Evens, Andrew M.

We present a subset analysis on the adolescent cohort of the S1826 randomized phase three trial, comparing nivolumab, doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (N-AVD) to brentuximab vedotin-AVD (BV-AVD) in newly diagnosed advanced-stage (AS, stages III and IV) classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Among 994 patients enrolled, 24% (n = 240) were age 12-17 years. The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in the N-AVD group (93% [95% CI, 87 to 96]) compared with the BV-AVD group (82% [95% CI, 73 to 88]; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.80]). One N-AVD and two BV-AVD patients received protocol-specified residual site radiotherapy (RT). Rates of febrile neutropenia and sepsis were low in both groups. Severe immune-related adverse events were infrequent, although thyroid dysfunction was seen in 7% with N-AVD. Sensory neuropathy (grade ≥2) was more frequent with BV-AVD (14% v 7%) by clinician report. Although premature discontinuation of therapy was reported in 12 N-AVD patients and four BV-AVD patients, no PFS events were noted in the N-AVD group. Patient-reported outcomes indicated less toxicity with N-AVD. N-AVD demonstrated high 3-year PFS in adolescents with AS cHL, with minimal RT use. S1826 exemplifies the benefits of harmonized clinical trial protocols, resulting in timely access to novel agents for adolescents.

Abstract Background: Despite recent therapeutic advances in AS cHL, PET-adaptive chemotherapy-based regimens remain a first-line treatment option, especially for patients (pts) without access to novel agents. Most PET-adaptive regiments start with either 2 cycles of escBEACOPP (escBEACOPP2) or ABVD (ABVD2) prior to interim PET assessment (iPET), followed by treatment de-escalation or intensification by iPET result. There have been no direct comparisons of escBEACOPP2 vs ABVD2 PET-adaptive regimens. Additionally, the AS-Hodgkin Lymphoma International Prognostication Index (A-HIPI) score (Rodday JCO 2023) has not been fully explored in escBEACOPP2 regimens. Therefore, we utilized multiple analytic approaches to compare outcomes of PET-adaptive escBEACOPP2 and ABVD2 regimens, while adjusting for and assessing the effect of the baseline A-HIPI score. Methods: Through the global HoLISTIC Consortium (www.hodgkinconsortium.com), we obtained individual patient data from 4 AS clinical trials of newly diagnosed cHL pts treated with PET-adaptive escBEACOPP2 (AHL2011) or ABVD2 (SWOG0816, RATHL, HD0607) regimens. Pts were restricted to age 18 to 65 years (y), stage IIB-IV, and PET-adapted treatment arms. Positive iPET was based on Deauville score >3. Treatment effects of escBEACOPP2 vs ABVD2 (reference) on 5y progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were first evaluated using Cox models. Importantly, baseline disease risk was adjusted for using the 5y PFS or OS A-HIPI score (including stage, sex, age, bulk, lymphocyte count, albumin, white blood cell count), where higher scores indicate higher predicted risk (scale 1-100). The A-HIPI was modeled per 1 standard deviation (SD) increase. Our multistate model (MSM) comprised 4 health states: diagnosis, sustained remission at 1yr, treatment failure, and death from any cause. Pts all started in the diagnosis state and transitioned to other states without return to prior states. We assessed the impact of treatment on transitions (except binary sustained remission at 1y) that involved ≥5 pts per treatment group, adjusting for A-HIPI for all transitions. All effects are reported as adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: 2,381 AS cHL pts were included (n=372 for escBEACOPP2, n=2009 for ABVD2). For escBEACOPP2 and ABVD2 groups (median follow-up 60 and 56 months), respectively, the mean baseline A-HIPI scores (i.e., predicted 5y PFS event rate) were 25.1 (SD=6.3) and 22.9 (SD=6.5), the rates of positive iPET were 11.3% and 17.0%, 5y PFS was 87.0% and 79.5%, and 5y OS was 96.3% and 94.6%. In Cox models, escBEACOPP2 was associated with significantly improved PFS compared to ABVD2 (aHR=0.54, 95% CI=0.39-0.73); the aHR for OS was 0.67 (95% CI=0.37-1.19). Notably, higher risk A-HIPI score was associated with significantly worse PFS (aHR=1.42, 95% CI=1.31-1.54) and OS (aHR=1.60, 95% CI=1.47-1.76), independent of treatment. In the MSM, the effect of escBEACOPP2 compared to ABVD2 regimens was modeled in 3 transitions with adjustment for A-HIPI score: those treated with escBEACOPP2 had lower likelihood of treatment failure with (aHR=0.38, 95% CI=0.22-0.66) or without (aHR=0.61, 95% CI=0.40-0.92) sustained remission at 1y; the aHR for treatment failure to death was 0.55 (95% CI=0.25-1.22). Higher risk baseline A-HIPI score was associated with higher likelihood of treatment failure and death without sustained remission at 1y (aHR=1.43, 95% CI=1.28-1.61 and aHR=2.50, 95% CI=1.80-3.49, respectively). Furthermore, higher risk baseline A-HIPI score was associated with higher likelihood of treatment failure after achieving sustained remission at 1y (aHR=1.29, 95% CI=1.12-1.48) as well as death after treatment failure (aHR=1.54, 95% CI=1.27-1.86). Conclusions: Comparing newly diagnosed adult AS cHL PET-adaptive regimens with adjustment for baseline A-HIPI score, we found pts treated with escBEACOPP2 on AHL2011 had improved PFS versus pooled pt data from 3 ABVD2 trials. Using MSM, we further demonstrated that escBEACOPP2 was associated with a lower likelihood of treatment failure with or without achieving sustained remission at 1yr. In addition, baseline A-HIPI score was associated with PFS and OS, which was independent of treatment. Finally, higher baseline A-HIPI scores maintained prognostic impact throughout the disease course, including increased risk of treatment failure for pts in remission at 1yr and death after treatment failure.

