Search

Background: To improve the long-term tumour control in early, unfavourable Hodgkin Lymphoma, the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) HD14 trial compared four cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) with an intensified chemotherapy regimen consisting of two cycles of escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (escalated BEACOPP) plus two cycles of ABVD. The final analysis of the trial showed a significant advantage in terms of freedom from treatment failure (difference 7·2% [95% CI 3·8-10·5] at 5 years) for patients who received two cycles of escalated BEACOPP and two cycles of ABVD. However, there was no difference in overall survival between the two groups. To evaluate long-term efficacy and toxicity of this strategy, we did a follow-up analysis., Methods: Patients aged 18-60 years with performance status of 2 or less and primary diagnosis of early, unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma (all histologies) were included in an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive four cycles of ABVD (ABVD group) or two cycles of escalated BEACOPP and two cycles of ABVD (2 + 2 group), both groups also received 30 Gy involved field radiotherapy. The ABVD dosing regimen was doxorubicin 25 mg/m 2 (days 1 and 15), bleomycin 10 mg/m 2 (days 1 and 15), vinblastine 6 mg/m 2 (days 1 and 15), and dacarbazine 375 mg/m 2 (days 1 and 15), repeated on day 29. The escalated BEACOPP dosing regimen was cyclophosphamide 1250 mg/m 2 (day 1), doxorubicin 35 mg/m 2 (day 1), etoposide 200 mg/m 2 (days 1-3), procarbazine 100 mg/m 2 (days 1-7), prednisone 40 mg/m 2 (days 1-14), vincristine 1·4 mg/m 2 (day 8; maximum 2 mg), and bleomycin 10 mg/m 2 (day 8), repeated on day 22. After closure of the ABVD group according to prespecified rules, patients were assigned to receive two cycles of escalated BEACOPP and two cycles of ABVD (non-randomised 2 + 2 group), which continued until the end of the predefined 5-year recruitment period. In this prespecified long-term follow-up analysis, we aimed to evaluate the secondary endpoints progression-free survival, overall survival, and long-term toxicity. To this end, we did a descriptive intention-to-treat analysis of all qualified HD14 patients and on the predefined subsets of randomised qualified HD14 patients and patients in the non-randomised 2 + 2 group. The trial was registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial database, 04761296., Findings: Between Jan 28, 2003, and Dec 29, 2009, 1686 patients were randomly assigned to the ABVD group (847 [50·2%] patients) and the 2 + 2 group (839 [49·8%] patients). 370 additional patients were recruited to the non-randomised 2 + 2 group. 1550 (92%) randomly assigned patients (median observation time 112 months [IQR 80-132]) and 339 (92%) patients in the non-randomised 2 + 2 group (median observation time 74 months [58-100]) were included in the qualified analysis set. 10-year overall survival in the randomly assigned patients was 94·1% (95% CI 92·0-95·7) for the ABVD group and 94·1% (91·8-95·7) for the 2 + 2 group (HR 1·0 [95% CI 0·6-1·5]; p=0·88). 8-year overall survival in the non-randomised 2 + 2 group was 95·1% (95% CI 91·6-97·2). 10-year progression-free survival in the randomly assigned patients was 85·6% (95% CI 82·6-88·1) for the ABVD group and 91·2% (88·4-93·3) for the 2 + 2 group (HR 0·5% [95% CI 0·4-0·7]; p=0·0001), accounting for a significant difference of 5·6% (95% CI 1·9-9·2) favouring the 2 + 2 group (p=0·0001). In the non-randomised 2 + 2 group, 8-year progression-free survival was 94·5% (95% CI 91·1-96·6). Standardised incidence ratios of second primary malignancies were similar between the ABVD group (2·3 [95% CI 1·6-3·1]) and the 2 + 2 group (2·5 [1·8-3·4]; Gray's p=0·80). Standardised incidence ratio of second primary malignancies was 3·1 (95% CI 1·7-5·0) in the non-randomised 2 + 2 group., Interpretation: This long-term analysis confirms superior tumour control in the 2 + 2 group compared with the ABVD group without translating into an overall survival difference. At longer follow-up, there is no difference regarding second primary malignancies between groups. In conclusion, the 2 + 2 regimen spares a significant number of patients from the burden of relapse and additional treatment without increased long-term toxicity., Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe eV and Swiss Federal Government., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Many important details of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after diagnosis and treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are still unknown because large longitudinal studies of HRQoL are rare. Therefore, we analyzed a systematically assessed, comprehensive range of HRQoL domains in patients with HL of all stages from diagnosis up to 5 years of survivorship., Patients and Methods: We included patients with HL age 18-60 years at diagnosis from the German Hodgkin Study Group trials HD13, HD14, and HD15. We analyzed HRQoL using all functional and symptom scales of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 including deviations from reference values. We estimated the effect of different disease, patient, and treatment characteristics using multiple regression and repeated measures analysis and computed correlations of HRQoL scores., Results: We analyzed 4,215 patients with any HRQoL assessment within 5 years after treatment. Higher tumor burden at diagnosis was associated with impaired baseline scores in many HRQoL domains. During survivorship, cognitive, emotional, role, and social functioning and fatigue, dyspnea, sleep, and financial problems were severely and persistently affected. From year 2 on, mean deviations from reference values ranged between 12 and 29 points, with 10 points being a commonly used margin of clinical relevance. In all 3 trials, HRQoL domains 2 and 5 years after therapy were significantly influenced by baseline scores and age but not by randomized treatments. Fatigue was most closely correlated with other symptoms and scales., Conclusion: Our results show a high and persistent amount of different HRQoL deficits in survivors of HL that are largely independent of the applied chemotherapies. Our analysis underscores the high, unmet medical need of these rather young survivors of HL regarding the psychosocial adverse effects of the cancer experience.

