Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate clinical staging is crucial for adequate risk-adapted treatment in Hodgkin lymphoma ( HL) to prevent patients from under- or over-treatment. Within the latest German Hodgkin Study Group trial generation, diagnostic findings such as histopathology, computerized tomography imaging and clinical risk factors were re-evaluated by expert panels. Here, we retrospectively analysed 5965 patients and identified 399 in who major discordant findings changed their first-line treatment allocation. Histopathology review did not confirm the initial diagnosis of HL in 87 patients. Treatment allocation was revised in 312 of the remaining 5878 patients: 176 were assigned to a higher and 128 to a lower risk group, respectively; the correct treatment group remained unclear in 8 patients. Cases of revised treatment allocation accounted for 9·8%, 6·0%, 0·8%, and 14·8% of patients initially assigned to the HD13, HD14, HD15 trials and stage IA lymphocyte-predominant HL project, respectively. Most revisions were due to wrong application of clinical stage (20·5% of 312 patients with revised treatment group), histological subtype (9·0%) or the risk factors ≥3 involved areas (46·8%) or large mediastinal mass (9·3%). In conclusion, centralized review by experienced experts changed risk-adapted first-line treatment in a relevant proportion of HL patients. Quality control measures clearly improve the accuracy of treatment and should be implemented in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accounting for 15% of all lymphomas, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a relatively rare disease but the most common malignancies among young adults. Over the last decades prognosis markedly improved with the refinement of evidence based therapies. Current riskadapted therapies usually consist of polychemotherapies such as ABVD or BEACOPPesc and up to 90% of all patients may be considered cured after adequate first-line treatment. Due to this favorable development recent research focused on reduction of therapeutic intensity and more individualized approaches. Prognosis is worse in relapsed or refractory HL (rrHL), where high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is associated with progression-free survival (PFS) of only 50%. Outcomes tend to be inferior in elderly patients or those ineligible for intensified therapies due to comorbidities. This review delineates the development of current standard approaches in first-line and rrHL treatment and summarizes key findings of recent large scale clinical trials. Innovative approaches including response-guided therapy or implementation of novel agents are covered in a separate article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]