Search

Treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma is effective for about 85% of the patients. A gold-standard for the 15% of relapsing patients is still missing. High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown efficacy and safety for patients, but up to date no survival benefit revealed. After systematic literature search we identified three randomised controlled trials from 1663 total hits. Meta-analysis of two trials (157 patients) showed a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.86) for patients treated with HDCT and ASCT compared to conventional chemotherapy, but no difference in overall survival nor increased adverse events. The third trial (241 patients) showed an statistically significant increase in infections and 5% more treatment-related mortalities following sequential HDCT plus HDCT and ASCT compared to HDCT plus ASCT, without differences in the efficacy endpoints overall survival or progression-free survival., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This sixteenth biannual report of the Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group highlights recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of hemato-oncology, with special focus on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The report covers the publication period June 2012 to July 2013. Trials are selected regarding their methodology and implication for clinical practice. Studies were identified by electronic search of MEDLINE using a broad search filter that covers all topics in hemato-oncology combined with a highly sensitive search filter for randomized trials (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions). Four RCTs are presented in detail, followed by two further RCTs of high importance in a short version. The report is finalized with an overview of new and updated Cochrane Reviews., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Several treatment strategies are available for adults with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, but studies assessing two alternative standards of care-increased dose bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPPescalated), and doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD)-were not powered to test differences in overall survival. To guide treatment decisions in this population of patients, we did a systematic review and network meta-analysis to identify the best initial treatment strategy., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, and conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials published between January, 1980, and June, 2013, that assessed overall survival in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma given BEACOPPbaseline, BEACOPPescalated, BEACOPP variants, ABVD, cyclophosphamide (mechlorethamine), vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (C[M]OPP), hybrid or alternating chemotherapy regimens with ABVD as the backbone (eg, COPP/ABVD, MOPP/ABVD), or doxorubicin, vinblastine, mechlorethamine, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone combined with radiation therapy (the Stanford V regimen). We assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed their quality. We then pooled the data and used a Bayesian random-effects model to combine direct comparisons with indirect evidence. We also reconstructed individual patient survival data from published Kaplan-Meier curves and did standard random-effects Poisson regression. Results are reported relative to ABVD. The primary outcome was overall survival., Findings: We screened 2055 records and identified 75 papers covering 14 eligible trials that assessed 11 different regimens in 9993 patients, providing 59 651 patient-years of follow-up. 1189 patients died, and the median follow-up was 5·9 years (IQR 4·9-6·7). Included studies were of high methodological quality, and between-trial heterogeneity was negligible (τ(2)=0·01). Overall survival was highest in patients who received six cycles of BEACOPPescalated (HR 0·38, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 0·20-0·75). Compared with a 5 year survival of 88% for ABVD, the survival benefit for six cycles of BEACOPPescalated is 7% (95% CrI 3-10)-ie, a 5 year survival of 95%. Reconstructed individual survival data showed that, at 5 years, BEACOPPescalated has a 10% (95% CI 3-15) advantage over ABVD in overall survival., Interpretation: Six cycles of BEACOPPescalated significantly improves overall survival compared with ABVD and other regimens, and thus we recommend this treatment strategy as standard of care for patients with access to the appropriate supportive care., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This fifteenth biannual report of the Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group (CHMG) highlights recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of hemato-oncology, covering the publication period from October 2011 to May 2012. Implications for clinical practice and methodological aspects are the main principles for selecting trials for this report. Studies were identified by electronic search of MEDLINE using a broad search filter that covers all topics in hemato-oncology combined with a highly sensitive search filter for randomized trials (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions).

