Advanced Hodgkin lymphoma in the East of England: a 10-year comparative analysis of outcomes for real-world patients treated with ABVD or escalated-BEACOPP, aged less than 60 years, compared with 5-year extended follow-up from the RATHL trial
Open Access
- 27 February 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Annals of Hematology
- Vol. 100 (4), 1049-1058
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-021-04460-9
Abstract
Treatment with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) or escalated(e)-BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisolone) remains the international standard of care for advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). We performed a retrospective, multicentre analysis of 221 non-trial (“real-world”) patients, aged 16–59 years, diagnosed with advanced-stage HL in the Anglia Cancer Network between 2004 and 2014, treated with ABVD or eBEACOPP, and compared outcomes with 1088 patients in the Response-Adjusted Therapy for Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma (RATHL) trial, aged 18–59 years, with median follow-up of 87.0 and 69.5 months, respectively. Real-world ABVD patients (n=177) had highly similar 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with RATHL (PFS 79.2% vs 81.4%; OS 92.9% vs 95.2%), despite interim positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT)-guided dose-escalation being predominantly restricted to trial patients. Real-world eBEACOPP patients (n=44) had superior PFS (95.5%) compared with real-world ABVD (HR 0.20, p=0.027) and RATHL (HR 0.21, p=0.015), and superior OS for higher-risk (international prognostic score ≥3 [IPS 3+]) patients compared with real-world IPS 3+ ABVD (100% vs 84.5%, p=0.045), but not IPS 3+ RATHL patients. Our data support a PFS, but not OS, advantage for patients with advanced-stage HL treated with eBEACOPP compared with ABVD and suggest higher-risk patients may benefit disproportionately from more intensive therapy. However, increased access to effective salvage therapies might minimise any OS benefit from reduced relapse rates after frontline therapy.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- PET-guided treatment in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HD18): final results of an open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial by the German Hodgkin Study GroupThe Lancet, 2017
- Survival differences between patients with Hodgkin lymphoma treated inside and outside clinical trials. A study based on the EORTC‐Netherlands Cancer Registry linked data with 20 years of follow‐upBritish Journal of Haematology, 2016
- Adapted Treatment Guided by Interim PET-CT Scan in Advanced Hodgkin’s LymphomaThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2016
- Eight Cycles of ABVD Versus Four Cycles of BEACOPPescalatedPlus Four Cycles of BEACOPPbaselinein Stage III to IV, International Prognostic Score ≥ 3, High-Risk Hodgkin Lymphoma: First Results of the Phase III EORTC 20012 Intergroup TrialJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2016
- ABVD (8 cycles) versus BEACOPP (4 escalated cycles ≥4 baseline): final results in stage III–IV low-risk Hodgkin lymphoma (IPS 0–2) of the LYSA H34 randomized trialAnnals of Oncology, 2014
- Hodgkin's lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-upAnnals of Oncology, 2014
- Guidelines for the first line management of classical Hodgkin lymphomaBritish Journal of Haematology, 2014
- Effect of initial treatment strategy on survival of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysisThe Lancet Oncology, 2013
- ABVD versus BEACOPP for Hodgkin's Lymphoma When High-Dose Salvage Is PlannedThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Escalated-Dose BEACOPP in the Treatment of Patients With Advanced-Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma: 10 Years of Follow-Up of the GHSG HD9 StudyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009