CorV (N = 15), CoronaVac (N = 14), and Sputnik V (N = 5; no studies were identified for Sputnik Light). Most studies reported outcomes after regular vaccination scheme.  The majority of studies focused on immunogenicity outcomes, especially seroconversion based on binding antibody measurements and immunoglobulin G (IgG) titres (N = 179 and 175, respectively). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 126 and 54 studies, whilst SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of severity was reported in 80 studies. Mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 36 studies. Please refer to our evidence gap maps for more detailed information. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Up to 6 December 2021, the majority of studies examined data on mRNA vaccines administered as standard vaccination schemes (two doses approximately four to eight weeks apart) that report on immunogenicity parameters or adverse events. Clinical outcomes were less commonly reported, and if so, were often reported as a secondary outcome observed in seroconversion or immunoglobulin titre studies. As informed by this scoping review, two effectiveness reviews (on haematological malignancies and kidney transplant recipients) are currently being conducted.

PET-guided omission of radiotherapy in early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma (GHSG HD17): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Combined-modality treatment consisting of chemotherapy and consolidation radiotherapy is standard of care for patients with early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma. However, the use of radiotherapy can have long-term sequelae, which is of particular concern, as Hodgkin lymphoma is frequently diagnosed in young adults with a median age of approximately 30 years. In the German Hodgkin Study Group HD17 trial, we investigated whether radiotherapy can be omitted without loss of efficacy in patients who have a complete metabolic response after receiving two cycles of escalated doses of etoposide, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin, and regular doses of bleomycin, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) plus two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy (2 + 2). METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, patients (aged 18-60 years) with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma (all histologies) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less were enrolled at 224 hospitals and private practices in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either standard combined-modality treatment, consisting of the 2 + 2 regimen (eBEACOPP consisted of 1250 mg/m2 intravenous cyclophosphamide on day 1, 35 mg/m2 intravenous doxorubicin on day 1, 200 mg/m2 intravenous etoposide on days 1-3, 100 mg/m2 oral procarbazine on days 1-7, 40 mg/m2 oral prednisone on days 1-14, 1·4 mg/m2 intravenous vincristine on day 8 [maximum dose of 2 mg per cycle], and 10 mg/m2 intravenous bleomycin on day 8; ABVD consisted of 25 mg/m2 intravenous doxorubicin, 10 mg/m2 intravenous bleomycin, 6 mg/m2 intravenous vinblastine, and 375 mg/m2 intravenous dacarbazine, all given on days 1 and 15) followed by 30 Gy involved-field radiotherapy (standard combined-modality treatment group) or PET4-guided treatment, consisting of the 2 + 2 regimen followed by 30 Gy of involved-node radiotherapy only in patients with positive PET at the end of four cycles of chemotherapy (PET4; PET4-guided treatment group). Randomisation was done centrally and used the minimisation method and seven stratification factors (centre, age, sex, clinical symptoms, disease localisation, albumin concentration, and bulky disease), and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until central review of the PET4 examination had been completed. With the final analysis presented here, the primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the PET4-guided strategy in a per-protocol analysis of the primary endpoint of progression-free survival. We defined non-inferiority as an absolute difference of 8% in the 5-year progression-free survival estimates between the two groups. Safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01356680. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2012, and March 21, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 1100 patients to the standard combined-modality treatment group (n=548) or to the PET4-guided treatment group (n=552); two patients in each group were found ineligible after randomisation. At a median follow-up of 46·2 months (IQR 32·7-61·2), 5-year progression-free survival was 97·3% (95% CI 94·5-98·7) in the standard combined-modality treatment group and 95·1% (92·0-97·0) in the PET4-guided treatment group (hazard ratio 0·523 [95% CI 0·226-1·211]). The between-group difference was 2·2% (95% CI -0·9 to 5·3) and excluded the non-inferiority margin of 8%. The most common grade 3 or 4 acute haematological adverse events were leucopenia (436 [83%] of 528 patients in the standard combined-modality treatment group vs 443 [84%] of 529 patients in the PET4-guided treatment group) and thrombocytopenia (139 [26%] vs 176 [33%]), and the most frequent acute non-haematological toxic effects were infection (32 [6%] vs 40 [8%]) and nausea or vomiting (38 [7%] vs 29 [6%]). The most common acute radiotherapy-associated adverse events were dysphagia (26 [6%] in the standard combined-modality treatment group vs three [2%] in the PET4-guided treatment group) and mucositis (nine [2%] vs none). 229 serious adverse events were reported by 161 (29%) of 546 patients in the combined-modality treatment group, and 235 serious adverse events were reported by 164 (30%) of 550 patients in the PET4-guided treatment group. One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction (infection) leading to death was reported in the PET4-guided treatment group. INTERPRETATION: PET4-negativity after treatment with 2 + 2 chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma allows omission of consolidation radiotherapy without a clinically relevant loss of efficacy. PET4-guided therapy could thereby reduce the proportion of patients at risk of the late effects of radiotherapy. FUNDING: Deutsche Krebshilfe.

Treatment patterns and disease course of previously untreated Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: Feasibility of MTX-based regimens in clinical routine.