Importance: In early-stage unfavorable classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), conventional therapy induces high cure rates but also relevant acute and long-term toxic effects. Nivolumab is well tolerated and highly effective in relapsed/refractory cHL but has not been adequately studied in first-line treatment of early-stage cHL. The NIVAHL trial evaluated nivolumab in this setting with the aim to develop a highly effective yet tolerable systemic therapy to ultimately mitigate morbidity in patients who survive cHL., Objective: To evaluate efficacy of 2 experimental nivolumab-based first-line treatment strategies in patients with early-stage unfavorable cHL., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was an open-label, multicenter, phase 2 randomized clinical trial, open between April 2017 and October 2018. The trial took place at 35 trial centers across Germany, ranging from academic centers to private offices. Eligibility was defined by age 18 to 60 years, cHL confirmed by expert pathology review, early-stage unfavorable disease by German Hodgkin Study Group criteria (stage I to II with risk factor[s]), and absence of serious concomitant disease or organ dysfunction. Among 110 enrolled patients, 109 were eligible., Interventions: Systemic therapy, per random assignment (1:1) to either concomitant treatment with 4 cycles of nivolumab and doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (N-AVD) or sequential treatment with 4 doses of nivolumab, 2 cycles of N-AVD, and 2 cycles of AVD at standard doses, followed by 30-Gy involved-site radiotherapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Complete remission (CR) rate after study treatment, aiming at excluding a CR rate of 80% or lower via a 2-sided 95% CI for each treatment group., Results: Of 109 patients included in this study, 65 (59.6%) were women, and the median (range) age was 27 (18-60) years. At interim staging after 2 cycles of N-AVD or 4 doses of nivolumab monotherapy, 54 of 54 (100%) and 49 of 51 (96%) response-eligible patients, respectively, achieved an objective response, with CR in 47 (87%) and 26 (51%) patients, respectively. Among 101 patients eligible for primary end point analysis, 46 of 51 (90%; 95% CI, 79%-97%) patients receiving concomitant therapy and 47 of 50 (94%; 95% CI, 84%-99%) patients receiving sequential therapy achieved CR after study treatment. With a median follow-up of 13 months, 12-month progression-free survival was 100% for patients receiving concomitant treatment and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%) for patients receiving sequential therapy., Conclusions and Relevance: Both strategies combining nivolumab and AVD are feasible and resulted in high remission rates. Despite narrowly missing the efficacy benchmark in the concomitant group, the excellent 12-month progression-free survival and the unexpectedly high CR rate after 4 doses of nivolumab monotherapy warrant further evaluation of this approach in the first-line treatment of patients with early-stage cHL., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03004833.

Background: A high proportion of patients with relapsed classical Hodgkin's lymphoma achieve a response with the antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin, and the drug is well tolerated. We modified the escalated BEACOPP regimen (eBEACOPP; bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) and implemented brentuximab vedotin with the aim to reduce toxic effects while maintaining the protocol's efficacy., Methods: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 2 study at 20 study sites in Germany. Adult patients (aged 18-60 years) with newly diagnosed, advanced, classical Hodgkin's lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with six cycles of either BrECAPP (brentuximab vedotin 1·8 mg/kg on day 1, etoposide 200 mg/m 2 on days 2-4, doxorubicin 35 mg/m 2 on day 2, cyclophosphamide 1250 mg/m 2 on day 2, procarbazine 100 mg/m 2 on days 2-8, and prednisone 40 mg/m 2 on days 2-15) or BrECADD (brentuximab vedotin 1·8 mg/kg on day 1, etoposide 150 mg/m 2 on days 2-4, doxorubicin 40 mg/m 2 on day 2, cyclophosphamide 1250 mg/m 2 on day 2, dacarbazine 250 mg/m 2 on days 3-4, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 2-5). Randomisation was done centrally by stratified minimisation, with study site and sex as stratification factors. The co-primary endpoints were complete response to chemotherapy and complete remission at the end of treatment, which were assessed by intention to treat. Patients who were found not to meet inclusion criteria after randomisation or without restaging data after two cycles of study treatment were excluded from the primary endpoint analysis. All patients who started study treatment were assessable for safety. This report presents the final analysis at a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 13·2-21·5). The preplanned 2-year follow-up analysis is yet to be reported. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01569204., Findings: Between Oct 26, 2012, and May 15, 2014, 104 patients were enrolled to the study (52 were assigned to each study arm). Two patients dropped out before the start of study treatment because of acute infection (n=1) and withdrawal of consent (n=1) and one patient was excluded because of intermediate-stage disease (all were assigned BrECAPP). 