Search

Background: Persisting cancer-related fatigue impairs health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and social reintegration in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). The GHSG HD18 trial established treatment de-escalation for advanced-stage HL guided by positron emission tomography after two cycles (PET-2) as new standard. Here, we investigate the impact of treatment de-escalation on long-term HRQoL, time to recovery from fatigue (TTR-F), and time to return to work (TTR-W)., Patients and Methods: Patients received European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and life situation questionnaires at baseline, interim, end of treatment, and yearly follow-up. TTR-F was defined as time from the end of chemotherapy until the first fatigue score <30. TTR-W was analyzed in previously working or studying patients and measured from the end of treatment until the first documented work or education. We compared duration of treatment on TTR-F and TTR-W using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for confounding variables., Results: HRQoL questionnaires at baseline were available in 1632 (83.9%) of all randomized patients. Overall, higher baseline fatigue and age were significantly associated with longer TTR-F and TTR-W and male sex with shorter TTR-W. Treatment reduction from eight to four chemotherapy cycles led to a significantly shorter TTR-F [hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, P = 0.008] and descriptively shorter TTR-W (HR 1.24, P = 0.084) in PET-2-negative patients. Reduction from six to four cycles led to non-significant but plausible intermediate accelerations. The addition of rituximab caused significantly slower TTR-F (HR 0.70, P = 0.0163) and TTR-W (HR 0.64, P = 0.0017) in PET-2-positive patients. HRQoL at baseline and age were the main determinants of 2-year HRQoL., Conclusions: Individualized first-line treatment in patients with advanced-stage HL considerably shortens TTR-F and TTR-W in PET-2-negative patients. Our results support the use of response-adapted shortened treatment duration for patients with HL., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for the clinical management of patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), raising questions about the optimal care of this patient group., Methods: This consensus manuscript aims at discussing clinical evidence and providing expert advice on statements related to the management of HMs in the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, an international consortium was established including a steering committee, which prepared six working packages addressing significant clinical questions from the COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and mitigation strategies to specific HMs management in the pandemic. During a virtual consensus meeting, including global experts and lead by the European Society for Medical Oncology and the European Hematology Association, statements were discussed and voted upon. When a consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements to develop consensual clinical guidance., Results and Conclusion: The expert panel agreed on 33 statements, reflecting a consensus, which will guide clinical decision making for patients with hematological neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: DIsclosure CB reports honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Janssen, BeiGene, Novartis, Pfizer, Incyte, AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Celltrion, MorphoSys, Regeneron; he reports consulting or advisory role: Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Roche, Pfizer, BeiGene, Celltrion, AbbVie, Incyte, Regeneron, MorphoSys, Novartis; he reports speaker’s engagement: Roche, Janssen, BeiGene, Celltrion, AbbVie, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences; he reports research funding: Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Celltrion, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Pfizer, Amgen. MD reports honoraria as Advisory Board Member of AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Celgene, Genmab, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, MorphoSys, Novartis, Roche; he reports honoraria for speaker’s engagement from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Roche; he reports institutional research grants from AbbVie, Bayer, Gilead, Celgene, Janssen, Roche. AA-L has declared no conflicts of interest. JA reports personal financial interests as advisory board and invited speaker from Incyte, advisory board from Mallinckrodt, advisory board and invited speaker from Novartis, advisory board and invited speaker from Pfizer; she reports non-financial interests as principal investigator from Incyte, principal investigator from Novartis. LA received advisory honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Verastem, Eusa Pharma, Incyte, ADC Therapeutics and Gilead; research support from Gilead, and travel expenses from Roche, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Eusa Pharma; speakers bureau from Novartis. CB has declared no conflicts of interest. LB reports Advisory Committee activities for AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and has research support from Bayer and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. PC has declared no conflicts of interest. MGDP has declared no conflicts of interest. MD reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from BeiGene, personal fees from BMS, outside the submitted work. SD reports personal financial interests as advisory board, invited speaker, fellow funding, and coordinating PI from BeiGene, writing engagement from Karger, advisory board and coordinating PI from Sanofi, funding, and other from Janssen; she reports non-financial interests as advisory role at British Society for Haematology Lymphoma Special Interest Group, advisory role at Lymphoma Action, member of board of directors at WMUK Charity. HTE has declared no conflicts of interest. RF reports honoraria for advisory boards and/or speaker bureau from Janssen, Gilead, AbbVie, Amgen, Novartis, Roche, Incyte, Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. PG reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, grants and personal fees from Acerta/AstraZeneca, personal fees from BeiGene, personal fees from Celgene/Juno/BMS, grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Lilly/Loxo, personal fees from MEI, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from ArQule/MSD, outside the submitted work; MGdS reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Gilead Sciences, grants from AstraZeneca, personal fees, non-financial support, and other from Janssen Cilag, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from AbbVie, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from ADC Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. JG reports personal fees from AbbVie, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from BMS/Celgene, grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Kite/Gilead, personal fees from MorphoSys, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from TG Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. RH has had a consultant or advisory relationship with Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, PharmaMar, and Takeda; has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, PharmaMar, and Takeda; has received research funding from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Novartis, and Takeda. CH reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Sierra Oncology, personal fees from CTI pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Jannsen, personal fees from Geron, grants and personal fees from AOP Orphan Pharma, personal fees from Galecto, grants, personal fees and other from Constellation, outside the submitted work. MH reports personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Bayer Pharma AG, personal fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Tolremo, outside the submitted work. BK has received honoraria for lectures from Ipsen, Novartis and MSD (all outside of the submitted work). J-JK reports consulting fees and honoraria from Novartis, consulting fees from AbbVie, honoraria from AOP Orphan Pharma, participation on a monitoring board or advisory board from BMS/Celgene, participation on a monitoring board or advisory board from Incyte. NK reports grants and honoraria from Neovii, honoraria from Sanofi, grants and honoraria from Jazz, grants and honoraria from Celgene, grants and honoraria from Riemser, honoraria from Gilead/Kite, honorarium from AOP Oprhan Pharma, grants and honorarium from Novartis, honorarium from Amgen. PM reports personal fees from Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, AbbVie, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. JP has declared no conflicts of interest. FP has declared no conflicts of interest. DR received honoraria from Incyte, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer; clinical trial steering committee membership: Novartis; membership on advisory boards: Incyte, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer. J-MR reports grants and honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Takeda, Incyte, and Servier. TR has declared no conflicts of interest. JF-M reports consulting and advisory boards honoraria (received by CUN ) from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Regeneron, Roche, outside the submitted work. VS has declared no conflicts of interest. GFS reports personal fees and other from AbbVie, other from Amgen, other from Astellas, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and other from Celgene, other from Helsinn Healthcare, grants, personal fees, and other from Janssen-Cilag, grants and other from Novartis, other from Onconova, grants, personal fees and other from Roche, and other from Takeda, outside the submitted work. PS reports honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, SkylineDx, Takeda, and research support from Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, BMS, SkylineDx, Karyopharm, all outside the submitted work. MvL-T has received travel grants and honoraria from Celgene, Gilead, Chugai, Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Medac, Oncopeptides, Merck, CDDF, Pfizer, Medac, Thermo