Search

Background: Targeted therapies and checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) have shown efficacy for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the relapsed and refractory (R/R) setting, but once discontinued owing to progression or side effects, it is unclear how successful further therapies will be. Moreover, there are no data on optimal sequencing of these treatments with standard therapies and other novel agents. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis, we investigated whether exposure to CBT could sensitize HL to subsequent therapy. Materials and Methods: Seventeen centers across the U.S. and Canada retrospectively queried medical records for eligible patients. The primary aim was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) to post‐CBT treatment using the Lugano criteria. Secondary aims included progression‐free survival (PFS), duration of response, and overall survival (OS). Results: Eighty‐one patients were included. Seventy‐two percent had stage III–IV disease, and the population was heavily pretreated with a median of four therapies before CBT. Most patients (65%) discontinued CBT owing to progression. The ORR to post‐CBT therapy was 62%, with a median PFS of 6.3 months and median OS of 21 months. Post‐CBT treatment regimens consisted of chemotherapy (44%), targeted agents (19%), immunotherapy (15%), transplant conditioning (14%), chemotherapy/targeted combination (7%), and clinical trials (1%). No significant difference in OS was found when stratified by post‐CBT regimen. Conclusion: In a heavily pretreated R/R HL population, CBT may sensitize patients to subsequent treatment, even after progression on CBT. Post‐CBT regimen category did not impact OS. This may be a novel treatment strategy, which warrants further investigation in prospective clinical trials. Implications for Practice: Novel, life‐prolonging treatment strategies in relapsed and refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are greatly desired. The results of this multicenter analysis concur with a smaller, earlier report that checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) use in R/R HL may sensitize patients to their subsequent treatment. This approach may potentially enhance therapeutic options or to bridge patients to transplant. Prospective data are warranted prior to practice implementation. As more work is done in this area, we may also be able to optimize sequencing of CBT and novel agents in the treatment paradigm to minimize treatment‐related toxicity and thus improve patient quality of life. This study investigated the outcome of checkpoint blockade therapy on subsequent treatment for patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma in a large, multicenter, retrospective analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate safety and efficacy outcomes for subjects on the ECHELON-1 study treated in North America (NA)., Patients and Methods: ECHELON-1 is a global, open-label, randomized phase III study comparing doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine in combination with brentuximab vedotin (A+AVD) versus ABVD (AVD + bleomycin) as first-line therapy in subjects with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL; NCT01712490). Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD or ABVD intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles., Results: The NA subgroup consisted of 497 subjects in the A+AVD ( n = 250) and ABVD ( n = 247) arms. Similar to the primary analysis based on the intent-to-treat population, the primary endpoint [modified progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review] demonstrated an improvement among subjects who received A+AVD compared with ABVD (HR = 0.60; P = 0.012). For PFS, the risk of progression or death was also reduced (HR = 0.50; P = 0.002). Subsequent anticancer therapies were lower in the A+AVD arm. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) were more common, but there were fewer study discontinuations due to AEs in the A+AVD arm as compared with ABVD. Noted differences between arms included higher rates of febrile neutropenia (20% vs. 9%) and peripheral neuropathy (80% vs. 56%), but lower rates of pulmonary toxicity (3% vs. 10%) in subjects treated with A+AVD versus ABVD., Conclusions: The efficacy benefit and manageable toxicity profile observed in the NA subgroup of ECHELON-1 support A+AVD as a frontline treatment option for patients with stage III or IV cHL., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)