BACKGROUND: Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare type of aggressive lymphoma of the central nervous system. Treatment strategies improved significantly over the past decades differ regionally but mainly consist of rituximab and high-dosed methotrexate (MTX)-based therapies. METHODS: We assessed clinical outcomes of 100 patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL between 2010-2020 at the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany. RESULTS: Patients were 23-88 years of age and either treated with MTX-based regimens (PRIMAIN, MARTA, MATRix), individual regimens, or best supportive care, respectively. Overall response rates were generally high (66,7-83,8%), but different organ toxicities required dose adjustments in most groups. Two-year overall survival rates were 57,9% (PRIMAIN), 63,6% (MARTA), 65,4% (MATRix), and 37,5% (Other), respectively. Out of 9 patients suffering from relapse >12 months from primary diagnosis, 7 patients (77,8%) received methotrexate-based salvage therapy with 2-year overall survival of 4/6 patients (66,7%). CONCLUSION: Although a relevant proportion of patients are not eligible for clinical trials due to age, performance status, or comorbidities, these results prove feasibility of different MTX-based treatment strategies in clinical routine. Even elderly patients displayed surprisingly favorable outcomes. However, with compromising organ toxicities, reduction of intensity should be part of strategies in future clinical trials.

Balancing risk and benefit in early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

With defined chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) and risk-adapted treatment, early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has become curable in a majority of patients. Hence, a major current goal is to reduce treatment-related toxicity while maintaining long-term disease control. Patients with early-stage favorable disease (ie, limited stage without risk factors [RFs]) are frequently treated with 2 cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (2×ABVD) followed by 20-Gy involved-field or involved-site RT (IF/ISRT). In patients with early-stage unfavorable disease (ie, limited stage with RFs), 4 cycles of chemotherapy are usually consolidated with 30-Gy IF/ISRT. Compared with 4×ABVD, 2 cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (2×BEACOPPescalated) followed by 2×ABVD improved 5-year progression-free survival (PFS), with similar 5-year overall survival. Recently, treatment strategies based on [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) response were evaluated. In early-stage unfavorable HL, a majority of patients achieved a negative interim PET after 2×ABVD and an excellent outcome after 4×ABVD, whereas in those with a positive interim PET, 2×BEACOPPescalated improved 5-year PFS. Furthermore, a PET-guided RT approach was evaluated to decrease long-term toxicity. Although both the RAPID and H10 trials reported poorer disease control without RT, PET-guided omission of RT can constitute a valid therapeutic option in patients with an increased risk of RT-associated toxicity (eg, because of sex, age, or disease localization). Implementation of drugs such as the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin or the anti-programmed death 1 antibodies nivolumab or pembrolizumab might allow further reduction of overall mortality and improve quality of life in affected patients.

Patient and physician preferences for first-line treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma in Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

First-line treatments for classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) include ABVD (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) and BEACOPPescalated (escalated dose bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone). To further improve overall outcomes, positron emission tomography-driven strategies and ABVD or BEACOPP variants incorporating the antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) or anti-PD1 antibodies are under investigation in advanced-stage patients. The present study aimed to elicit preferences for attributes associated with ABVD, BEACOPPescalated and BV-AVD (BV, adriamycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine) among patients and physicians. Cross-sectional online discrete choice experiments were administered to HL patients (n = 381) and haematologists/oncologists (n = 357) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Included attributes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the risk of neuropathy, lung damage, infertility and hospitalisation due to adverse events. Whereas 5-year PFS and OS were the most important treatment attributes to patients, the relative importance of each attribute and preference weights for each level varied among physicians according to the description of the hypothetical patient for whom treatment was recommended. PFS and OS most strongly influenced physicians' recommendations when considering young female patients who did not want children or young male patients. Infertility was more important to physicians' treatment decision than PFS when considering young women with unknown fertility preferences, whereas hospitalisations due to adverse events played the largest role in treatment decisions for older patients.

Bleomycin in older early-stage favorable Hodgkin lymphoma patients: analysis of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) HD10 and HD13 trials.

Doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine (ABVD) is associated with severe toxicity in older patients, particularly from bleomycin-induced lung toxicity (BLT). Therefore, using bleomycin has been questioned in older Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients, especially in early-stage HL. We therefore analyzed feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of ABVD or AVD in 287 older early-stage favorable HL patients. We included patients ≥60 years of age in the German Hodgkin Study Group HD10 and HD13 trials randomized to either 2 cycles of ABVD (2×ABVD; n = 137) or AVD (2×AVD; n = 82), each followed by involved-field radiotherapy (IF-RT), with patients randomized to 4×ABVD+IF-RT (n = 68). Patients' median age was 65 years (range, 60-75) with comparable patient and disease characteristics. Grade III-IV adverse event rates were similar in patients receiving 2×AVD and 2×ABVD (40% and 39%, respectively), but considerably higher in patients receiving 4×ABVD (65%). Similarly, BLT was rare in patients receiving 2×ABVD/AVD, but occurred in 7/69 (10%) of patients randomized to 4×ABVD, with 3 lethal events. In conclusion, no effects of bleomycin on toxicity rates were detectable in older patients receiving 2 cycles of chemotherapy. However, we found a high risk of severe toxicity of bleomycin in older HL patients receiving more than 2 cycles of ABVD. These trials are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.isrctn.com as #NCT00265018 (HD10) and #ISRCTN63474366 (HD13).