Hoppe, Richard T.

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are a heterogeneous group of lymphoproliferative disorders arising from mature T cells, accounting for about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas. PTCL-not otherwise specified is the most common subtype, followed by angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase–negative, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma. This discussion section focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of PTCLs as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for T-Cell Lymphomas.

Abstract The number of patients with primary cutaneous lymphoma (PCL) relative to other non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) is small and the number of subtypes large. Although clinical trial guidelines have been published for mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome, the most common type of PCL, none exist for the other PCLs. In addition, staging of the PCLs has been evolving based on new data on potential prognostic factors, diagnosis, and assessment methods of both skin and extracutaneous disease and a desire to align the latter with the Lugano guidelines for all NHLs. The International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas (ISCL), the United States Cutaneous LymphomaConsortium (USCLC), and the Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) now propose updated staging and guidelines for the study design, assessment, endpoints, and response criteria in clinical trials for all the PCLs in alignment with that of the Lugano guidelines. These recommendations provide standardized methodology that should facilitate planning and regulatory approval of new treatments for these lymphomas worldwide, encourage cooperative investigator-initiated trials, and help to assess the comparative efficacy of therapeutic agents tested across sites and studies.

Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) is a rare subtype of T-cell lymphoma associated with an aggressive clinical course and a worse prognosis. HSTCL develops in the setting of chronic immune suppression or immune dysregulation in up to 20% of cases and is most often characterized by spleen, liver, and bone marrow involvement. Diagnosis and management of HSTCL pose significant challenges given the rarity of the disease along with the absence of lymphadenopathy and poor outcome with conventional chemotherapy regimens. These Guidelines Insights focus on the diagnosis and treatment of HSTCL as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for T-Cell Lymphomas.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) provide recommendations for the management of adult patients with HL. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. Current management of classic HL involves initial treatment with chemotherapy alone or combined modality therapy followed by restaging with PET/CT to assess treatment response. Overall, the introduction of less toxic and more effective regimens has significantly advanced HL cure rates. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines focuses on the management of classic HL.

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common subtype of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), and Sézary syndrome (SS) is a rare erythrodermic and leukemic subtype of CTCL characterized by significant blood involvement. Although early-stage disease can be effectively treated predominantly with skin-directed therapies, systemic therapy is often necessary for the treatment of advanced-stage disease. Systemic therapy options have evolved in recent years with the approval of novel agents such as romidepsin, brentuximab vedotin, and mogamulizumab. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the diagnosis and management of MF and SS (with a focus on systemic therapy).

Abstract Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) is an uncommon histologic variant, and the optimal treatment of stage I-II NLPHL is undefined. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study including patients ≥16 years of age with stage I-II NLPHL diagnosed from 1995 through 2018 who underwent all forms of management, including radiotherapy (RT), combined modality therapy (CMT; RT+chemotherapy [CT]), CT, observation after excision, rituximab and RT, and single-agent rituximab. End points were progression-free survival (PFS), freedom from transformation, and overall survival (OS) without statistical comparison between management groups. We identified 559 patients with median age of 39 years: 72.3% were men, and 54.9% had stage I disease. Median follow-up was 5.5 years (interquartile range, 3.1-10.1). Five-year PFS and OS in the entire cohort were 87.1% and 98.3%, respectively. Primary management was RT alone (n = 257; 46.0%), CMT (n = 184; 32.9%), CT alone (n = 47; 8.4%), observation (n = 37; 6.6%), rituximab and RT (n = 19; 3.4%), and rituximab alone (n = 15; 2.7%). The 5-year PFS rates were 91.1% after RT, 90.5% after CMT, 77.8% after CT, 73.5% after observation, 80.8% after rituximab and RT, and 38.5% after rituximab alone. In the RT cohort, but not the CMT cohort, variant immunoarchitectural pattern and number of sites >2 were associated with worse PFS (P < .05). Overall, 21 patients (3.8%) developed large-cell transformation, with a significantly higher transformation rate in those with variant immunoarchitectural pattern (P = .049) and number of involved sites >2 (P = .0006). OS for patients with stage I-II NLPHL was excellent after all treatments.

