Is classical Hodgkin lymphoma a different disease in the elderly? A single-center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Although the clinical features and treatment results of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in young adults are well known, it is thought that the disease may have different characteristics in elderly patients with HL, which constitutes almost 25% of the group. In this study, our aim is to evaluate the clinicopathological features, treatment outcomes, and survival of elderly classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 60 and over who were treated with a diagnosis of CHL were included in our retrospective cohort study. Patients under the age of 60, those with a diagnosis of nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) were excluded from the study. RESULTS: The median age of 51 patients in the study was 66 (60-76). Forty (78.4%) patients had at least one comorbid disease. The most common histological subtype was mixed cellular HL (n = 23, 45%) and 23 (45%) patients had B-symptoms. Thirty-two (62.8%) patients were in the advanced stage. The most preferred regimen in first-line treatment was doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) combination chemotherapy (n: 45; 88.2%). Forty-three (84.3%) patients were able to complete the initially planned treatment. Complete response was achieved in 34 (66.7%) patients. During the median follow-up period of 45.2 months, 23 (42.6%) patients had died. The 5-year OS was 57.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, it was observed that the distribution of histological subtypes was different in elderly patients with CHL, B-symptoms were more common in elderly patients, and OS decreased with increasing age.

Is Cytomegalovirus Surveillance Necessary for Patients With Low Reactivation Risk in an Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Setting?

BACKGROUND: In an autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) setting, routine cytomegalovirus (CMV) surveillance is not indicated except in high-risk situations. On the other hand, some studies reported increased CMV reactivation in AHCT setting as a result of incorporation of novel agents into treatment algorithms, such as bortezomib and rituximab. We retrospectively analyzed CMV reactivation and infection rates in patients with no high-risk features, who were treated with AHCT. METHODS: During January 2010 to November 2015, all consecutive, CMV-seropositive patients were included. The viral copy numbers were measured twice a week from the start of the conditioning regimen until engraftment, once a week for the remaining time period until day 30 after AHCT and once weekly only for patients who had been diagnosed with CMV reactivation before and who developed primary/secondary engraftment failure during 31 to 60 days after AHCT. RESULTS: One hundred one (61.6%) men and 63 (38.4%) women were included in the study. The median age of study cohort was 51 years (range, 16-71 years). The indications for AHCT were Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma in 44 (26.8%), 41 (25%), and 79 (48.2%) patients, respectively. CMV reactivation occurred in 60 (37%) patients, and 13 patients (8%) received pre-emptive ganciclovir treatment. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our results, it might be stated that CMV surveillance may be recommended during 40 days after AHCT in countries with a high CMV prevalence, even in patients without high-risk features regarding reactivation. Additionally, the risky conditions necessitating CMV screening after AHCT must be re-defined in the era of novel agents.