Fisher, AstraZeneca; is a consultant for Celgene, Gilead, Oncopeptides, MSD, 4D Pharma, Janssen, Shionogi and received research funding from BMBF, Deutsche Jose Carreras Leukämie-Stiftung, IZKF Jena, Novartis, Gilead, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Celgene, Oncopeptides, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). CW has declared no conflicts of interest. GP reports grants from Amgen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants from Lilly, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. FP reports grants from Novartis, Celgene, BMS, Abbvie, Karyopharma, Janssen., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The German multicenter randomized phase II larynx organ preservation (LOP) trial DeLOS-II was carried out to prove the hypothesis that cetuximab (E) added to induction chemotherapy (IC) and radiotherapy improves laryngectomy-free survival (LFS; survival with preserved larynx) in locally advanced laryngeal/hypopharyngeal cancer (LHSCC)., Patients and Methods: Treatment-naïve patients with stage III/IV LHSCC amenable to total laryngectomy (TL) were randomized to three cycles IC with TPF [docetaxel (T) and cisplatin (P) 75 mg/m2/day 1, 5-FU (F) 750 mg/m2/day days 1-5] followed by radiotherapy (69.6 Gy) without (A) or with (B) standard dose cetuximab for 16 weeks throughout IC and radiotherapy (TPFE). Response to first IC-cycle (IC-1) with ≥30% endoscopically estimated tumor surface shrinkage (ETSS) was used to define early responders; early salvage TL was recommended to non-responders. The primary objective was 24 months LFS above 35% in arm B., Results: Of 180 patients randomized (July 2007 to September 2012), 173 fulfilled eligibility criteria (A/B: larynx 44/42, hypopharynx 41/46). Because of 4 therapy-related deaths among the first 64 randomized patients, 5-FU was omitted from IC in the subsequent 112 patients reducing further fatal toxicities. Thus, IC was TPF in 61 patients and TP in 112 patients, respectively. The primary objective (24 months LFS above 35%) was equally met by arms A (40/85, 47.1%) as well as B (41/88, 46.6%). One hundred and twenty-three early responders completed IC+RT; their overall response rates (TPF/TP) were 94.7%/87.2% in A versus 80%/86.0% in B. The 24 months overall survival (OS) rates were 68.2% and 69.3%., Conclusions: Despite being accompanied by an elevated frequency in adverse events, the IC with TPF/TP plus cetuximab was feasible but showed no superiority to IC with TPF/TP regarding LFS and OS at 24 months. Both early response and 24 months LFS compare very well to previous LOP trials and recommend effective treatment selection and stratification by ETSS., Clinical Trial Information: NCT00508664.

Background: The intensive polychemotherapy regimen eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone in escalated doses) is very active in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, albeit at the expense of severe toxicities. Individual patients might be cured with less burdensome therapy. We investigated whether metabolic response determined by PET after two cycles of standard regimen eBEACOPP (PET-2) would allow adaption of treatment intensity, increasing it for PET-2-positive patients and reducing it for PET-2-negative patients., Methods: In this open-label, randomised, parallel-group phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma in 301 hospitals and private practices in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic. After central review of PET-2, patients were assigned (1:1) to one of two parallel treatment groups on the basis of their PET-2 result. Patients with positive PET-2 were randomised to receive six additional cycles of either standard eBEACOPP (8 × eBEACOPP in total) or eBEACOPP with rituximab (8 × R-eBEACOPP). Those with negative PET-2 were randomised between standard treatment with six additional cycles of eBEACOPP (8 × eBEACOPP) or experimental treatment with two additional cycles (4 × eBEACOPP). A protocol amendment in June, 2011, introduced a reduction of standard therapy to 6 × eBEACOPP; after this point, patients with positive PET-2 were no longer randomised and were all assigned to receive 6 × eBEACOPP and patients with negative PET-2 were randomly assigned to 6 × eBEACOPP (standard) or 4 × eBEACOPP (experimental). Randomisation was done centrally using the minimisation method including a random component, stratified according to centre, age (<45 vs ≥45 years), stage (IIB, IIIA vs IIIB, IV), international prognostic score (0-2 vs 3-7), and sex. eBEACOPP was given as previously described; rituximab was given intravenously at a dose of 375 mg/m 2 (maximum total dose 700 mg). The primary objectives were to show superiority of the experimental treatment in the PET-2-positive cohort, and to show non-inferiority of the experimental treatment in the PET-2-negative cohort in terms of the primary endpoint, progression-free survival. We defined non-inferiority as an absolute difference of 6% in the 5-year progression-free survival estimates. Primary analyses in the PET-2-negative cohort were per protocol; all other analyses were by intention to treat. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00515554., Findings: Between May 14, 2008, and July 18, 2014, we recruited 2101 patients, of whom 137 were found ineligible before randomisation and a further 19 were found ineligible after randomisation. Among 434 randomised patients (217 per arm) with positive PET-2, 5-year progression-free survival was 89·7% (95% CI 85·4-94·0) with eBEACOPP and 88·1% (83·5-92·7) with R-eBEACOPP (log-rank p=0·46). Patients with negative PET-2 randomly assigned to either 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP (n=504) or 4 × eBEACOPP (n=501) had 5-year progression-free survival of 90·8% (95% CI 87·9-93·7) and 92·2% (89·4-95·0), respectively (difference 1·4%, 95% CI -2·7 to 5·4). 4 × eBEACOPP was associated with fewer severe infections (40 [8%] of 498 vs 75 [15%] of 502) and organ toxicities (38 [8%] of 498 vs 91 [18%] of 502) than were 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP in PET-2-negative patients. Ten treatment-related deaths occurred: four in the PET-2-positive cohort (one [<1%] in the 8 × eBEACOPP group, three [1%] in the 8 × R-eBEACOPP group) and six in the PET-2-negative group (six [1%] in the 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP group)., Interpretation: The favourable outcome of patients treated with eBEACOPP could not be improved by adding rituximab after positive PET-2. PET-2 negativity allows reduction to only four cycles of eBEACOPP without loss of tumour control. PET-2-guided eBEACOPP provides outstanding efficacy for all patients and increases overall survival by reducing treatment-related risks for patients with negative PET-2. We recommend this PET-2-guided treatment strategy for patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma., Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe, Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research, and Roche Pharma AG., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) rarely presents as early-stage disease, but clinical observations suggest that patients who present with early-stage disease may have better outcomes than those with advanced-stage disease., Patients and Methods: In this 13-institution study, we examined outcomes among 179 patients with early-stage (stage I or II) MCL in an attempt to identify prognostic factors that influence treatment selection and outcome. Variables examined included clinical characteristics, treatment modality, response to therapy, sites of failure, and survival., Results: Patients were predominantly male (78%) with head and neck being the most common presenting sites (75%). Most failures occurred outside the original disease site (79%). Although the administration of radiation therapy, either alone or with chemotherapy, reduced the risk of local failure, it did not translate into an improved freedom from progression or overall survival (OS). The treatment outcomes were independent of treatment modality. The 10-year OS for patients treated with chemotherapy alone, chemo-radiation therapy and radiation therapy alone were 69%, 62%, and 74% (P = 0.79), and the 10-year freedom from progression were 46%, 43%, and 31% (P = 0.64), respectively., Conclusion: Given the excellent OS rates regardless of initial therapy in patients with early-stage MCL, de-intensified therapy to limit treatment-related toxicity is a reasonable approach., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Recent evidence suggests that ionizing radiation may be associated with unexpected side-effects in melanoma patients treated with concomitant BRAF inhibitors. A large multicenter analysis was carried out to generate reliable safety data and elucidate the mechanism., Methods: A total of 161 melanoma patients from 11 European skin cancer centers were evaluated for acute and late toxicity, of whom 70 consecutive patients received 86 series of radiotherapy with concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy. To further characterize and quantify a possible radiosensitization by BRAF inhibitors, blood samples of 35 melanoma patients were used for individual radiosensitivity testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization of chromosomal breaks after ex vivo irradiation., Results: With radiotherapy and concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy the rate of acute radiodermatitis ≥2° was 36% and follicular cystic proliferation was seen in 13% of all radiotherapies. Non-skin toxicities included hearing disorders (4%) and dysphagia (2%). Following whole-brain radiotherapy, rates of radiodermatitis ≥2° were 44% and 8% (P < 0.001) for patients with and without BRAF inhibitor therapy, respectively. Concomitant treatment with vemurafenib induced acute radiodermatitis ≥2° more frequently than treatment with dabrafenib (40% versus 26%, P = 0.07). In line with these findings, analysis of chromosomal breaks ex vivo indicated significantly increased radiosensitivity for patients under vemurafenib (P = 0.004) and for patients switched from vemurafenib to dabrafenib (P = 0.002), but not for patients on dabrafenib only. No toxicities were reported after stereotactic treatment., Conclusion: Radiotherapy with concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy is feasible with an acceptable increase in toxicity. Vemurafenib is a more potent radiosensitizer than dabrafenib., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The role of bleomycin and dacarbazine in the ABVD regimen (ie, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) has been questioned, especially for treatment of early-stage favourable Hodgkin's lymphoma, because of the drugs' toxicity. We aimed to investigate whether omission of either bleomycin or dacarbazine, or both, from ABVD reduced the efficacy of this regimen in treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma., Methods: In this open-label, randomised, multicentre trial (HD13) we compared two cycles of ABVD with two cycles of the reduced-intensity regimen variants ABV (doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vinblastine), AVD (doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine), and AV (doxorubicin and vinblastine), in patients with newly diagnosed, histologically proven, classic or nodular, lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin's lymphoma. In each treatment group, 30 Gy involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) was given after both cycles of chemotherapy were completed. From Jan 28, 2003, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a minimisation method to the four groups. Because of high event rates, assignment to the AV and ABV groups stopped early, on Sept 30, 2005, and Feb 10, 2006; assignment to ABVD and AVD continued (1:1) until Sept 30, 2009. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the experimental variants compared with ABVD in terms of freedom from treatment failure (FFTF), by excluding a difference of 6% after 5 years corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.72, via a 95% CI. Analyses reported here include qualified patients only, and between-group comparisons include only patients recruited during the same period. The trial was registered, number ISRCTN63474366., Findings: Of 1502 qualified patients, 566, 198, 571, and 167 were randomly assigned to receive ABVD, ABV, AVD, or AV, respectively. 5 year FFTF was 93.1%, 81.4%, 89.2%, and 77.1% with ABVD, ABV, AVD, and AV, respectively. Compared with ABVD, inferiority of the dacarbazine-deleted variants was detected with 5 year differences of -11.5% (95% CI -18.3 to -4.7; HR 2.06 [1.21 to 3.52]) for ABV and -15.2% (-23.0 to -7.4; HR 2.57 [1.51 to 4.40]) for AV. Non-inferiority of AVD compared with ABVD could also not be detected (5 year difference -3.9%, -7.7 to -0·1; HR 1.50, 1.00 to 2.26). 178 (33%) of 544 patients given ABVD had WHO grade III or IV toxicity, compared with 53 (28%) of 187 given ABV, 142 (26%) of 539 given AVD, and 40 (26%) of 151 given AV. Leucopenia was the most common event, and highest in the groups given bleomycin., Interpretation: Dacarbazine cannot be omitted from ABVD without a substantial loss of efficacy. With respect to our predefined non-inferiority margin, bleomycin cannot be safely omitted either, and the standard of care for patients with early-stage favourable Hodgkin's lymphoma should remain ABVD followed by IFRT., Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe and Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL), treatment according to the early favorable or unfavorable subgroup is guided by staging definitions, which differ between various study groups worldwide. We analyzed risk factors used in different international staging systems and their impact on the outcome of early-stage HL patients., Patients and Methods: In 1173 early-stage HL patients treated homogenously within the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) trials HD10 and HD11, the impact of three staging systems developed and used by the GHSG, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) in discriminating risk groups for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed and the relevance of their single risk factors was investigated., Results: All the three staging systems defined an unfavorable risk group out of early-stage patients of comparable size (56%, 55%, and 57%), having a significantly poorer PFS and OS as compared with the corresponding favorable group; 5-year differences between early favorable and early unfavorable in terms of PFS were 9.4% (HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.74-3.91), 6.7% (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.41-3.13), and 8.6% (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.45-3.16) with the GHSG, EORTC, and NCCN definition, respectively. Sensitivity was high for all systems (84%, 79%, and 83%); however, there was a low specificity with high rates of false-positive results (1-specificity 54%, 53%, and 55%, respectively). Models of high sensitivity included risk factors associated with large tumor burden and high tumor activity. Most risk factors for tumor-specific end points were also predictive of OS., Conclusions: Differentiating between a favorable and an unfavorable risk group has significant impact on PFS and OS in early-stage HL patients in the modern treatment era. Risk-adapted treatment strategies using new risk factors with higher specificity are needed.

