Search

Purpose: Postdiagnosis exercise is associated with lower breast cancer (BC) mortality but its link with risk of recurrence is less clear. We investigated the impact and dose-response relationship of exercise and recurrence in patients with primary BC., Methods: Multicenter prospective cohort analysis among 10,359 patients with primary BC from 26 centers in France between 2012 and 2018 enrolled in the CANcer TOxicities study, with follow-up through October 2021. Exercise exposure was assessed using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire-16, quantified in standardized metabolic equivalent of task-hours per week (MET-h/wk). We examined the dose/exposure response of pretreatment exercise on distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) for all patients and stratified by clinical subtype and menopausal status using inverse probability treatment weighted multivariable Cox models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs)., Results: For the overall cohort, the relationship between exercise and DRFI was nonlinear: increasing exercise ≥ 5 MET-h/wk was associated with an inverse linear reduction in DRFI events up to approximately 25 MET-h/wk; increasing exercise over this threshold did not provide any additional DRFI benefit. Compared with <5 MET-h/wk, the adjusted HR for DRFI was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.00) for ≥ 5 MET-h/wk. Stratification by subtype revealed the hormone receptor-/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- (HR-/HER2-; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.92]) and HR-/HER2+ (HR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.96]) subtypes were preferentially responsive to exercise. The benefit of exercise was observed especially in the premenopausal population., Conclusion: Postdiagnosis/pretreatment exercise is associated with lower risk of DRFI events in a nonlinear fashion in primary BC; exercise has different impact on DRFI as a function of subtype and menopausal status.

Purpose: The OlympiA randomized phase III trial compared 1 year of olaparib (OL) or placebo (PL) as adjuvant therapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2 , high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy ([N]ACT), surgery, and radiotherapy. The patient-reported outcome primary hypothesis was that OL-treated patients may experience greater fatigue during treatment., Methods: Data were collected before random assignment, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary end point was fatigue, measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary end points, assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30 item, included nausea and vomiting (NV), diarrhea, and multiple functional domains. Scores were compared between treatment groups using mixed model for repeated measures. Two-sided P values <.05 were statistically significant for the primary end point. All secondary end points were descriptive., Results: One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight patients (NACT: 746, ACT: 792) contributed to the analysis. Fatigue severity was statistically significantly greater for OL versus PL, but not clinically meaningfully different by prespecified criteria (≥3 points) at 6 months (diff OL v PL: NACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .022; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.2]; P = .017) and 12 months (NACT: -1.6 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.3]; P = .017; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .025). There were no significant differences in fatigue severity between treatment groups at 18 and 24 months. NV severity was worse in patients treated with OL compared with PL at 6 months (NACT: 6.0 [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.0]; ACT: 5.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 7.2]) and 12 months (NACT: 6.4 [95% CI, 4.4 to 8.3]; ACT: 4.5 [95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1]). During treatment, there were some clinically meaningful differences between groups for other symptoms but not for function subscales or global health status., Conclusion: Treatment-emergent symptoms from OL were limited, generally resolving after treatment ended. OL- and PL-treated patients had similar functional scores, slowly improving during the 24 months after (N)ACT and there was no clinically meaningful persistence of fatigue severity in OL-treated patients.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The LYMA trial demonstrated the benefit of rituximab maintenance (RM) in first-line young patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. In this prolonged follow-up of 7.5 years (95% CI, 7.4 to 7.7) from inclusion, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the full population were not reached (NR) with a 7-year PFS of 55.5% (95% CI, 49.5 to 61) and OS of 69.5% (95% CI, 63.8 to 74.5). The EFS remained statistically superior in favor of RM (median NR v 5.8 years, P < .0001; HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.6] and 7-year estimate, 76.2% versus 46% for RM and observation, respectively). Similarly, RM prolonged PFS (estimated PFS at 7 years, 78.5% v 47.4% and HR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.56] for RM and observation, respectively, P < .0001). The 7-year OS estimate was 83.2% versus 72.2%, respectively ( P = .088, HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.37 to 1.08]). Cause of death was not significantly distinct between the two groups, with lymphoma being the leading cause with a very low rate of infection-related death. Overall, the PFS benefit of RM after autologous stem cell transplantation remains after 7-year follow-up, and RM was not associated with an increase in infection-related mortality, making this strategy a safe standard of care with long-term follow-up.