Abstract Background: Although progression-free survival (PFS) in early-stage (ES) classic Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) is high, there remains a subset of patients (pts) at higher risk of worse outcomes, particularly in those with unfavorable risk disease. Leveraging pt-level data from within the HoLISTIC (Hodgkin Lymphoma International STudy for Individual Care) Consortium, the E-HIPI was developed in clinical trial pts and validated in real-world registry pts to predict 2-year (y) PFS (Rodday. NEJM Evidence 2025). Continuous, objective, and readily measurable pre-treatment variables were considered, with sex, maximum tumor diameter, albumin, and hemoglobin included as significant predictors. Using the E-HIPI, interactive calculators for pt risk, comparison, and stratification were created (https://rtools.mayo.edu/holistic_ehipi/). Although the E-HIPI was developed and validated in both unfavorable and favorable ES cHL pts, the clinical predictors are primarily markers of unfavorable disease. In the development and initial validation cohorts, 2y PFS was 93.7% and 90.3%, respectively, the C-statistic was 0.63 in both cohorts, calibration was strong with slight underprediction of events in the validation cohort, and the E-HIPI outperformed the historic binary classification of patients as favorable or unfavorable using EORTC criteria. However, since pts in the original E-HIPI development and validation were primarily treated with ABVD chemotherapy protocols, additional validation is needed, particularly among pts with unfavorable ES cHL who were treated initially with more intensive chemotherapeutic platforms (e.g., BEACOPP-based). Thus, we conducted an external validation of the E-HIPI in pts treated on recent unfavorable ES cHL GHSG trials. Methods: The validation cohort included 2367 adults (ages 18 to 60y) with newly-diagnosed unfavorable cHL from randomized phase 3 trials conducted by the GHSG (HD14 von Tresckow. JCO 2012; and HD17 Borchmann. Lancet 2021). We calculated the predicted probability of 2y PFS events based on the E-HIPI model equation (scale 1-100%). Model performance was assessed using discrimination and calibration. Discrimination, which is the model's ability to separate high and low risk pts, was assessed using Harrell's C-statistic. Calibration, which is the model's ability to accurately predict absolute risk, was assessed by comparing observed and predicted probabilities of 2y PFS events within quintiles of predicted probabilities and estimating calibration-in-the-large (predicted minus observed event rate) and the calibration slope. Results: For pts treated on unfavorable GHSG trials, mean age was 33y, 95% had stage II disease, mean baseline E-HIPI score (i.e., predicted 2y PFS event rate) was 6.0% (SD=2.3%), and the observed 2y PFS rate was 96.2% (95%CI: 95.4-97.0%). The C-statistic was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.59-0.70), calibration-in-the-large was 0.02, and the calibration slope was 1.08 (95% CI: 0.52, 1.64). Within the lowest risk E-HIPI quintile, the observed 2y PFS event rate was 1.6%, compared with 6.1% in the highest risk quintile. Conclusions: In external validation of the recently published E-HIPI in pts with cHL treated on unfavorable GHSG trials using more intensive BEACOPP-based protocols, discrimination was similar to the original development and validation cohorts. Collectively, the E-HIPI is a treatment-agnostic prediction tool across varied treatment regimens for unfavorable ES cHL pts. Better 2y PFS in the GHSG trials than in the E-HIPI development and initial validation cohorts may have contributed to mild misclassification, likely reflecting differences in treatment regimens. This may be resolved with recalibration or incorporating granular treatment variables into future models. Additional research is needed to understand E-HIPI performance in pts with favorable disease who have even lower event rates as well as to more fully predict individualized pt outcomes across varied chemotherapy platforms and radiation received for all ES cHL pts.