42 (86%, 95% CI 73-94) of 49 patients assigned BrECAPP achieved a complete response after chemotherapy and 46 (94%, 95% CI 83-99) had complete remission as their final treatment outcome. In the BrECADD group, 46 (88%, 95% CI 77-96) of 52 patients achieved both a complete response after chemotherapy and complete remission as their final treatment outcome. 58 serious adverse events were reported, 32 events in 21 of 50 patients who received BrECAPP and 26 events in 18 of 52 patients who received BrECADD. The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were haematological adverse events (91 [89%] of 102 patients). Grade 3-4 organ toxic effects were reported in seven (17%) of 42 patients assigned BrECAPP and two (4%) of 46 allocated BrECADD. 16 (32%) of 50 patients assigned BrECAPP and 18 (35%) of 52 allocated BrECADD had grade 1-2 peripheral neuropathy, and one (2%) patient assigned BrECAPP developed grade 3 peripheral neuropathy; all but one case (allocated BrECAPP) resolved. No deaths were reported during the follow-up period., Interpretation: Both eBEACOPP variants met the co-primary efficacy endpoints. Particularly, the BrECADD regimen was associated with a more favourable toxicity profile and was, therefore, selected to challenge standard eBEACOPP for the treatment of advanced classical Hodgkin's lymphoma in the phase 3 HD21 study by the German Hodgkin Study Group (NCT02661503), which aims to further reduce treatment-related morbidity., Funding: Takeda Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Progression or relapse of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is common among older patients. However, prognosis and effects of second-line treatment are thus far unknown., Patients and Methods: We investigated second-line treatment and survival in older patients with progressive or relapsed HL. Patients treated within German Hodgkin Study Group first-line studies between 1993 and 2007 were screened for refractory disease or relapse (RR-HL). Patients with RR-HL age ≥ 60 years at first-line treatment were included in this analysis., Results: We identified 105 patients (median age, 66 years); 28%, 31%, and 41% had progressive disease, early relapse, or late relapse, respectively. Second-line treatment strategies included intensified salvage regimens (22%), conventional polychemotherapy and/or salvage-radiotherapy with curative intent (42%), and palliative approaches (31%). Median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 12 months; OS at 3 years was 31% (95% CI, 22% to 40%). A prognostic score with risk factors (RFs) of early relapse, clinical stage III/IV, and anemia identified patients with favorable and unfavorable prognosis (≤ one RF: 3-year OS, 59%; 95% CI, 44% to 74%; ≥ two RFs: 3-year OS, 9%; 95% CI, 1% to 18%). In low-risk patients, the impact of therapy on survival was significant in favor of the conventional polychemotherapy/salvage radiotherapy approach. In high-risk patients, OS was low overall and did not differ significantly among treatment strategies., Conclusion: OS in older patients with RR-HL can be predicted using a simple prognostic score. Poor outcome in high-risk patients cannot be overcome by any of the applied treatment strategies. Our results might help to guide treatment decisions and evaluate new compounds in these patients.

Myocardial salvage assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) holds promise as a surrogate endpoint in studies comparing different treatment strategies for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of salvaged myocardium measurements by CMRI. Twenty patients underwent CMRI on 2 consecutive days early after reperfused STEMI to assess the area at risk (AAR) on T2-weighted and final infarct size (IS) on delayed enhancement images. Myocardial salvage index (MSI) was calculated (AAR minus IS). Agreement between scans 1 and 2 for the AAR, IS and MSI were analyzed using Bland-Altman analyses. Inter- and intraobserver reliability were assessed. Paired t testing revealed a trend for a significant difference for MSI between scans 1 and 2 (scan 1: 43.8 ± 22.5; scan 2: 45.5 ± 22.0; P = 0.052). The average difference for AAR and IS between scan 1 and scan 2 was -0.5 (upper limit of agreement 5.4% of left ventricular [LV] volume; lower limit of agreement -6.4%LV) and 0.1%LV (upper limit of agreement 2.3%LV; lower limit of agreement -2.1%LV). The corresponding calculated MSI measurements showed a mean bias of -1.7 (upper limit of agreement 5.5; lower limit of agreement -8.9). Coefficients of repeatability for interobserver variability were 3.6%LV for AAR, 2.4%LV for IS and 5.4 for MSI. Likewise, for intraobserver variability, coefficients of repeatability were 5.0%LV (AAR), 2.4%LV (IS) and 4.8 (MSI). Assessment of myocardial salvage by CMRI shows acceptable reliability. Further validation studies and trials showing the prognostic value of myocardial salvage by CMRI are needed before routine implementation as a surrogate endpoint in STEMI trials.