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The phase III, double-blind KEYNOTE-826 trial of pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, showed statistically significant survival benefits with the addition of pembrolizumab for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (primary data cutoff: May 3, 2021). This article reports the protocol-specified final overall survival (OS) results tested in the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1, all-comer, and CPS ≥10 populations. At the final data cutoff (October 3, 2022), the median study follow-up duration was 39.1 months (range, 32.1-46.5 months). In the PD-L1 CPS ≥1 (N = 548), all-comer (N = 617), and CPS ≥10 (N = 317) populations, median OS with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy was 28.6 months versus 16.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.74]), 26.4 months versus 16.8 months (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77]), and 29.6 months versus 17.4 months (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78]), respectively. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 82.4% with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 75.4% with placebo-chemotherapy. These results show that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, continued to provide clinically meaningful improvements in OS for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. We previously reported the results of a randomized phase II study in patients with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma (age 18-60 years). Patients were treated with high-dose methotrexate-based induction chemotherapy followed by whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or high-dose chemotherapy (thiotepa-busulfan-cyclophosphamide) with autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). The median follow-up was 33 months. In this report, we provide long-term data (median follow-up, 8 years) regarding the outcomes and toxicities. Fifty-three and 44 patients received induction chemotherapy followed by WBRT or ASCT, respectively. Their 8-year event-free survival from random assignment was 67% and 39% in the ASCT and WBRT arms, respectively ( P = .03), with a significantly lower risk of relapse after ASCT (hazard ratio, 0.13; P < .001). One third of patients who relapsed after WBRT were alive after salvage treatment. Five and four patients died of ASCT and WBRT-related toxicities, respectively. The 8-year overall survival was 69% and 65% in the ASCT and WBRT arms, respectively (not significant). Balance (52% v 10%, P ≤ 0.001) and neurocognition (64% v 13%, P < .001) significantly deteriorated after WBRT compared with ASCT during the follow-up. This study shows that 40 Gy WBRT should be avoided in first-line treatment because of its neurotoxicity and suboptimal efficacy in reducing relapses while ASCT appears to be highly efficient in preventing relapses.

Purpose: We aimed to characterize long-term quality of life (QOL) trajectories among patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and to identify related patterns of health behaviors., Methods: Female stage I-III breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in CANTO (CANcer TOxicity; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01993498) were included. Trajectories of QOL (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 Summary Score) and associations with trajectory group membership were identified by iterative estimations of group-based trajectory models and multivariable multinomial logistic regression, respectively., Results: Four trajectory groups were identified (N = 4,131): excellent (51.7%), very good (31.7%), deteriorating (10.0%), and poor (6.6%) QOL. The deteriorating trajectory group reported fairly good baseline QOL (mean [95% CI], 78.3/100 [76.2 to 80.5]), which significantly worsened at year-1 (58.1/100 [56.4 to 59.9]) and never recovered to pretreatment values through year-4 (61.1/100 [59.0 to 63.3]) postdiagnosis. Healthy behaviors were associated with better performing trajectory groups. Obesity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] v lean, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.28 to 1.79]; P < .0001) and current smoking (aOR v never, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82]; P < .0001) at diagnosis were associated with membership to the deteriorating group, which was also characterized by a higher prevalence of patients with excess body weight and insufficient physical activity through year-4 and by frequent exposure to tobacco smoking during chemotherapy. Additional factors associated with membership to the deteriorating group included younger age (aOR, 1-year decrement 1.01 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.02]; P = .043), comorbidities (aOR v no, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.06 to 1.40]; P = .005), lower income (aOR v wealthier households, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.37]; P = .002), and endocrine therapy (aOR v no, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.30]; P = .047)., Conclusion: This latent-class analysis identified some patients with upfront poor QOL and a high-risk cluster with severe, persistent postchemotherapy QOL deterioration. Screening relevant patient-level characteristics may inform tailored interventions to mitigate the detrimental impact of chemotherapy and preserve QOL, including early addressal of behavioral concerns and provision of healthy lifestyle support programs.

