Search

Purpose: We prospectively treated patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-associated indolent lymphomas with genotype-appropriate direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) with the aim to evaluate virologic and hematologic outcomes. No prospective studies in this setting have been published so far., Methods: FIL_BArT is a prospective, multicenter, phase II trial that evaluated genotype-appropriate DAAs in untreated HCV-positive patients with indolent lymphomas without criteria for immediate conventional antilymphoma treatment. The primary objective was sustained virologic response, whereas the main secondary objectives were overall response rate of lymphoma and progression-free survival., Results: Forty patients were enrolled, including 27 with marginal zone lymphoma. Median age was 68 years. Extranodal sites were involved in 14 cases (35%). Main genotypes were 1 in 16 patients and 2 in 21 patients. All patients received genotype-guided DAAs: 17 ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, eight sofosbuvir plus ribavirin, and 15 sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. All patients achieved sustained virologic response (100%). DAAs were well tolerated, with only two grade 3-4 adverse events. Overall response rate of lymphoma was 45%, including eight patients (20%) achieving complete response and 10 (25%) partial response, whereas 16 exhibited stable disease and six progressed. With a median follow-up of 37 months, two patients died (3-year overall survival 93%; 95% CI, 74 to 98) and three additional patients progressed, with a 3-year progression-free survival of 76% (95% CI, 57 to 87)., Conclusion: HCV eradication by DAAs was achieved in 100% of HCV-positive patients with indolent lymphomas not requiring immediate conventional treatment and resulted in non-negligible rate of lymphoma responses. Treatment with DAAs should be considered as the first-line therapy in this setting.