Abstract Background: Given a potential risk of extravasation with vesicants and irritants, central venous catheters (CVCs), such as port-a-cath or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), are commonly used for the administration of anthracycline-based chemotherapy. However, CVC placement can result in treatment delay, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), catheter malfunction, and added burdens (eg, financial, travel, etc), partly due to the need for regular flushing. Peripheral intravenous (PIV) access is often utilized in the academic setting with select frontline chemotherapy regimens. However, there is limited data reporting on the safety of PIV in this setting. This large, multicenter RWA evaluated the use and associated complications of PIV and CVC for administering CHOP- or ABVD-based chemotherapy in patients (pts) with lymphoma. Methods: We conducted a retrospective RWA across 8 U.S. centers among pts aged ≥18 years with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma who were consecutively treated with ABVD or CHOP-based anthracycline chemotherapy via PIV or CVC access between 2010-2024. Choice of catheter placement was at the discretion of the pt's treating physician. Detailed baseline and safety data were collected. The primary outcome was extravasation; secondary outcomes included infiltration, DVT, cellulitis, erythema, and pain. Standard definitions of extravasation and other complications were used (Jackson-Rose J. CJON 2017). Rates of complications were compared via Fischer exact testing. Results: A total of 1,414 pts were included in the analysis: 790 in each arm (ie, PIV vs CVC). Of these, 624 were unique to each group, while 166 pts received chemotherapy via both modalities (PIV and CVC during the treatment course). Overall, 78.9% of pts completed all treatment as planned via PIV. Median age was 63 years (IQR 45–75) in the PIV group and 61 years (IQR 40–73) in the CVC group. Male sex comprised 57% vs 51%, ECOG 0–1 performance status was 83% vs 76%, and advanced-stage disease (stage III/IV) was present in 51% vs 62%, respectively. Lymphoma subtypes were comparable: DLBCL/high-grade/B-cell NOS (54.5% vs 56.1%), Hodgkin lymphoma (27.2% vs 27.5%), T-cell lymphoma (12.4% vs 6.6%), and indolent/mantle cell lymphoma (5.6% vs 6.7%). Among those receiving chemotherapy via CVC, 78.5% were treated through a port-a-cath and 21.5% via PICC. CHOP-based and ABVD-based regimens were administered to 68% and 32% of PIV pts, and 69.6% and 30.4% of CVC pts, respectively. A total of 4,084 (PIV) vs 3,859 (CVC) treatment cycles were delivered, corresponding to 4,347 (PIV) vs 4,884 (CVC) anthracycline infusion days. There was 1 documented case of extravasation in the CVC group and 2 suspected cases in the PIV group (p=0.9); for PIV, this translates to a per pt risk of 0.3% (or 0.05% of infusion days). The two PIV cases involved elderly women with DLBCL receiving CHOP. Both developed localized symptoms post-infusion and were treated conservatively (DMSO/warm compresses or dexrazoxane/ice), with full symptom resolution within 1 week and 1 day, respectively. No tissue or vascular injury occurred. Additionally, there were no significant differences between the PIV and CVC groups in the rates of induration/swelling (1.8% vs 2.0%, p=0.85), phlebitis/cellulitis (2.4% vs 2.4%, p=0.9), venous thromboembolism (VTE; 1.4% vs 2.0%, p=0.32), or erythema (3.8% vs 5.1%, p=0.27). Pain or tenderness at the infusion site (8.5% vs 2.9%, p=0.001) and infiltration (1.4 vs 0.13%, p=0.006) were more frequent in the PIV group. Chronic vascular complications related to prior VTE was slightly lower in the PIV group (0.13% vs 0.9%, p=0.06), but not significant. Additional details from a propensity score-matched analysis will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: This is the largest known analysis to date evaluating the safety of PIV access for anthracycline-based chemotherapy in >1,500 lymphoma pts over a recent 15-year period, representing >9,000 total treatments with CHOP or ABVD. PIV access was found to be safe and associated with a low rate of serious complications. Moreover, extravasation was rare and there was not a significant difference observed between PIV and CVC use. While PIV use was associated with higher rates of local pain/tenderness and infiltration, the events were uncommon and self-limited. Despite the widespread default to CVC placement in many centers, these findings support the selective use of PIV in appropriate pts as elucidated here.