Search

After FDA and EMA approval of the regimen containing polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab and bendamustine (PolaBR), eligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients in Italy were granted early access through a Named Patient Program. A multicentric observational retrospective study was conducted focusing on the effectiveness and safety of PolaBR in everyday clinical practice. Fifty-five patients were enrolled. There were 26 females (47.3%), 32 patients were primary refractory and 45 (81.8%) resulted refractory to their last therapy. The decision to add or not bendamustine was at physician’s discretion. Thirty-six patients underwent PolaBR, and 19 PolaR. The 2 groups did not differ in most of baseline characteristics. The final overall response rate was 32.7% (18.2% complete response rate), with a best response rate of 49.1%. Median disease-free survival was reached at 12 months, median progression-free survival at 4.9 months and median overall survival at 9 months, respectively. Overall, 88 adverse events (AEs) were registered during treatment in 31 patients, 22 of grade ≥3. Eight cases of neuropathy occurred, all of grades 1–2 and all related to polatuzumab. The two groups of treatment did not differ for effectiveness endpoints but presented statistically significant difference in AEs occurrence, especially in hematological AEs, in AEs of grade equal or greater than 3 and in incidence of neuropathy. Our data add useful information on the effectiveness of Pola(B)R in the setting of heavily pretreated DLBCL and may also suggest a better tolerability in absence of bendamustine without compromise of efficacy.

Introduction: In patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), a short course of steroids is routinely given as first-line therapy. However, the response is often transient and additional therapy is usually needed. Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are frequently used as second-line therapy, although there is little clinical guidance on the timing of their administration and on tapering/discontinuation of the drug. To provide clinical recommendations, we used the Delphi technique to obtain consensus for statements regarding administration and on tapering/discontinuation of second-line TPO-RAs among a group of Italian clinicians with expertise in management of ITP. Methods: The Delphi process was used to obtain agreement on five statements regarding initiation and on tapering/discontinuation of second-line TPO-RAs. Agreement was considered when 75% of participants approved the statement. Eleven experts participated in the voting. Results: Full consensus was reached for three of the five statements. The experts held that an early switch from corticosteroids to a TPO-RA has the dual advantage of sparing patients from corticosteroid abuse and improve long-term clinical outcomes. All felt that dose reduction of TPO-RAs can be considered in patients with a stable response and platelet count >100 × 10 9 /L that is maintained for at least 6 months in the absence of concomitant treatments, although there was less agreement in patients with a platelet count >50 × 10 9 /L. Near consensus was reached regarding the statement that early treatment with a TPO-RA is associated with an increase in clinically significant partial or complete response. The experts also agreed that optimization of tapering and discontinuation of TPO-RA therapy in selected patients can improve the quality of life. Conclusion: The present consensus can help to provide guidance on use of TPO-RAs in daily practice in patients with ITP. Plain language summary Second-line administration of thrombopoietin receptor agonists in immune thrombocytopenia There is little guidance on the timing of administration and tapering/discontinuation of thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) in patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). The Delphi technique was used to obtain consensus for five statements. The present consensus among Italian clinicians aims to provide guidance on second-line use of TPO-RAs for patients with ITP in daily practice.

Purpose: The randomized HD2000 trial compared six cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine), four escalated plus two standard cycles of BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone), and six cycles of COPP-EBV-CAD (cyclophosphamide, lomustine, vindesine, melphalan, prednisone, epidoxorubicin, vincristine, procarbazine, vinblastine, and bleomycin; CEC) in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. After a median follow-up of 42 months, patients who received BEACOPP were reported to have experienced better progression-free survival (PFS) but not better overall survival (OS) results than those receiving ABVD. We here report a post hoc analysis of this trial after a median follow-up of 10 years., Patients and Methods: Three hundred seven patients were enrolled, 295 of whom were evaluable. At the time of our analysis, the median follow-up for the entire group was 120 months (range, 4 to 169 months)., Results: The 10-year PFS results for the ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC arms were 69%, 75%, and 76%, respectively; corresponding OS results were 85%, 84%, and 86%. Overall, 13 second malignancies were reported: one in the ABVD arm and six each in the BEACOPP and CEC arms. The cumulative risk of developing second malignancies at 10 years was 0.9%, 6.6%, and 6% with ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC, respectively; the risk with either BEACOPP or CEC was significantly higher than that reported with ABVD (P = .027 and .02, respectively)., Conclusion: With these mature results, we confirm that patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma have similar OS results when treated with ABVD, BEACOPP, or CEC. However, with longer follow-up, we were not able to confirm the superiority of BEACOPP over ABVD in terms of PFS, mainly because of higher mortality rates resulting from second malignancies observed after treatment with BEACOPP and CEC., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)