Purpose: We compared 2 years of rituximab maintenance (RM) with a response-adapted postinduction approach in patients with follicular lymphoma who responded to induction immunochemotherapy., Methods: We randomly assigned treatment-naïve, advanced-stage, high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma patients to receive standard RM or a response-adapted postinduction approach on the basis of metabolic response and molecular assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD). The experimental arm used three types of postinduction therapies: for complete metabolic response (CMR) and MRD-negative patients, observation; for CMR and MRD-positive (end of induction or follow-up) patients, four doses of rituximab (one per week, maximum three courses) until MRD-negative; and for non-CMR patients, one dose of ibritumomab tiuxetan followed by standard RM. The study was designed as noninferiority trial with progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary end point., Results: Overall, 807 patients were randomly assigned. After a median follow-up of 53 months (range, 1-92 months), patients in the standard arm had a significantly better PFS than those in the experimental arm (3-year PFS 86% v 72%; P < .001). The better PFS of the standard versus experimental arm was confirmed in all the study subgroups except non-CMR patients (n = 65; P = .274). The 3-year overall survival was 98% (95% CI, 96 to 99) and 97% (95% CI, 95 to 99) in the reference and experimental arms, respectively ( P = .238)., Conclusion: A metabolic and molecular response-adapted therapy as assessed in the FOLL12 study was associated with significantly inferior PFS compared with 2-year RM. The better efficacy of standard RM was confirmed in the subgroup analysis and particularly for patients achieving both CMR and MRD-negative., Competing Interests: Stefano LuminariConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Gilead Sciences, Celgene, Genmab, Regeneron, IncyteTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen, Celgene Sara GalimbertiSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis Italy, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, AbbVieTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Oncology, Incyte, Novartis Italy Annibale VersariConsulting or Advisory Role: NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Alessandra TucciConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sandoz Luigi MarcheselliUncompensated Relationships: Sandoz SpA Simone FerreroConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen-Cilag, EUSA Pharma, Clinigen Group, IncyteSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen-Cilag, Servier, EUSA Pharma, GentiliResearch Funding: Gilead Sciences (Inst), MorphoSys (Inst), Janssen (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Servier, Sanofi, Janssen-Cilag, EUSA Pharma, Gentili Luca ArcainiConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Verastem, Incyte, EUSA Pharma, Celgene/Bristol Myers SquibbSpeakers' Bureau: EUSA PharmaResearch Funding: Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, EUSA Pharma Federica CavalloHonoraria: ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: Gilead Sciences, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene Tetiana SkrypetsHonoraria: Takeda Ilaria del GiudiceConsulting or Advisory Role: Tolero Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Stephane ChauvieStock and Other Ownership Interests: DixitHonoraria: Sirtex MedicalSpeakers' Bureau: TERUMO, Sirtex MedicalResearch Funding: Roche Antonello PintoHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Servier, IncyteConsulting or Advisory Role: Servier, Roche/Genentech, Merck, TakedaSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech Marco LadettoHonoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene, Celgene, Gentili, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Incyte, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Janssen, Regeneron, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, IncyteSpeakers' Bureau: IncyteResearch Funding: ADC Therapeutics (Inst), Janssen (Inst) Annalisa ChiarenzaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech Annalisa ArcariConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen-CilagTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen-Cilag, Takeda Massimo FedericoConsulting or Advisory Role: Takeda, Menarini, Erytech Pharma, MedivationTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda Pharmaceutical Taiwan, LTDNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: To prospectively validate the use of a simplified geriatric assessment (sGA) at diagnosis and to integrate it into a prognostic score for older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)., Methods: We conducted the prospective Elderly Project study on patients with DLBCL older than 64 years who underwent our Fondazione Italiana Linfomi original geriatric assessment (oGA) (age, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics, activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living) before treatment. Treatment choice was left to the physician's discretion. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02364050)., Results: We analyzed 1,163 patients (median age 76 years), with a 3-year OS of 65% (95% CI, 62 to 68). Because at multivariate analysis on oGA, age > 80 years retained an independent correlation with OS, we also developed a new, simplified version of the GA (sGA) that classifies patients as fit (55%), unfit (28%), and frail (18%) with significantly different 3-year OS of 75%, 58%, and 43%, respectively. The sGA groups, International Prognostic Index, and hemoglobin levels were independent predictors of OS and were used to build the Elderly Prognostic Index (EPI). Three risk groups were identified: low (23%), intermediate (48%), and high (29%), with an estimated 3-year OS of 87% (95% CI, 81 to 91), 69% (95% CI, 63 to 73), and 42% (95% CI, 36 to 49), respectively. The EPI was validated using an independent external series of 328 cases., Conclusion: The Elderly Project validates sGA as an objective tool to assess fitness status and defines the new EPI to predict OS of older patients with DLBCL., Competing Interests: Francesco MerliConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Takeda, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen, Gilead Sciences, EUSA Pharma, Celgene, Roche, Takeda Stefano LuminariConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Gilead Sciences, CelgeneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen, Celgene Alessandra TucciConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sandoz Annalisa ArcariConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen-CilagTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen-Cilag, Takeda Luigi RigacciConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Gilead Sciences, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, AbbVie, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, MenariniSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Gilead Sciences, CelgeneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda Eliza HawkesConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Gilead SciencesSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/GenentechResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Merck KGaA, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead Sciences, Mundipharma, Bristol-Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech Carlos S. ChiattoneConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Takeda, Janssen Federica CavalloHonoraria: Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead SciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen-Cilag, Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene Alberto FabbriHonoraria: Takeda, Servier/PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda Allison BarracloughTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Simone FerreroConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen-Cilag, EUSA Pharma, Clinigen GroupSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen-Cilag, Servier, EUSA Pharma, Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Servier, Sanofi, Janssen-Cilag, EUSA Pharma, Gentili Alice Di RoccoSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/GenentechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis Stefan HohausConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD, EusaPharma, Servier, GentiliniTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Luca NassiEmployment: SanofiStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sanofi, MolMedConsulting or Advisory Role: Takeda Gerardo MusuracaConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Servier Leonardo FlenghiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Janssen Michele SpinaEmployment: Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Gilead Sciences, IncyteNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose The FOLL05 trial compared R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone) with R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) and R-FM (rituximab plus fludarabine and mitoxantrone) regimens without rituximab maintenance as initial therapy for patients with advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL). A previous analysis with a median follow-up of 34 months showed a superior 3-year time to treatment failure, the primary study end point, with R-CHOP and R-FM versus R-CVP and showed R-CHOP to have a better risk-benefit ratio in terms of toxicity than R-FM. We report a post hoc analysis of this trial after a median follow-up of 7 years. Patients and Methods Of the 534 enrolled patients, 504 were evaluable. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up was 84 months (range, 1 to 119 months). Results The 8-year time to treatment failure and progression-free survival rates were 44% (95% CI, 39% to 49%) and 48% (95% CI, 43% to 53%), respectively. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival adjusted by FL International Prognostic Index 2 versus R-CVP was 0.73 for R-CHOP (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98; P = .037) and 0.67 for R-FM (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.91; P = .009). The 8-year overall survival (OS) rate was 83% (95% CI, 79% to 87%), with no significant differences among study arms. Overall, we observed a higher risk of dying as a result of causes unrelated to lymphoma progression with R-FM versus R-CVP. Conclusion With an 83% 8-year OS rate, long-term follow-up of the FOLL05 trial confirms the favorable outcome of patients with advanced-stage FL treated with immunochemotherapy. The three study arms had similar OS but different activity and toxicity profiles. Patients initially treated with R-CVP had a higher risk of lymphoma progression compared with those receiving R-CHOP, as well as a higher risk of requiring additional therapy.