Purpose: Fatigue is recognized as one of the most burdensome and long-lasting adverse effects of cancer and cancer treatment. We aimed to characterize long-term fatigue trajectories among breast cancer survivors., Methods: We performed a detailed longitudinal analysis of fatigue using a large ongoing national prospective clinical study (CANcer TOxicity, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01993498) of patients with stage I-III breast cancer treated from 2012 to 2015. Fatigue was assessed at diagnosis and year 1, 2, and 4 postdiagnosis. Baseline clinical, sociodemographic, behavioral, tumor-related, and treatment-related characteristics were available. Trajectories of fatigue and risk factors of trajectory-group membership were identified by iterative estimates of group-based trajectory models., Results: Three trajectory groups were identified for severe global fatigue (n = 4,173). Twenty-one percent of patients were in the high -risk group, having risk estimates of severe global fatigue of 94.8% (95% CI, 86.6 to 100.0) at diagnosis and 64.6% (95% CI, 59.2 to 70.1) at year 4; 19% of patients clustered in the deteriorating group with risk estimates of severe global fatigue of 13.8% (95% CI, 6.7 to 20.9) at diagnosis and 64.5% (95% CI, 57.3 to 71.8) at year 4; 60% were in the low -risk group with risk estimates of 3.6% (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.7) at diagnosis and 9.6% (95% CI, 7.5 to 11.7) at year 4. The distinct dimensions of fatigue clustered in different trajectory groups than those identified by severe global fatigue, being differentially affected by sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment-related factors., Conclusion: Our findings highlight the multidimensional nature of cancer-related fatigue and the complexity of its risk factors. This study helps to identify patients with increased risk of severe fatigue and to inform personalized interventions to ameliorate this problem., Competing Interests: Ines Vaz-LuisHonoraria: AstraZeneca (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Pfizer (Inst) Barbara PistilliConsulting or Advisory Role: Puma Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Myriad Genetics, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB JapanResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Merus (Inst), Daiichi-Sankyo (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Paul H. CottuHonoraria: Pfizer, Novartis (Inst), Roche, NanoString Technologies (Inst), LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, LillyResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer Florence LereboursConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Roche, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Pierre Fabre Sarah DauchyHonoraria: Servier, Novartis, MSD Oncology, BMS, NutriciaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier Suzette DelalogeConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Besins Healthcare (Inst), Rappta Therapeutics (Inst)Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Exact Sciences (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis (Inst) Nancy U. LinConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo, Denali Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Prelude Therapeutics, Voyager Therapeutics, Affinia Therapeutics, PfizerResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Merck (Inst), Zion (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties for chapter in Up-to-Date regarding management of breast cancer brain metastases, Royalties, Jones & Bartlett Patricia A. GanzLeadership: Intrinsic LifeSciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Xenon Pharma, Intrinsic LifeSciences, Silarus Therapeutics, Teva, Novartis, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott LaboratoriesConsulting or Advisory Role: InformedDNA, Vifor Pharma, Ambys Medicines, Global Blood Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Akebia Therapeutics, Protagonist Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sierra Oncology, Rockwell Medical Technologies Inc, Astellas Pharma, Gossamer Bio, American Regent, Disc Medicine, Blue Note Therapeutics, GrailResearch Funding: Blue Note Therapeutics (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Related to iron metabolism and the anemia of chronic disease, Up-to-Date royalties for section editor on survivorshipTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Intrinsic LifeSciences Ann H. PartridgePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I receive small royalty payments for coauthoring the breast cancer survivorship section of UpToDateOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/835197 Fabrice AndréStock and Other Ownership Interests: PegacsyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Roche (Inst), Daiichi (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Stefan MichielsConsulting or Advisory Role: IDDI, Sensorion, Biophytis, Servier, Yuhan, Amaris Consulting, RocheNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: The prognosis of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is worse than that of young patients. An attenuated dose of chemotherapy-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus rituximab (R-miniCHOP)-is a good compromise between efficacy and safety in very elderly patients. In combination with R-CHOP (R2-CHOP), lenalidomide has an acceptable level of toxicity and may mitigate the negative prognosis of the non-germinal center B-cell-like phenotype. The Lymphoma Study association conducted a multicentric, phase III, open-label, randomized trial to compare R-miniCHOP and R2-miniCHOP., Patients and Methods: Patients of age 80 years or older with untreated DLBCL were randomly assigned into the R-miniCHOP21 group or the R2-miniCHOP21 group for six cycles and stratified according to CD10 expression and age. The first cycle of rituximab was delivered by IV on D1 after a prephase and then delivered subcutaneously on D1 of cycles 2-6. Lenalidomide was delivered at a dose of 10 mg once daily on D1-D14 of each cycle. The primary end point was overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 249 patients with new DLBCL were randomly assigned (127 R-miniCHOP and 122 R2-miniCHOP). The median age was 83 years (range, 80-96), and 55% of the patients were classified as non-GCB. The delivered dose for each R-miniCHOP compound was similar in both arms. Over a median follow-up of 25.1 months, the intention-to-treat analysis revealed that R2-miniCHOP did not improve OS (2-year OS 66% in R-miniCHOP and 65.7% in R2-miniCHOP arm, P = .98) in the overall population or in the non-GCB population. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 53% of patients with R-miniCHOP and in 81% of patients with R2-miniCHOP., Conclusion: The addition of lenalidomide to R-miniCHOP does not improve OS. Rituximab delivered subcutaneously was safe in this population., Competing Interests: Lucie ObericHonoraria: Roche, Janssen-CilagConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Janssen-Cilag Frederic PeyradeHonoraria: MSD Oncology Mathieu PuyadeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi Pasteur Christophe BonnetConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Julie AbrahamHonoraria: Sanofi Pasteur, Gilead Sciences, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen-Cilag, Abbvie Catherine ThieblemontHonoraria: Celgene, Abbvie, Bayer, Janssen, Roche, Incyte, Novartis, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Kite/Gilead, Novartis Pierre FeugierHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Gilead Sciences, Amgen, AbbvieConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Abbvie, Gilead Sciences, Amgen, AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Abbvie, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie Gilles SallesHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Abbvie, MorphoSysConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, Morphosys, Epizyme, Alimera Sciences, Genmab, Debiopharm Group, Velosbio Gandhi DamajConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Takeda, iqoneResearch Funding: TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizee, Roche/Genentech, Abbvie Corinne HaiounHonoraria: Roche France, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead Sciences, Miltenyi Biotec, Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis,, Servier/PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead Sciences, Takeda, Miltenyi BiotecTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Celgene, Amgen René-Olivier CasasnovasHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Abbvie, Celgene, JanssenConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Abbvie, Celgene, JanssenResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Ronan Le CallochConsulting or Advisory Role: TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen-Cilag Hervé TillyHonoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Roche, JanssenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Fabrice JardinHonoraria: Roche, CelgeneConsulting or Advisory Role: RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: RocheNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Adverse effects of breast cancer treatment can negatively affect survivors' work ability. Previous reports lacked detailed clinical data or health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and did not prospectively assess the combined impact of treatment and related sequelae on employment., Methods: We used a French prospective clinical cohort of patients with stage I-III breast cancer including 1,874 women who were working and ≥ 5 years younger than legal retirement age (≤ 57 years) at breast cancer diagnosis. Our outcome was nonreturn to work (non-RTW) 2 years after diagnosis. Independent variables included treatment characteristics as well as toxicities (Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events [CTCAE] v4) and PROs (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] Quality of life Questionnaires, Breast cancer module [QLQ-BR23] and Fatigue module [QLQ-FA12], Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) collected 1 year after diagnosis. Logistic regression models assessed correlates of non-RTW, adjusting for age, stage, comorbidities, and socioeconomic covariates., Results: Two years after diagnosis, 21% of patients had not returned to work. Odds of non-RTW were significantly increased among patients treated with combinations of chemotherapy and trastuzumab (odds ratio [OR] v chemotherapy-hormonotherapy: for chemotherapy-trastuzumab, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.18 to 3.44; for chemotherapy-trastuzumab-hormonotherapy, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.41). Other significant associations with non-RTW included grade ≥ 3 CTCAE toxicities (OR v no, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.18), arm morbidity (OR v no, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.19 to 2.13), anxiety (OR v no, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.11), and depression (OR v no, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.34 to 3.91)., Conclusion: Receipt of systemic therapy combinations including trastuzumab was associated with increased odds of non-RTW. Likelihood of unemployment was also higher among patients who reported severe physical and psychological symptoms. This comprehensive study identifies potentially vulnerable patients and warrants supportive interventional strategies to facilitate their RTW.

Purpose Patients who receive combined modality treatment for stage I and II Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) have an excellent outcome. Early response evaluation with positron emission tomography (PET) scan may improve selection of patients who need reduced or more intensive treatments. Methods We performed a randomized trial to evaluate treatment adaptation on the basis of early PET (ePET) after two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in previously untreated-according to European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria favorable (F) and unfavorable (U)-stage I and II HL. The standard arm consisted of ABVD followed by involved-node radiotherapy (INRT), regardless of ePET result. In the experimental arm, ePET-negative patients received ABVD only (noninferiority design), whereas ePET-positive patients switched to two cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPPesc) and INRT (superiority design). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Of 1,950 randomly assigned patients, 1,925 received an ePET-361 patients (18.8%) were positive. In ePET-positive patients, 5-year PFS improved from 77.4% for standard ABVD + INRT to 90.6% for intensification to BEACOPPesc + INRT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.74; P = .002). In ePET-negative patients, 5-year PFS rates in the F group were 99.0% versus 87.1% (HR, 15.8; 95% CI, 3.8 to 66.1) in favor of ABVD + INRT; the U group, 92.1% versus 89.6% (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.5) in favor of ABVD + INRT. For both F and U groups, noninferiority of ABVD only compared with combined modality treatment could not be demonstrated. Conclusion In stage I and II HL, PET response after two cycles of ABVD allows for early treatment adaptation. When ePET is positive after two cycles of ABVD, switching to BEACOPPesc + INRT significantly improved 5-year PFS. In ePET-negative patients, noninferiority of ABVD only could not be demonstrated: risk of relapse is increased when INRT is omitted, especially in patients in the F group.