Background: Treatment options for patients with nonbulky stage IA-IIA Hodgkin lymphoma include combined modality therapy (CMT) using doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) plus involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT), and chemotherapy with ABVD alone. There are no mature randomized data comparing ABVD with CMT using modern radiation techniques., Patients and Methods: Using German Hodgkin Study Group HD10/HD11 and NCIC Clinical Trials Group HD.6 databases, we identified 588 patients who met mutually inclusive eligibility criteria from the preferred arms of HD10 or 11 (n = 406) and HD.6 (n = 182). We evaluated time to progression (TTP), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival, including in three predefined exploratory subset analyses., Results: With median follow-up of 91 (HD10/11) and 134 (HD.6) months, respective 8-year outcomes were for TTP, 93% versus 87% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.78]; for PFS, 89% versus 86% (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.42-1.18) and for overall survival, 95% versus 95% (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49-2.40). In the exploratory subset analysis including HD10 eligible patients who achieved complete response (CR) or unconfirmed complete response (CRu) after two cycles of ABVD, 8-year PFS was 87% (HD10) versus 95% (HD.6) (HR 2.8; 95% CI 0.64-12.5) and overall survival 96% versus 100%. In contrast, among those without CR/CRu after two cycles of ABVD, 8-year PFS was 88% versus 74% (HR 0.35; 95% CI 0.16-0.79) and overall survival 95% versus 91%, respectively (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.12-1.44)., Conclusions: In patients with nonbulky stage IA-IIA Hodgkin lymphoma, CMT provides better disease control than ABVD alone, especially among those not achieving complete response after two cycles of ABVD. Within the follow-up duration evaluated, overall survivals were similar. Longer follow-up is required to understand the implications of radiation and chemotherapy-related late effects., Clinical Trials: The trials included in this analysis were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: HD10 - NCT00265018, HD11 - NCT00264953, HD.6 - NCT00002561.

Background: To evaluate long-term toxicity and efficacy of a combined modality strategy including extended-field radiotherapy (EF-RT) or involved-field radiotherapy (IF-RT), the German Hodgkin Study Group carried out a follow-up analysis in patients with early unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL)., Patients and Methods: One thousand two hundred and four patients were randomized to four cycles of chemotherapy followed by either 30 Gy EF- or 30 Gy IF-RT (HD8 trial); 532 patients in each treatment arm were eligible., Results: At 10 years, no arm differences were revealed with respect to freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) (79.8% versus 79.7%), progression-free survival (79.8% versus 80.0%), and overall survival (86.4% versus 87.3%). Non-inferiority of IF-RT was demonstrated for the primary end point FFTF (95% confidence interval for hazard ratio 0.72-1.25). Elderly patients had a poorer outcome when treated with EF-RT. So far, 15.0% of patients in arm A and 12.2% in arm B died, mostly due to secondary malignancies (5.3% versus 3.4%) or HL (3.2% versus 3.4%). After EF-RT, there were more secondary malignancies overall (58 versus 45), especially acute myeloid leukemias (11 versus 4)., Conclusion: Radiotherapy intensity reduction to IF-RT does not result in poorer long-term outcome but is associated with less acute toxicity and might be associated with less secondary malignancies.

Background: As positron emission tomography (PET) seems to be a powerful prognostic marker in the treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL), we analysed the prognostic value of PET after four cycles of combination therapy with bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone (BEACOPP) in patients with advanced-stage HL., Patients and Methods: From January 2004 to March 2007, 50 patients with newly diagnosed HL in clinical stages IIB with large mediastinal mass or extranodal disease, III and IV were treated according to the HD15 protocol of the German Hodgkin Study Group. All patients received a PET scan after four cycles of BEACOPP (PET-4)., Results: Of the overall group, 14 of 50 patients had a positive PET-4 while 36 had a negative PET-4. At a median observation time of 25 months, 2 of the 14 patients with a positive PET-4 had progressed or relapsed, while there was no progression or relapse in PET-4-negative patients., Conclusion: Our results indicate a very good negative predictive value of PET-4 in advanced-stage HL patients treated with BEACOPP.