Purpose: The randomized HD2000 trial compared six cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine), four escalated plus two standard cycles of BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone), and six cycles of COPP-EBV-CAD (cyclophosphamide, lomustine, vindesine, melphalan, prednisone, epidoxorubicin, vincristine, procarbazine, vinblastine, and bleomycin; CEC) in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. After a median follow-up of 42 months, patients who received BEACOPP were reported to have experienced better progression-free survival (PFS) but not better overall survival (OS) results than those receiving ABVD. We here report a post hoc analysis of this trial after a median follow-up of 10 years., Patients and Methods: Three hundred seven patients were enrolled, 295 of whom were evaluable. At the time of our analysis, the median follow-up for the entire group was 120 months (range, 4 to 169 months)., Results: The 10-year PFS results for the ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC arms were 69%, 75%, and 76%, respectively; corresponding OS results were 85%, 84%, and 86%. Overall, 13 second malignancies were reported: one in the ABVD arm and six each in the BEACOPP and CEC arms. The cumulative risk of developing second malignancies at 10 years was 0.9%, 6.6%, and 6% with ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC, respectively; the risk with either BEACOPP or CEC was significantly higher than that reported with ABVD (P = .027 and .02, respectively)., Conclusion: With these mature results, we confirm that patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma have similar OS results when treated with ABVD, BEACOPP, or CEC. However, with longer follow-up, we were not able to confirm the superiority of BEACOPP over ABVD in terms of PFS, mainly because of higher mortality rates resulting from second malignancies observed after treatment with BEACOPP and CEC., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Although rituximab (R) is commonly used for patients with advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) requiring treatment, the optimal associated chemotherapy regimen has yet to be clarified., Patients and Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial among adult patients with previously untreated stages II to IV FL to compare efficacy of eight doses of R associated with eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) or six cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or six cycles of fludarabine and mitoxantrone (FM). The principal end point of the study was time to treatment failure (TTF)., Results: There were 534 patients enrolled onto the study. Overall response rates were 88%, 93%, and 91% for R-CVP, R-CHOP, and R-FM, respectively (P=.247). After a median follow-up of 34 months, 3-year TTFs were 46%, 62%, and 59% for the respective treatment groups (R-CHOP v R-CVP, P=.003; R-FM v R-CVP, P=.006; R-FM v R-CHOP, P=.763). Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 52%, 68%, and 63% (overall P=.011), respectively, and 3-year overall survival was 95% for the whole series. R-FM resulted in higher rates of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (64%) compared with R-CVP (28%) and R-CHOP (50%; P< .001). Overall, 23 second malignancies were registered during follow-up: four in R-CVP, five in R-CHOP, and 14 in R-FM., Conclusion: In this study, R-CHOP and R-FM were superior to R-CVP in terms of 3-year TTF and PFS. In addition, R-CHOP had a better risk-benefit ratio compared with R-FM.

Purpose: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) registered in the F2-study and initially managed without treatment were analyzed to describe the presentation and outcome of a watch and wait (W&W) strategy in the rituximab era, to identify parameters for initiating treatment, and to evaluate whether initial W&W could have deleterious effects on treatment efficacy after progression or relapse., Patients and Methods: Between 2003 and 2005, 120 patients selected from the 1,093 treatment-naive patients with FL in the F2-study cohort were initially managed expectantly (W&W), and 107 patients were assessed. Most of these patients (80%) had disseminated disease with a low tumor burden according to Groupe d'Etudes des Lymphomes Folliculaires criteria., Results: After a median follow-up of 64 months, treatment was initiated in 54 patients (50%), with a median delay of 55 months for the entire cohort. In a univariate analysis, involvement of more than four nodal areas (hazard ratio [HR], 2.26) and serum albumin less than 3.5 g/dL (HR, 3.51) were predictive of a shorter time to lymphoma treatment initiation. In a multivariate analysis, only involvement of more than four nodal areas remained significant (HR, 2.32). The 4-year freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) rate of W&W patients (79%; 95% CI, 69% to 85%) was not inferior to that of a subgroup of 242 patients from the F2-study cohort with good prognosis characteristics who were initially treated with a rituximab-based regimen (69%; 95% CI, 61% to 76%; P = .103)., Conclusion: In the rituximab era, patients with FL in a selected prognostically favorable group can still be managed with W&W. W&W does not seem to have detrimental effects on FFTF and overall survival rates after treatment.