Abstract Abstract 1603 Background: We have previously reported similar outcomes for patients with bulky stage I or II mediastinal HL treated with combined modality therapy either with ABVD + radiotherapy or the Stanford V regimen in the North American Intergroup trial E2496 (Advani et al, ASH 2010 abstract 416). In the current analysis, we compare the patterns of failure between the two groups. Methods: Patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL (maximum mediastinal mass width > 1/3 of intrathoracic diameter) were randomized to receive chemotherapy (CT) on either Arm A (ABVD x 6–8 cycles administered q 28 days) or Arm B (12 weeks of Stanford V administered weekly). Two-3 weeks after completion of chemotherapy all patients received modified involved field radiotherapy (RT) (36 Gy) delivered to the mediastinum, hila, and supraclavicular regions. Patients on Stanford V arm also received involved field RT to any other sites ≥ 5 cm at diagnosis. Patients were assessed 3, 6 and 12 months after completing RT with computed tomography scanning and then every 6 months for 5 years. The primary end points were failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS). Disease progression was defined as 'in-field', 'distant' or both relative to the radiation fields prescribed in the E2496 protocol. Distant sites of failure were further characterized as intra-thoracic, intra-abdominal or other (bone, bone marrow and axillae, if not previously irradiated). Results: Two hundred and sixty-seven patients were randomized: 136 on the ABVD arm and 131 on the Stanford V arm. Patient characteristics were well matched with no differences between two arms in overall response rates (ORR), FFS and OS. (Advani et al ASH 2010 abstract 416). At a median follow up of 5.5 years 40 patients have relapsed with no difference in ABVD (n=18, 13%) versus Stanford V (n=22, 17%) (p=0.49). Central review of RT fields available in 37/40 patients found major violations with under treatment of tumor noted in 7/37 (19%). Patterns of failure are shown in Table 1. There were no differences in patterns of relapse for the two study arms. In-field relapses occurred in <10% in both study arms. Conclusion: For patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL, combined modality therapy with either ABVD +RT or the Stanford V regimen results in excellent disease control. In-field relapse was uncommon. These results set a benchmark for assessing ongoing trials omitting RT in patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL. Future research efforts should focus on risk stratification to identify the small subset of patients who are likely to fail standard upfront therapy. US cooperative group efforts in this subset of patients are ongoing that use interim PET-CT imaging based risk-adapted strategies. Disclosures: Horning: Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 415 Background: The ability to cure patients (pts) with advanced Hodgkin's Lymphoma (HL) with combination chemotherapy (CC) (MOPP and variants, ABVD and variants) represented a major milestone in oncology research, and CC became a paradigm for other malignancies. Further, the rationale for combined modality therapy (CMT) (radiation (RT) and CC) in HL evolved based on the high frequency of relapse in initially involved sites. As response rates and survival improved, newer treatments such as the combined modality Stanford V regimen were developed to shorten the duration of chemotherapy, add RT to sites of disease and reduce toxicity while maintaining or improving the cure rate. Indeed, the Stanford V regimen was tested and validated in a Phase II co-operative group trial (E1492) (J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:972). In order to investigate this approach against “standard” therapy, we conducted a randomized Phase III Intergroup trial of ABVD vs. the Stanford V regimen for patients with locally extensive or advanced HL. Objectives: The trial was designed to detect a 33% reduction in the failure free survival (FFS) hazard rate with Stanford V compared with ABVD, which corresponds to a difference in five-year FFS of 64% vs. 74%. Method: Patients with locally extensive (defined as clinical Ann Arbor Stage I-IIA/B and bulky mediastinal disease (BMD) (mass > 1/3 maximum intrathoracic diameter on standing postero-anterior chest x-ray or >/−10 cm on computerized tomography) or advanced (Ann Arbor Stage III or IV) HL were randomized to receive either ABVD × 6–8 cycles (C) (51% had 6 C, 35% had 8 C, 14% had <6 C) + 36 Gy (only in pts with BMD) or Stanford V × 12 weeks (95% had 12 weeks) + 36 Gy (for sites >5cm or for macroscopic splenic disease). The log-rank test was used to compare FFS for all eligible patients stratified on extent of disease (locally extensive vs. advanced), and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7). An extended Cox model was also used to address non-proportional hazard between the two arms. Results: 854 pts enrolled from April, 1999 to June, 2006 and 812 were eligible for analysis. 404 pts were randomized to ABVD and 408 to Stanford V. Median age was 33 yrs in both arms (range 16–83). 53% were men and 47% women; 4% had Stage I, 31% had Stage II, 39% had Stage III and 25% had Stage IV disease by Ann Arbor criteria. 