Background: The optimal treatment of elderly patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is still a matter of debate. Since many of these patients receive combined modality treatment, we evaluated the impact of different radiation field sizes, that is extended-field (EF) or involved-field (IF) technique when given after four cycles of chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: In the multicenter HD8 study of the German Hodgkin Study Group, 1204 patients with early-stage unfavorable HL were randomized to receive four cycles of chemotherapy followed by either radiotherapy (RT) of 30 Gy EF + 10 Gy to bulky disease (arm A) or 30 Gy IF + 10 Gy to bulky disease (arm B). A total of 1064 patients were assessable for the analysis. Of these, 89 patients (8.4%) were 60 years or older., Results: Elderly patients had a poorer risk profile. Acute toxicity from RT was more pronounced in elderly patients receiving EF-RT compared with IF-RT [World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3/4: 26.5% versus 8.6%)]. Freedom from treatment failure (FFTF, 64% versus 87%) and overall survival (OS, 70% versus 94%) after 5 years was lower in elderly patients compared with younger patients. Importantly, elderly patients had poorer outcome when treated with EF-RT compared with IF-RT in terms of FFTF (58% versus 70%; P = 0.034) and OS (59% versus 81%; P = 0.008)., Conclusion: Elderly patients with early-stage unfavorable HL generally have a poorer risk profile and outcome when compared with younger patients. Treatment with EF-RT instead of IF-RT after chemotherapy has a negative impact on survival of elderly patients and should be avoided.

Purpose: The aim of the subproject "Radiotherapy" within the competence network malignant lymphoma, funded by the Federal German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), was to build-up an electronic imaging transfer between five University departments of Radiation Oncology to improve communication between study centers and reference centers., Materials and Methods: We describe our experiences with these modern teleradiotherapeutic possibilities, its feasibility within mutticentric clinical trials., Results: Telemedical functions could successfully be integrated into the existing quality asssurance programs of radiotherapy. Since January 2001 more than 700 patients (trials HD10-HD15 of the German Hodgkin Study Group, GHSG) could be assessed after digital transfer via internet, on mobile data carriers or an ISDN-connection in the radiotherapy reference center Cologne. Transfer of digital imaging between participating study centers and the radiotherapy reference center allows immediate or a short-term evaluation of adequacy of treatment fields by expert radiation oncologists before the start of radiotherapy. This improves dialogue and consensus between radiotherapy reference centers and study centers and thus contributes towards high radiotherapy quality for lymphoma patients., Conclusion: The long-term aim is to network all those hospitals, institutions and private facilities taking part in the GHSG trials to achieve an integrated system of cooperation. This improves dialogue and consensus between the radiotherapy reference center and the study centers and thus contributes towards high radiotherapy quality for patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Background: Since there are no randomized studies, the treatment of choice for patients with early stage lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's lymphoma (LPHL) remains unclear. We thus reviewed all LPHL cases registered in the database of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) and compared the different treatment approaches, such as extended field (EF), involved field (IF) radiation and combined modality (CM) treatment for LPHL stage IA patients., Patients and Methods: One hundred and thirty-one patients with LPHL in clinical stage IA without risk factors were analyzed. Forty-five patients were treated with EF radiotherapy, 45 patients with IF radiation and 41 patients received CM treatment. The median follow-up was 78 months in the EF group, 40 months after CM and 17 months after IF, respectively., Results: A total of 129 patients achieved complete remission (CR and CRu): 98% after EF radiotherapy, 100% after IF radiation and 95% after CM. With a median follow-up of 43 months there were 5% relapses and only three patients died. Toxicity of treatment was generally mild with most events observed after CM., Conclusion: In terms of remission induction IF radiotherapy for stage IA LPHL patients is as effective as EF or CM treatment. However, longer follow-up is needed before final conclusion as the optimal therapy.