Purpose: The Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi HD9601 trial compared doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) versus doxorubicin, vinblastine, mechloretamine, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone (Stanford V [StV]) versus the combination of mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone (MOPP) with epidoxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine (EBV), lomustine, doxorubicin, and vindesine (CAD) (MOPP/EBV/CAD [MEC]) for the initial treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma to select which regimen would best support a reduced radiotherapy program (limited to two or fewer sites of either previous bulky or partially remitting disease). Superiority of ABVD and MEC to StV was demonstrated. We report analysis of long-term outcome and toxicity., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage IIB, III, or IV were randomly assigned among six cycles of ABVD, three cycles of StV, and six cycles of MEC; radiotherapy was administered in 76, 71, and 50 patients in the three arms, respectively., Results: Currently, the median follow-up is 86 months; in the prolonged observation period, eight additional failures, including two relapses, both in the StV arm, and six additional deaths in complete response were recorded. The 10-year overall survival rates were 87%, 80%, and 78% for ABVD, MEC, and StV, respectively (P = .4). The 10-year failure-free survival was 75%, 74%, and 49% in the ABVD, MEC, and StV arms, respectively (P < .001). The 10-year disease-free survival of patients treated or not with radiotherapy (RT) showed no difference for ABVD or MEC (85% v 80% and 93% v 68%), and a statistically significant difference for StV (76% v 33%; P = .004). No significant long-term toxicity was recorded., Conclusion: The long-term analysis confirmed ABVD and MEC superiority to StV. The use of RT after StV was established as mandatory. ABVD is still to be considered as the standard treatment with a good balance between efficacy and toxicity.

Purpose: The aim of the F2 study was to verify whether a prospective collection of data would enable the development of a more accurate prognostic index for follicular lymphoma (FL) by using parameters which could not be retrospectively studied before, and by choosing progression-free survival (PFS) as principal end point., Patients and Methods: Between January 2003 and May 2005, 1,093 patients with a newly diagnosed FL were registered and 942 individuals receiving antilymphoma therapy were selected as the study population. The variables we used for score definition were selected by means of bootstrap resampling procedures on 832 patients with complete data. Procedures to select the model that would minimize errors were also performed., Results: After a median follow-up of 38 months, 261 events for PFS evaluation were recorded. beta2-microglobulin higher than the upper limit of normal, longest diameter of the largest involved node longer than 6 cm, bone marrow involvement, hemoglobin level lower than 12 g/dL, and age older than 60 years were factors independently predictive for PFS. Using these variables, a prognostic model was devised to identify three groups at different levels of risk. The 3-year PFS rate was 91%, 69%, and 51% for patients at low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively (log-rank = 64.6; P < .00001). The 3-year survival rate was 99%, 96%, and 84% for patients at low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively (P < .0001)., Conclusion: Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index 2 is a simple prognostic index based on easily available clinical data and may represent a promising new tool for the identification of patients with FL at different risk in the era of immunochemotherapy.

Purpose: To compare doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) versus bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP) versus cyclophosphamide, lomustine, vindesine, melphalan, prednisone, epidoxirubicin, vincristine, procarbazine, vinblastine, and bleomycin (COPPEBVCAD; CEC) for advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL)., Patients and Methods: Three hundred seven patients with advanced HL (stage IIB, III, and IV) were randomly assigned to receive six courses of ABVD, four escalated plus two standard courses of BEACOPP, or six courses of CEC, plus a limited radiation therapy program., Results: After a median follow-up of 41 months, BEACOPP resulted in a superior progression-free survival (PFS), with a significant reduction in risk of progression (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50) compared with ABVD. No differences between BEACOPP and CEC, or CEC and ABVD were observed. The 5-year PFS was 68% (95% CI, 56% to 78%), 81% (95% CI, 70% to 89%), and 78% (95% CI, 68% to 86%), for ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC, respectively (BEACOPP v ABVD, P = .038; CEC v ABVD and BEACOPP v CEC, P = not significant [NS]). The 5-year overall survival was 84% (95% CI, 69% to 92%), 92% (95% CI, 84% to 96%), and 91% (95% CI, 81% to 96%) for ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC, respectively (P = NS). BEACOPP and CEC resulted in higher rates of grade 3-4 neutropenia than ABVD (P = .016); BEACOPP was associated with higher rates of severe infections than ABVD and CEC (P = .003)., Conclusion: As adopted in this study BEACOPP is associated with a significantly improved PFS compared with ABVD, with a predictable higher acute toxicity.