35% of pts on ABVD and 35% on Stanford V had BMD. Three % of pts had nodular lymphocyte predominant HL, 77% of pts had nodular sclerosis HL, 14% had mixed cell HL. Age, stage, pathology and risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7) were similar in both arms. In total, 65% were IPFP score 0–2 and 33% were 3–6. Response rate. There was no difference in response rates (RR) between the two arms (ABVD=72% CR+ CCR, 7.7% PR, 7.9% SD; Stanford V= 69 % CR +CCR, 7% PR and 10 % SD. 8% were not evaluable for response on ABVD and 9% on Stanford V. Toxicity was similar in both groups. The most frequent Grade 3 + 4 toxicity was neutropenia, and was similar between the 2 groups (76% Grade 3 + 4 in ABVD and 70% Grade 3+ 4 in Stanford V). Grade 5 toxicity was <1% in both groups. There was, however, more Grade 3 lymphopenia in Stanford V (78% vs. 42%, p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 +4 sensory neuropathy in Stanford V (10%) than in ABVD (3%) (p< 0.0001). A total of 26 second primary cancers developed, 12 after ABVD and 14 after Stanford V (p=NS). FFS and OS. For 812 eligible patients, with a median follow up of 5.25 years, 5-year FFS was 73% for ABVD and 71% for Stanford V (p=0.29 by log rank) (Figure left); 5-year OS was 88% for ABVD and 87% for Stanford V (p=0.87 by log-rank, HR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.44) (Figure right) indicating no significant difference in either FFS or OS between the 2 arms. Conclusion: In the largest Phase III intergroup trial of HL in North America, there was no significant difference in RR, FFS, OS, and 5-year toxicity when ABVD (+ RT for BMD) is compared with Stanford V (+RT for nodal sites >5 cm and macroscopic splenic disease). There was more Grade 3 lymphopenia (p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 + 4 sensory neuropathy (p< 0.0001) on Stanford V. Thus ABVD (plus RT for BMD) remains the standard of care because Stanford V did not meet the objective of 33% improvement in FFS. For some patients, Stanford V, when given as described with RT, remains an acceptable alternative. Disclosures: Friedberg: Genentech: Honoraria. Blum:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 416 Background: Standard therapy for locally extensive Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) defined as stage I/II with bulky mediastinal disease [mediastinal mass ratio (MMR) > than 1/3 of the chest diameter on standing postero-anterior chest x-ray or 10 cm on computerized tomography] is combined modality therapy (CMT). E2496 was a North American intergroup, randomized phase III study comparing ABVD versus the Stanford V regimen for patients with locally extensive and advanced stage HL. In this subgroup analysis we compare two CMT approaches, ABVD + radiotherapy (RT) and the Stanford V regimen, in patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL. Methods: Patients with stage I/II HL bulky mediastinal disease were randomized to receive chemotherapy (CT) on either Arm A (ABVD × 6–8 cycles administered q 28 days) or Arm B (12 weeks of Stanford V, administered weekly). Two-3 weeks after completion of chemotherapy, modified involved field RT was delivered at 36 Gy to the mediastinum to patients on ABVD as well as Stanford V. Patients on Stanford V also received involved field RT to any other sites >5 cm at diagnosis. The primary endpoint was failure free survival (FFS) defined as the time to either progression/relapse or death. The log-rank test was used to compare FFS and OS (overall survival) for all eligible patients. Results: Of the 812 eligible patients with advanced HL enrolled on the study 267 had locally advanced bulky mediastinal disease: 136 on ABVD and 131 on Stanford V. Patient characteristics between the two randomized groups were well matched with a median age of 30 years and 86% had stage II disease. On ABVD 61% of patients received 6 cycles, 29% 8 cycles of CT and 77% required some dose modification. In Stanford V 97% completed the assigned 12 weeks of CT and 76% required some dose modification. 82% received RT per protocol in ABVD versus 88% in Stanford V. The overall response (CR+PR) was 82% in ABVD and 86% in Stanford V. At a median follow-up of 5.47 years, there are 19 failures and 6 deaths in the ABVD group and 25 failures with 9 deaths in the Stanford V group. We failed to detect statistically significant differences between ABVD +RT and Stanford V for FFS (5y 85% versus 77% p=0.13, HR=1.56 95% CI (0.87, 2.88) and OS (5y 95% versus 92% p=0.31, HR=1.69 95% CI (0.60, 4.75). No difference in hematologic toxicity was observed between the two arms. Evaluation of pulmonary function and patterns of failure are pending. Conclusions: For stage I/II patients with bulky mediastinal disease, CMT with either ABVD +RT or the Stanford V regimen results in high cure rates and is highly effective. ABVD for 6–8 cycles plus 36 Gy RT remains the US standard of care. Longer follow up is required to assess RT related late effects. Future research efforts should focus on risk stratification to identify; a) the 15–20% of patients destined to relapse after standard therapy and evaluate treatment intensification strategies and b) the 80–85% of patients who are cured with standard therapy and determine whether a subset can achieve the same excellent outcomes with a reduction or elimination of radiation. Planned US cooperative group trials will address these questions, using ABVD as the chemotherapy backbone in conjunction with interim PET imaging for risk stratification. Disclosures: Blum: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment.

