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.)

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., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: We aim to summarize the current knowledge on the treatment of elderly Hodgkin lymphoma patients with a focus on evidence from clinical trials and novel drugs., Recent Findings: For elderly Hodgkin lymphoma patients above 60 years without precluding comorbidities a curative treatment approach is warranted. Early favorable stage patients should receive two cycles of multiagent chemotherapy followed by 20 Gy localized radiotherapy. Early unfavorable stage patients should receive four cycles of multiagent chemotherapy followed by 30 Gy localized radiotherapy. For advanced stage patients six cycles of multiagent chemotherapy can be recommended and should be followed by localized radiotherapy on residual disease manifestations. Relapsed or refractory patients should be treated in an individually tailored approach that considers both the patient's objectives and comorbidities. The antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin is a very effective option for elderly patients with a high response rate albeit limited durability. Anti-programed cell death protein 1 antibodies might also be effective in elderly Hodgkin lymphoma patients with a mechanism of action distinct from chemotherapy., Summary: In conclusion, the goal of treatment in newly diagnosed elderly Hodgkin lymphoma patients is curative whenever possible and prospective and retrospective evidence has shown that this is feasible for all disease stages with a variety of multiagent chemotherapy regimen. Relapsed and refractory elderly Hodgkin lymphoma patients can mostly only be treated with the goal of palliation. However, it remains to be seen if novel substances and new combination regimen are able to change that.

Purpose Combined-modality treatment is widely considered the standard of care in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and treatment intensity has been reduced over the last years. Long-term follow-up is important to judge both efficacy and safety of the different therapies used. Patients and Methods We analyzed updated follow-up data on 4,276 patients treated within the German Hodgkin Study Group trials HD7 and HD10 for early-stage favorable HL and HD8 and HD11 for early-stage unfavorable HL between 1993 and 2003. Results In HD7 (N = 627; median follow-up, 120 months), combined-modality treatment was superior to extended-field radiotherapy (RT), with 15-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 73% versus 52% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.6; P < .001), without differences in overall survival (OS). In HD10 (N = 1,190; median follow-up, 98 months), noninferiority of two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) plus 20 Gy involved-field (IF)-RT to more intensive four cycles of ABVD plus 30 Gy IF-RT was confirmed with 10-year PFS of 87% each (HR, 1.0; 95%, 0.6 to 1.5) and OS of 94% each (HR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.6), respectively. In both trials, no differences in second neoplasias were observed. In HD8 (N = 1,064; median follow-up, 153 months), noninferiority of involved-field RT to extended-field RT regarding PFS was confirmed (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.2). In HD11 (N = 1,395; median follow-up, 106 months), superiority of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone at baseline over ABVD was not observed. After BEACOPP baseline , 20 Gy IF-RT was noninferior to 30 Gy (10-year PFS, 84% v 84%; HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5). In contrast, PFS was inferior in ABVD-treated patients receiving 20 Gy instead of 30 Gy IF-RT (10-year PFS, 76% v 84%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.1). No differences in OS or second neoplasias were observed in in both trials. Conclusion Long-term follow-up data of the four randomized trials largely support the current risk-adapted therapeutic strategies in early-stage HL. Nevertheless, continued follow-up is necessary to assess the long-term safety of currently applied therapeutic strategies.

Purpose of Review: After presenting the current treatment recommendations for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma, we give an overview on recently published clinical trials in this setting. Furthermore, the potential influence of current trials on the treatment of early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma and integration of newly emerging drugs into treatment protocols will be discussed., Recent Findings: Trials attempting treatment de-escalation and omission of radiotherapy on the basis of early interim PET-scans have been disappointing so far, but results of some large trials employing this strategy are still awaited. In contrast, a more defensive strategy of starting treatment with less aggressive doxorubicine, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy and intensifying treatment in early interim PET-positive patients has shown encouraging results. New drugs such as brentuximab vedotin and immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown promising results in relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Clinical trials of brentuximab vedotin in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma have been initiated. Additionally, biomarker-based treatment de-escalation might be a possible route for future improvements., Summary: The challenge for future clinical research in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma is to continue to cure the majority of patients with first-line treatment while reducing long-term toxicity. New strategies to achieve that goal are currently being developed and will further refine treatment of early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma.

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.)