Search

Background: Intensified systemic chemotherapy has the highest primary cure rate for advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma but this comes with a cost of severe and potentially life long, persisting toxicities. With the new regimen of brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone (BrECADD), we aimed to improve the risk-to-benefit ratio of treatment of advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma guided by PET after two cycles., Methods: This randomised, multicentre, parallel, open-label, phase 3 trial was done in 233 trial sites across nine countries. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≤60 years) with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma (ie, Ann Arbor stage III/IV, stage II with B symptoms, and either one or both risk factors of large mediastinal mass and extranodal lesions). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to four or six cycles (21-day intervals) of escalated doses of etoposide (200 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1-3), doxorubicin (35 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1), and cyclophosphamide (1250 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1), and standard doses of bleomycin (10 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 8), vincristine (1·4 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 8), procarbazine (100 mg/m 2 orally on days 1-7), and prednisone (40 mg/m 2 orally on days 1-14; eBEACOPP) or BrECADD, guided by PET after two cycles. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Hierarchical coprimary objectives were to show (1) improved tolerability defined by treatment-related morbidity and (2) non-inferior efficacy defined by progression-free survival with an absolute non-inferiority margin of 6 percentage points of BrECADD compared with eBEACOPP. An additional test of superiority of progression-free survival was to be done if non-inferiority had been established. Analyses were done by intention to treat; the treatment-related morbidity assessment required documentation of at least one chemotherapy cycle. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02661503)., Findings: Between July 22, 2016, and Aug 27, 2020, 1500 patients were enrolled, of whom 749 were randomly assigned to BrECADD and 751 to eBEACOPP. 1482 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median age of patients was 31 years (IQR 24-42). 838 (56%) of 1482 patients were male and 644 (44%) were female. Most patients were White (1352 [91%] of 1482). Treatment-related morbidity was significantly lower with BrECADD (312 [42%] of 738 patients) than with eBEACOPP (430 [59%] of 732 patients; relative risk 0·72 [95% CI 0·65-0·80]; p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 48 months, BrECADD improved progression-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0·66 (0·45-0·97; p=0·035); 4-year progression-free survival estimates were 94·3% (95% CI 92·6-96·1) for BrECADD and 90·9% (88·7-93·1) for eBEACOPP. 4-year overall survival rates were 98·6% (97·7-99·5) and 98·2% (97·2-99·3), respectively., Interpretation: BrECADD guided by PET after two cycles is better tolerated and more effective than eBEACOPP in first-line treatment of adult patients with advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma., Funding: Takeda Oncology., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PB reports consulting fees from Takeda, BMS, Roche, Amgen, Novartis, Celgene, Miltenyi Biotech, and Gilead; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda, Novartis, BMS, Roche, MSD, Celgene, Miltenyi Biotech, Gilead, and AbbVie; and funding for scientific research from Takeda Oncology, MSD, and Novartis. JF reports funding and consulting fees from Takeda Oncology and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda Oncology and Roche Pharma. RG reports consulting fees from Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Merck, Gilead, Daiichi Sanko, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Celgene, Roche, Merck, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Sandoz, AbbVie, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Amgen, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, and Daiichi Sankyo; participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Celgene, Novartis, Roche, BMS, Takeda, AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi; and stock or stock options from Novo Nordisk and Lilly. MHe reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda. AH reports payment for speakers bureau, funding, and travel support from, and participation on an advisory board for Takeda. FK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events, and support for attending meetings or travel from Takeda. MHä reports consulting fees from Pfizer, Incyte, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi/Aventis, Sobi, Kite/Gilead, Janssen, and BMS and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Sobi, Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Falk Foundation, and BMS. UN reports consulting fees for the institution from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene (BMS), Takeda, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Incyte, BeiGene, Kyowa Kiin, Gileag, and Pierre Fabre; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript, writing or educational events for the institution from Celgene (BMS), Novartis, Takeda, and Gilead; support to the institution for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, Roche, Gilead, and Takeda; and participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Janssen-Cilag, Celgene (BMS), Takeda, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Incyte, BeiGene, Kyowa Kiin, Gileag, and Pierre Fabre. JM reports consulting fees from MSD. AZi reports payment for presentations from Novartis, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Incyte, and Roche and travel support from Oncopeptides, Roche, and Novartis. AF reports consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda. AV reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, BMS, and AbbVie; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, Kite/Gilead, BMS, and AbbVie; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Roche, BMS, AbbVie, and Kite/Gilead. SS reports travelling support from AbbVie and Jazz and reports support for attending meetings or travel from and having a leadership or fiduciary role in another board, society, committee or advocacy group (paid or unpaid) with Pfizer, Amgen, and Novartis. VV reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda and participation on an advisory board for Takeda and MSD. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Celgene, AbbVie, Sobi, BMS, and Takeda and support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, BeiGene, Sobi, Takeda, EUSA Pharma, Novartis, and Alexion. KT-G reports consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda. PK reports travel support from Roche Pharmaceuticals and Takeda. BvT reports institutional grants or contracts from Esteve, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Takeda; consulting fees from Allogene, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Cerus, Gilead Kite, Incyte, IQVIA, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Miltenyi, Novartis, Noscendo, Pentixapharm, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Qualworld, Roche, Sobi, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Gilead Kite, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Kite, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Takeda, and Novartis; payment from Takeda and Regeneron (INSIGHTFUL study); payment to institution from the Olympia 3 study; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Takeda and Regeneron. SB reports consulting fees from Galapagos; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events and consultation from Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from Takeda; having a leadership role in another board, society, committee, or advocacy group (paid or unpaid), and holding stock or stock options for Liqomics. KB reports funding and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda Oncology. MF reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Celgene, BMS, Takeda, and Janssen. AZo reports Takeda stocks and being an employee of Takeda Oncology. SK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events, payment for expert testimony, and support for attending meetings or travel from, and participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Takeda. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: State-of-the-art response assessment of central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL) by magnetic resonance imaging is challenging and an insufficient predictor of treatment outcomes. Accordingly, the development of novel risk stratification strategies in CNSL is a high unmet medical need. We applied ultrasensitive circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing to 146 plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from 67 patients, aiming to develop an entirely noninvasive dynamic risk model considering clinical and molecular features of CNSL. Our ultrasensitive method allowed for the detection of CNSL-derived mutations in plasma ctDNA with high concordance to CSF and tumor tissue. Undetectable plasma ctDNA at baseline was associated with favorable outcomes. We tracked tumor-specific mutations in plasma-derived ctDNA over time and developed a novel CNSL biomarker based on this information: peripheral residual disease (PRD). Persistence of PRD after treatment was highly predictive of relapse. Integrating established baseline clinical risk factors with assessment of radiographic response and PRD during treatment resulted in the development and independent validation of a novel tool for risk stratification: molecular prognostic index for CNSL (MOP-C). MOP-C proved to be highly predictive of outcomes in patients with CNSL (failure-free survival hazard ratio per risk group of 6.60; 95% confidence interval, 3.12-13.97; P < .0001) and is publicly available at www.mop-c.com. Our results highlight the role of ctDNA sequencing in CNSL. MOP-C has the potential to improve the current standard of clinical risk stratification and radiographic response assessment in patients with CNSL, ultimately paving the way toward individualized treatment., (© 2024 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

