Nivolumab with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (NAVD) in older adults with classic Hodgkin lymphoma: Do S1826 results hold up in the real world?
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Older adults (OAs) with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have inferior survival compared with younger patients (pts). NAVD has been widely adopted in clinical practice for frontline (1L) treatment of OAs with advanced stage cHL based on the subset analysis of S1826 study (Rutherford et al, JCO 2025) showing a 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 93% and 1-year overall survival (OS) of 95% after NAVD (n = 50) which remained durable on longer-term follow up. Another phase 2 study (Torka et al, JCO 2025) showed that NAVD is a highly effective and well-tolerated 1L regimen in OAs with cHL (n=40) across a wide range of geriatric impairments. Adverse events (AEs) and efficacy have not been reported in OAs treated with NAVD outside of a clinical trial. Hence, we sought to evaluate safety profile and efficacy outcomes of OAs with cHL treated with 1L NAVD in a real-world setting (RWS). Methods This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with cHL treated with 1L NAVD between 2023 and 2025 at 20 US academic sites. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of pts ≥60 years were evaluated as a pre-planned subset analysis. The safety evaluable cohort received at least 1 cycle of NAVD and included pts who had not yet completed treatment. The efficacy evaluable cohort had completed 6 cycles of treatment including end of treatment (EOT) PET-CT and included pts who intended to complete treatment but died or discontinued due to progressive disease or AEs. The primary endpoint was EOT overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included EOT complete response rate (CRR), PFS and OS. PFS and OS were analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results Among 311 pts, 81 were OAs (26%). Median age of the OA cohort was 70 (range 60-88) yrs, 65% male, 84% Caucasian, 71% nodular sclerosis subtype, 58% stage 4 disease, 59% B symptoms, 14% bulky disease (>7.5 cm), 69% extranodal sites, 41% EBV positive, 54% hypoalbuminemia, 49% IPS ≥ 4 and10% had an autoimmune disease. G-CSF was given in 81% pts. All 81 pts were evaluable for safety; 74% experienced a grade 3+ (≥G3) AE, 54% had ≥G3 hematological AE, 48% had ≥G3 neutropenia, 17% had febrile neutropenia. Infection rate was 28% with 10% ≥G3, neuropathy rate was 23% with 4% ≥G3. One infusion reaction was noted. Treatment related hospitalizations rate was 23% with median duration of 7 (range 1-16) days. There were 24 immune related AEs (IrAE) (30%) of which 5 were ≥G3. Most common IrAE was hypothyroidism (n=5), followed by inflammatory arthritis (n=4), pneumonitis (n=2, ≥G3, n=1), hepatitis (n=2, both ≥G3), adrenal insufficiency (n=2, ≥G3, n=1), colitis (n=2), and rash (n=2). One patient each had autoimmune neutropenia, sarcoidosis of lung/skin and myocarditis (≥G3). Overall, 15% pts required steroids with resolution of IrAEs in 56% cases, 30% (n=7) pts required continued therapy (levothyroxine in 4 pts, steroids in 3 pts, medical tx for heart failure in 1 pt). Treatment was interrupted in 22%, reduced in 22%, and discontinued in 23% pts. Nivolumab was discontinued in 14% pts. Among all pts (n=81), 81% had an interim PET-CT after 2-4 cycles. The ORR and CR rate at interim PET-CT were 100% and 81%, respectively. In the efficacy evaluable pts (n=52; 24 still on therapy), the EOT ORR and CRR were 93.2% and 84% in OAs compared to 96.8% and 91.7% in pts <60yrs, respectively. At a median follow up of 10.2 mo (range 0.27-28.52), the 1-yr PFS was 90.6% (95% CI: 82.7%-99.3%) in OAs and 95.5% (95% CI: 91.6%- 99.6%) in pts <60 yrs (p=0.044). 1-yr OS was 97.5% (95% CI: 94.1-100%) and not evaluable in pts <60yrs (p=0.017). None of the baseline features were predictive of response, additional analysis to understand impact on AEs and survival is ongoing. Among the 5 pts with progression/relapse, 4 were primary refractory. 4 pts received 2nd line (2L) therapy.79 pts are alive at data cut off, 2 deaths occurred- 1 infection-related and other unknown; both after the 1st cycle. Conclusions In this largest RWS cohort of OAs treated with NAVD we showed comparable response rates, AEs and 1-year survival outcomes to those in the pivotal S1826 trial. Notably, rates of ≥G3 AEs including infections, neuropathy and IrAEs remained low and manageable. Although survival significantly improved with NAVD compared to historical data, outcomes of OAs remained inferior compared to pts <60 yrs. Our data reinforces the use of NAVD as the preferred 1L option for OAs with advanced stage cHL.
Article Details
Authors (41)
Pallawi Torka
1memorial Sloan Kettering, NYC, United States
Allison Bock
4Division of Hematology and Hematologic Malignancies, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, United States
Elena Nazarenko
2University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
Yizhe Xu
2University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
John Vaughn
1NYU Langone, New York, United States
Swetha Thiruvengadam
3Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, City of Hope, Duarte, United States
Ajay Major
Kanithra Sekaran
6North Western University, Chicago, United States
Daniel Reef
1University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Hematology, Chapel Hill, United States
Calvin Lee
14Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA
Gordon Smilnak
1University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, United States
Efrat Luttwak
1memorial Sloan Kettering, NYC, United States
Vrutti Patel
Harsh Shah
Andrew Ip
14Division of Oncology, John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ
Grace Baek
12University of Washington, Seattle, United States
Ritwick Mynam
13University of Wisconsin, Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, United States
Dahlia Sano
1Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
Drew Gerber
1Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Division of Hematology & Oncology, New York, United States
Ayo Falade
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Marisa Palmeri
17Rutgers Cancer Center of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
Rudy Mrad
UT Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, United States
Madiha Iqbal
John Sharp
17Division of Hematology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Timothy Voorhees
1The Ohio State University, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, United States
Praveen Ramakrishnan Geethakumari
14Division of Hematology and Oncology, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX
Joanna Rhodes
21Rutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, United States
Urshila Durani
1Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
Hua-Jay Cherng
16Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, United States
Yasmin Karimi
4University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
Priyanka Pophali
9University of Wisconsin, Carbone Cancer, Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, Madison, United States
Mengyang Di
5Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
Tatyana Feldman
4John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, United States
Jakub Svoboda
Institute of Science and Technology Austria
Krithika Shanmugasundaram
9University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
Alex Niu
21Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, United States
Natalie Grover
11Division of Hematology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Reem Karmali
2Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medicine, Chicago, United States
Alex Herrera
3Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, City of Hope, Duarte, United States
Catherine Diefenbach
4Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, United States
Narendranath Epperla
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States