A multicenter real-world analysis of combined chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation versus chemotherapy alone in the management of early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma – the HODGKIN25 study
Abstract
Abstract Intro Early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is a highly curable malignancy. Traditionally, patients (pts) have been treated with combined modality therapy (CMT) using A(B)VD +/- consolidative radiotherapy (RT). Given potential toxicities of RT, trials have investigated excluding RT but have failed to show noninferiority. The optimal treatment (tx) paradigm remains controversial, and practice patterns vary across institutions. Methods HODGKIN25 is a retrospective, multi-institution cohort study across 8 academic centers in the U.S. including adult pts with Stage I/II cHL diagnosed between Jan 2012-2022. Primary endpoints include PFS and OS for CMT and chemo alone with subgroup analyses to identify groups that benefit from CMT. Pts whose final therapy differed from initial intention were excluded from subgroup analyses to avoid biases including progression on chemo before radiation or unplanned salvage radiation. Bulky/unfavorable disease were defined per NCCN. Results 810 pts met criteria for analysis. Median age was 33 yrs (18-84). Majority were female (436, 53.6%) and White race (644, 79.5%). Nodular sclerosing histology was most common (624, 77.0%), 13.0% (105) were Stage I, 78.5% (636) Stage II, and 8.5% (69) Stage IIBX; 27.0% (219) had bulky disease and 75.6% (612) unfavorable disease. Frontline, 88.3% (716) received A(B)VD with 63.0% (510) intended for chemo alone and 37.0% (300) for CMT. For actual tx, 65.7% (536) received chemo alone and 36% (191) of these pts received 4 cycles of A(B)VD. In 34.3% (280) pts who underwent CMT, 61.1% (171) were treated with £30Gy of RT; 30.7%(86) were treated with protons. 36.5% (80) with bulky disease received CMT. 14.7% (119) had interim (i) PET2+ disease (DS ) of whom 25% (30/119) received escalated chemo. Median follow up was 64.7 months (range 0.7-154.6). For the entire cohort, 2 and 5 yr OS were 99.0% (95% CI 0.98-0.99) and 97.8% (95% CI 0.96-0.99), and 2-and 5 yr PFS 85.4% (95% CI 0.83-0.88) and 82.8% (95% CI 0.80-0.85), respectively (resp). 713 pts were included in the subgroup analyses. There was no significant (sig) difference in OS (p=0.36) or PFS (p=0.16) between CMT vs chemo alone. Subgroups without sig differences in outcome based on tx modality included age, gender, histology, stage, extranodal disease, number of lymph node groups, B symptoms or favorable/unfavorable disease. In pts with DS ≤3 at the end of chemo, there was no difference in PFS or OS with CMT versus 6 cycles of A(B)VD alone. However, pts who received CMT with 2-4 cycles of A(B)VD had improved outcomes compared to 4 cycles of A(B)VD alone with 5 yr PFS of 90.6% (95% CI 0.85-0.94) and 86.8% (95%CI 0.81-0.91; p=0.05), resp. In pts with favorable disease, there was no difference in outcome between CMT with 2 cycles of A(B)VD vs ≥3 cycles of A(B)VD alone. In pts with unfavorable disease, there was no sig difference in outcome between CMT with 4 cycles A(B)VD vs 6 cycles of A(B)VD alone. There were higher rates of neuropathy with longer courses of chemo (p=0.04) and hypothyroidism with CMT (p<0.001). There were no differences in cardiac toxicity based on TTE. Pts with bulky disease had improved local disease control with CMT compared to chemo alone with 5 yr PFS 93.1% (95% CI 0.83-0.97) compared to 86.8% (95% CI 0.78-0.92; p=0.008). Hazard ratio (HR) for local progression at bulky site in the chemo alone group was 3.38 (95% CI 1.30-8.86; p=0.013). There was also a decreased risk of progression in pts with iPET+ disease who received CMT versus chemo alone with 5 yr PFS of 73.6% (95% CI 0.52-0.87) and 52.4% (95% CI 0.39-0.64; p=0.012), resp. HR for progression in pts who received chemo alone was 2.75 (95% CI 1.21-6.24; p=0.016). With RT, rates of pneumonitis and esophagitis were 3.2% (9) and 35% (98), resp. Late toxicities included any second malignancy 5.4% (44), myocardial infarction/stroke 2% (16), interstitial lung disease 1.3% (11), and endocrinopathy 9.2% (75). Pts who received CMT were more likely to develop hypothyroidism (p<0.001) and second malignancy (p=0.022), and less likely to develop pulmonary fibrosis (p=0.07). Conclusion Our large, multi-institution study indicates that while there is no sig difference in survival between CMT vs chemo alone in pts with limited stage cHL, CMT benefited pts who received <4 cycles of A(B)VD for unfavorable, iPET+ or bulky disease. This largest real-world analysis may provide additional guidance when selecting frontline therapy for cHL pts.
Article Details
Authors (31)
Nikita Dave
12University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, United States
Alexandra Dreyfuss
1Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Radiation Oncology, New York, United States
Alison Moskowitz
1memorial Sloan Kettering, NYC, United States
Joachim Yahalom
1memorial Sloan Kettering, NYC, United States
Maria Alfaro
3Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Philadelphia, United States
Nicole Birrer
4Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Division of Hematology and Hematologic Malignancies, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, United States
Boyu Hu
Rachel Koch
5Fox Chase Cancer Center, Department of Hematology/Oncology, Philadelphia, United States
Zachary Frosch
1Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States
Meryl Colton
6University of California San Francisco, Hematology, Blood & Marrow Transplant, and Cellular Therapy Program, Department of Hematology/Oncology, San Francisco, United States
Carrie Ho
6University of California San Francisco, Hematology, Blood & Marrow Transplant, and Cellular Therapy Program, Department of Hematology/Oncology, San Francisco, United States
Behzad Amoozgar
1John Theurer Cancer Center at Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, United States
Tatyana Feldman
4John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, United States
Abhiraj Saxena
8Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Division of Blood Disorders, New Brunswick, United States
Joanna Rhodes
21Rutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, United States
Ashley Dunton
1Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States
Nirav Shah
7MCW Cancer Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States
Amelia Mantione
1010Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, United States
Harper Hubbeling
11Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, United States
Michael Lariviere
11Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, United States
John Plastaras
13Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Stefan Barta
25University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
Jordan Carter
Elise Chong
17Lymphoma Program, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
Michael Cook
Daniel Landsburg
12University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, United States
Sunita Dwivedy Nasta
1Lymphoma Program, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
Stephen Schuster
3Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Philadelphia, United States
Colin Thomas
3Abramson Cancer Center, Hematology, Philadelphia, United States
Emily Tomasulo
1Laboratory of Lymphoid Malignancies, Hematology Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
Jakub Svoboda
Institute of Science and Technology Austria