Abstract Background The international prognostic score (IPS) (Hasenclever et al., NEJM 1988) uses 7 factors (age> 45, male sex, hemoglobin<10.5, stage IV, leukocytosis > 15,000, and lymphopenia< 600) to predict a 5 year freedom from progression (FFP) of 42%-84% and overall survival (OS) of 56%-89% for patients with advanced HL. Constructed from a retrospective analysis of patients treated before 1992, the IPS continues to be the most commonly used risk stratification index for advanced HL. Recent studies suggest that the predictive range of the IPS has narrowed due to improved outcomes of patients treated with current therapy (Moccia et al. JCO 2012). In this report we prospectively evaluated the ability of the individual components of the IPS to predict outcome in patients enrolled on the US Intergroup trial E2496. Methods All seven IPS (IPS-7) variables were recorded for all patients at study entry. FFP was defined as the time from study entry to disease progression or relapse; deaths that occurred during remission that were not preceded by disease progression/relapse were censored. OS was defined as the time from study entry to death from any cause. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to construct survival curves. Univariate and multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed using Cox proportional-hazards models. We subsequently constructed an alternative prognostic score utilizing the factors which were significant on MVA (PS-3). Results From 1996-2006, 854 patients with advanced HL, were randomized to treatment with either ABVD or Stanford V, with no significant differences in outcome (Gordon et al, JCO 2013). While the IPS-7 remained prognostic it did not stratify the lowest risk patients (0-1 risk factor) or patients with 3-5 risk factors, as its predictive range was narrowed due to improved clinical outcomes (Fig 1a and 2a). Table 1 shows the univariate and multivariate analysis for IPS-7 and outcomes. In contrast to the original IPS-7, on MVA, only two factors, hemoglobin and stage were significant for FFP, and three factors for OS: hemoglobin, stage, and age. We then evaluated a new 3 factor score (PS-3) utilizing variables significant on the MVA. The PS-3 was significant for both FFP (p=0.0001) and OS (p<.0001) and clearly separated patients into 4 distinct risk groups with either: 0, 1, 2 or 3 risk factors. The five year FFP was 83%, 74%, 68%, and 63% and OS was 95%, 85%, 75%, and 52% for patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3 risk factors, respectively (Table 2, Fig 1b and 2b). Conclusion In E2496, for patients with advanced HL, the PS-3 may stratify patients more clearly compared to IPS-7 and provide a simpler model to assess risk. Studies comparing PS-3 with IPS-7, and are ongoing. The incorporation of novel biomarkers and biologic factors into PS-3, as well as validation with other data sets is warranted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.