Background: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is one of the most common malignancies in young adults and has become curable for the majority of patients, even in advanced stage. After first-line therapy, 15% to 20% do not respond to treatment and relapse. For those patients, high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a frequently used therapy option., Objectives: To find the best available treatment with HDCT followed by ASCT for patients with relapsed or refractory HL after first-line treatment., Search Methods: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and relevant conference proceedings up to January 2013 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also contacted experts for unpublished data., Selection Criteria: We included RCTs comparing HDCT followed by ASCT versus conventional chemotherapy without ASCT, or versus additional sequential HDCT (SHDCT) followed by ASCT. We also included RCTs with different HDCT regimens before ASCT in patients with relapsed or primary refractory HL after any first-line therapy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors (MR, NS) independently selected relevant studies, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and we calculated risk ratios (RR) for the other outcomes. We presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CI).We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE methods., Main Results: Our search resulted in 1663 potentially relevant references, of which we included three trials with 14 publications, assessing 398 patients. Overall, we judged the quality of the trials as moderate. The trials were all reported as randomised controlled and open-label. We included two RCTs assessing the effect of HDCT followed by ASCT compared with conventional chemotherapy in a meta-analysis. The number of studies was very low, therefore, the quantification of heterogeneity was not reliable. We included one further RCT (one assessing additional SHDCT followed by ASCT versus HDCT followed by ASCT), which was not compatible with our meta-analysis. For this trial, we performed further analyses.Two trials showed a non-statistically significant trend that HDCT followed by ASCT compared to conventional chemotherapy increases OS (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.07; P value = 0.10, 157 patients, moderate quality of evidence). However, the increase in PFS was statistically significant for people treated with HDCT followed by ASCT (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.86; P value = 0.009, 157 patients, moderate quality of evidence). Adverse events were reported in one trial only and did not differ statistically significant between the treatment arms. We were not able to draw conclusions regarding treatment-related mortality (TRM) because of insufficient evidence (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.16 to 2.22; P value = 0.45, 157 patients, moderate quality of evidence).For the second comparison, SHDCT plus HDCT followed by ASCT versus HDCT followed by ASCT there was no difference between the treatment arms regarding OS (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.74; P value = 0.816, three-year OS: 80% SHDCT versus 87% HDCT, 241 patients), or PFS (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.30; P value = 0.505, 241 patients). Seven patients died in the SHDCT arm and one in the HDCT arm due to increased toxicity of the treatment. Adverse events were increased with SHDCT plus HDCT followed by ASCT after two cycles of dexamethasone plus high-dose cytarabine plus cisplatin (DHAP) (88% SHDCT versus 45% HDCT, 223 patients, P value < 0.00001). Overall, more statistically significant World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3/4 infections occurred with SHDCT (48% SHDCT versus 33% HDCT; P value = 0.002, 223 patients)., Authors' Conclusions: The currently available evidence suggests a PFS benefit for patients with relapsed or refractory HL after first-line therapy, who are treated with HDCT followed by ASCT compared to patients treated with conventional chemotherapy. In addition, data showes a positive trend regarding OS, but more trials are needed to detect a significant effect.Intensifying the HDCT regime before HDCT followed by ASCT did not show a difference as compared to HDCT followed by ASCT, but was associated with increased adverse events.

Background: With an incidence of 2 to 3 cases per 100 000 persons per year, Hodkgin's lymphoma (HL) is rare, but nonetheless one of the most common cancers in young adults. Improved treatment has made HL curable even in advanced stages, but controversy still surrounds a number of issues in patient care. Current research focuses on the avoidance of long-term adverse effects and secondary malignancies., Methods: We selectively searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and the Guideline International Network for publications about HL. Two experts independently screened the retrieved publications for pertinence and extracted data from potentially relevant meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies into evidence tables., Results: 32 key questions were answered with 160 recommendations on the basis of evidence from 43 RCTs, 21 meta-analyses, and 119 cohort studies. Patients in an early stage of HL should be treated with two cycles of ABVD followed by involved-field radiotherapy (IF-RT) at a dose of 20 Gy (5-year overall survival [OS]: 94%). Patients in an intermediate (early unfavorable) stage should be treated with two cycles of BEACOPP escalated followed by two cycles of ABVD and 30 Gy IF-RT (5-year OS: 97.2%). Patients in an advanced stage should be treated with six cycles of BEACOPP escalated, and the decision whether this should be followed by consolidating radiotherapy (30 Gy) should be based on the findings of positron-emission tomography (radiate in case of PET-positive residual tumor; 5-year OS: 95.3%). Depending on the treatment regimen, there may be adverse effects including infection, leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, secondary neoplasia, and fertility disorders., Conclusion: Most questions in the treatment of HL can now be answered on the basis of sufficient evidence from the literature. This holds in particular for the potential benefit to be gained from PET, follow-up care, and lifestyle recommendations for patients.

Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) accounts for 25% of all leukaemias and is the most common lymphoid malignancy in western countries. Standard treatments include mono- or polychemotherapies, usually combined with monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab or alemtuzumab. However, the impact of these agents remains unclear, as there are hints for increased risk of severe infections., Objectives: The objectives of this review are to provide an evidence-based answer regarding the clinical benefits and harms of monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies (such as rituximab, ofatumumab, GA101) compared to no further therapy or to other anti-leukaemic therapies in patients with CLL, irrespective of disease status., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 12, 2011), MEDLINE (from January 1990 to 4 January 2012), and EMBASE (from 1990 to 20 March 2009) as well as conference proceedings (American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Hematology Association and European Society of Medical Oncology) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs)., Selection Criteria: We included RCTs examining monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies compared to no further therapy or to anti-leukaemic therapy such as chemotherapy or monoclonal antibodies in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed CLL., Data Collection and Analysis: We used hazard ratios (HR) as effect measures for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment, and risk ratios (RR) for response rates, treatment-related mortality (TRM) and adverse events (AEs). Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials., Main Results: We screened a total of 1150 records. Seven RCTs involving 1763 patients were identified, but only five could be included in the two separate meta-analyses we performed. We judged the overall the quality of these trials as moderate to high. All trials were randomised and open-label studies. However, two trials were published as abstracts only, therefore we were unable to assess the potential risk of bias for these trials in detail.Three RCTs (N = 1421) assessed the efficacy of monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies (i.e. rituximab) plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. The meta-analyses showed a statistically significant OS (HR 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98, P = 0.03, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) was 12) and PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, P < 0.00001) advantage for patients receiving rituximab. In the rituximab-arm occurred more AEs, World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 (3 trials, N = 1398, RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23, P < 0.0001; the number needed to harm for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 9), but that did not lead to a statistically significant difference regarding TRM (3 trials, N = 1415, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.01, P = 0.52).Two trials (N = 177) evaluated rituximab versus alemtuzumab. Neither study reported OS or PFS. There was no statistically significant difference between arms regarding complete response rate (CRR) (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.58, P = 0.14) or TRM (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.51, P = 0.15). However, the CLL2007FMP trial was stopped early owing to an increase in mortality in the alemtuzumab arm. More serious AEs occurred in this arm (43% with alemtuzumab versus 22% with rituximab; P = 0.006).Two trials assessed different dosages or time schedules of monoclonal anti-CD20 antibodies. One trial (N = 104) evaluated two different rituximab schedules (concurrent arm: fludarabine plus rituximab (Flu-R) plus rituximab consolidation versus sequential arm: fludarabine alone plus rituximab consolidation). The comparison of the concurrent versus sequential regimen of rituximab showed a statistically significant difference of the CRR with 33% in the concurrent-arm and 15% in the sequential-arm (P = 0.04), that did not lead to statistically significant differences regarding OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.65, P = 0.30) or PFS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.15, P = 0.11). Furthermore results showed no differences in occurring AEs, except for neutropenia, which was more often observed in patients of the concurrent arm. The other trial (N = 61) investigated two different dosages (500 mg and 1000 mg) of ofatumumab in addition to FluC. The arm investigating ofatumumab did not assess OS and a median PFS had not been reached owing to the short median follow-up of eight months. It showed no statistically significant differences between arms regarding CRR (32% in the FCO500 arm versus 50% in the FCO1000 arm; P = 0.10) or AEs (anaemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia)., Authors' Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that patients receiving chemotherapy plus rituximab benefit in terms of OS as well as PFS compared to those with chemotherapy alone. Therefore, it supports the recommendation of rituximab in combination with FluC as an option for the first-line treatment as well as for the people with relapsed or refractory CLL. The available evidence regarding the other assessed comparisons was not sufficient to deduct final conclusions.