Advani, Ranjana H.

Abstract We evaluated outcomes by management type for patients with stage IA nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) in the Global NLPHL One Working Group retrospective database of 2243 patients with stages I to IV disease diagnosed from 1992 to 2021 at 38 international institutions. A total of 779 patients had stage IA disease with median age of 35 years (range, 3-89) and median follow-up of 6.1 years. The 6-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 86.3% and 97.7%, respectively. Outcomes were analyzed for the 2 groups: complete resection and unresected disease. Patients with a complete resection and observation alone (n = 99) had a 6-year PFS of 65.5% vs 90.5% for those who received radiotherapy (RT) (n = 53). Patients with unresected disease (n = 627; 80.5%) had a 6-year PFS of 62.0% for rituximab alone (n = 31), 89.6% for RT alone (n = 325), 76.8% for ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) alone (n = 40), and 94.3% for ABVD plus RT (n = 130). A total of 127 patients relapsed (16.3%), of which 25 (19.7%) had transformation. Our analysis suggests the following: (1) RT improves the PFS in patients with completely resected disease; (2) rituximab or ABVD alone does not appear to achieve a durable response; and (3) chemotherapy was not observed to add additional PFS benefit when used in combination with RT. Thus, for stage IA NLPHL, RT alone is likely sufficient for definitive treatment.

Abstract The phase 1/2 Intergroup study E4412 investigated checkpoint blockade with nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) combined with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) in relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. A total of 147 patients aged ≥12 years were randomized between BV/Nivo and BV/Ipi/Nivo; 132 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. The complete response (CR) rate, was 64.7% (52.2, 75.9) for BV/Nivo and 70.3% (57.6, 81.1) for BV/Ipi/Nivo (1-sided P = .29). The median survival follow-up was 38.0 months (interquartile range, 32.6-48.1). Progression-free survival (PFS) did not significantly differ between the 2 arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78, confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.57; 1-sided P = .24). Treatment-related grade 3+ toxicities in the adult cohort, excluding rash, were similar between both arms (38.5% BV/Nivo and 39.3% BV/Ipi/Nivo); there was a higher frequency of grade 3 rash with BV/Ipi/Nivo (24.6%) compared with BV/Nivo (9.2%). We compared PFS by stem cell transplantation (SCT) status in a planned before hoc comparison; 58 patients received SCT, and 36-month PFS (from SCT) was >90% for both arms. Sixty-six patients were progression free after the first scan and did not undergo SCT. The 36-month PFS was 73.0% (54.5, 85.0) for BV/Ipi/Nivo compared with 45.8% (26.3, 63.4) for BV/Nivo (HR, 0.45; CI, 0.19-1.08; 1-sided P = .03). The study did not meet its primary end point of superior CR rate for the triplet, but it supports the use of checkpoint antibody-drug conjugate induction prior to auto SCT, and there is an intriguing signal of disease control for patients wishing to defer or avoid SCT with the triplet of BV/Ipi/Nivo. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01896999.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Hodgkin lymphoma provide expert, multidisciplinary recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma. The panel convenes annually to update recommendations based on a review of recently published clinical trials. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Hodgkin Lymphoma focuses on the management of newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma in adults aged 18 to 60 years.

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.

The treatment landscape of B-cell lymphomas has significantly evolved in recent years with approval of novel targeted therapies. CD3 × CD20 bispecific antibodies and CD19-directed monoclonal antibodies and antibody–drug conjugates have demonstrated efficacy in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL). Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor–based regimens are emerging as effective treatment options for patients with TP53-mutated classical mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Results from ongoing clinical trials suggest that the addition of CD3 × CD20 bispecific antibodies to chemoimmunotherapy improves outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of FL, MCL, and DLBCL.

Abstract Outcomes in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have steadily improved; however, additional therapies are needed for patients who relapse or do not respond to novel agents. Here, we report the efficacy and safety of camidanlumab tesirine (Cami), an anti-CD25 antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with relapsed/refractory cHL after brentuximab vedotin/programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor therapies from the phase 2 ADCT-301-201 study. Eligible patients were adults with cHL who had received ≥3 previous lines of systemic therapy (or ≥2 if ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant). Patients received 45 μg/kg Cami (IV, once every 3 weeks) in cycles 1 to 2, followed by 30 μg/kg IV once every 3 weeks for ≤1 year. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) per 2014 Lugano classification. Secondary end points included complete response rate (CRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In total, 117 patients were enrolled with a median age of 37.0 years (range, 19-87). The ORR was 70.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.9-78.2), with a CRR of 33.3% (95% CI, 24.9-42.6). The median PFS was 9.13 months (95% CI, 5.3-15.0); median OS was not reached. Thirty-three (28.2%) patients discontinued treatment because of treatment-emergent adverse events; the most common reasons were skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (n = 10 [8.5%] patients), infections and infestations (n = 5 [4.3%]), and nervous systems disorders (n = 5 [4.3%]). Guillain-Barré–type or polyradiculopathy-type events occurred in 8 (6.8%) patients. Cami was efficacious in this heavily pretreated population; however, the efficacy was overshadowed by substantial issues with the safety profile. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04052997.