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., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

In this article, we broadly review the application of cfDNA analysis to the diagnosis and management of lymphoma. We introduce the advantages of cfDNA measurement over conventional tissue biopsy and describe how cfDNA may be utilized for both genotyping and detection of minimal residual disease. First, we discuss genotyping, beginning with differences in identifying mutations from the blood plasma vs. from circulating cells. We review the technical distinctions between PCR- and NGS-based assays and describe two important applications of NGS-based cfDNA tests, namely the identification of resistance mutations and classification of disease subtype. We discuss difficulties in genotyping diseases with low burden of tumor cells and the application of cfDNA assays in these contexts. Second, we describe the utility of ctDNA measurement in assessing MRD. We cover recent advances in the assessment of pre-treatment disease burden as a prognostic biomarker, detection of molecular response to therapy, and early detection of relapsing disease. Third, we explore select emerging areas of research in ctDNA technologies that show promise in boosting the performance of existing ctDNA-based assays. These include cell-free DNA fragment structure analysis or 'fragmentomics', epigenetic modifications, and novel circulating analytes such as tumor-educated platelets and extracellular vesicular DNA. We also discuss alternative analytes to blood plasma for tumor detection, such as urine, saliva, and stool. Finally, we present a case that highlights potential applications of ctDNA approaches to the management of patients with lymphoma, while also defining important prerequisite advances before this can be fully realized. We close with a look to the future of cfDNA applications, outlining one potential timeline and path forward towards routine clinical application., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) is a rare subtype of lymphoma that, like other Hodgkin lymphomas, has historically been treated aggressively. However, in most cases, NLPHL has an indolent course, which raises the question of to what extent these patients require aggressive upfront treatment. We describe the management and outcomes of consecutive NLPHL patients diagnosed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), with a focus on evaluating active surveillance. All patients aged 16 years or older diagnosed and followed at MSK between 1974 and 2016 were included. Treatment outcomes were compared between management with active surveillance and other strategies. We identified 163 consecutive patients who were treated with radiotherapy alone (46%), active surveillance (23%), chemotherapy (16%), combined modality (12%), or rituximab monotherapy (4%). Median follow-up was 69 months. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS), second PFS (PFS2), and overall survival (OS) estimates were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78-90), 97% (95% CI, 92-99), and 99% (95% CI, 95-100), respectively. Only 1 of 7 deaths was lymphoma related. Patients managed with active surveillance had slightly shorter PFS than those receiving any active treatment, with 5-year PFS of 77% (95% CI, 56-89) vs 87% (95% CI, 79-92; P = .017). This difference did not translate into better PFS2 or OS. Only 10 patients managed with active surveillance (27%) eventually required treatment, after a median of 61 months, and none died. NLPHL has an excellent prognosis. Within the limitations of a retrospective analysis, active surveillance is a viable initial management strategy for selected NLPHL patients., (© 2019 by The American Society of Hematology.)

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)., (© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.)