In contrast to younger patients, the prognosis of elderly patients with advanced Hodgkin's disease (HD) has not improved substantially over the last 20 years. We thus carried out a prospectively randomized study (HD9(elderly)) to compare the BEACOPP regimen in this setting against standard COPP-ABVD. Between February 1993 and 1998, 75 patients aged 66-75 years with newly diagnosed HD in advanced stages were recruited into the HD9 trial as a separate stratum (HD9(elderly)). Patients were assigned to eight alternating cycles of COPP and ABVD or eight cycles of BEACOPP in baseline doses. Radiotherapy was given to initial bulky or residual disease. In total, 68 of 75 registered patients were assessable: 26 were treated with COPP-ABVD and 42 with BEACOPP baseline. There were no significant differences between COPP-ABVD and BEACOPP in terms of complete remission (76%), overall survival (50%) and freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) (46%) at 5 years. At a median follow-up of 80 months, a total of 37 patients died: 14/26 patients (54%) treated with COPP-ABVD and 23/42 patients (55%) with BEACOPP. Two patients (8%) treated with COPP-ABVD and nine patients (21%) treated with BEACOPP died of acute toxicity. Hodgkin-specific FFTF at 5 years was 55% after COPP-ABVD and 74% after BEACOPP (P=0.13). Thus, there are no differences in survival between these regimens in elderly patients.

Background: Long-term survivors of successfully treated Hodgkin's disease (HD) are at risk for late complications. Among these, secondary solid tumors are most serious because they are often fatal. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess the incidence, relative risk and risk factors of secondary solid tumors in HD patients registered in the database of the German Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group (GHSG)., Patients and Methods: From 1983 to 1998, the GHSG conducted three generations of clinical trials for early, intermediate and advanced stage HD (HD1-HD9) involving a total of 5367 patients. Data on incidence, risk factors and relative risk were updated in March 2003., Results: A total of 127 patients with secondary solid tumors were identified. Among these, lung cancer (23.6%), colorectal cancer (20.5%) and breast cancer (10.2%) were the most frequent. After a median follow-up of 72 months the cumulative risk of developing a solid tumor was 2%, with an overall relative risk (RR) of 2.4 (lung cancer, 3.8; colorectal cancer, 3.2; breast cancer, 1.9). For most patients (n=67; 52.8%) developing a secondary solid tumor, treatment modality consisted of chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy in extended field technique (RR = 3.3)., Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 72 months, there were 127 patients developing solid tumors out of a total of 5367 HD patients treated in the GHSG studies HD1-HD9. The cumulative risk of 2% is expected to increase over time due to the rather short median observation time and slow progression of solid malignancies.

In vivo dosimetry in bladder and rectum as well as determining doses on suggested reference points following the ICRU report 38 contribute to quality assurance in HDR-brachytherapy of cervical carcinoma, especially to minimize side effects. In order to gain information regarding the radiation exposure at ICRU reference points in rectum, bladder, ureter and regional lymph nodes those were calculated (digitalisation) by means of orthogonal radiographs of 11 applications in patients with cervical carcinoma, who received primary radiotherapy. In addition, the doses at the ICRU rectum reference point was compared to the results of in vivo measurements in the rectum. The in vivo measurements were by factor 1.5 below the doses determined for the ICRU rectum reference point (4.05 +/- 0.68 Gy versus 6.11 +/- 1.63 Gy). Reasons for this were: calibration errors, non-orthogonal radiographs, movement of applicator and probe in the time span between X-ray and application, missing connection of probe and anterior rectal wall. The standard deviation of calculations at ICRU reference points was on average +/- 30%. Possible reasons for the relatively large standard deviation were difficulties in defining the points, identifying them on radiographs and the different locations of the applicators. Although 3 D CT, US or MR based treatment planning using dose volume histogram analysis is more and more established, this simple procedure of marking and digitising the ICRU reference points lengthened treatment planning only by 5 to 10 minutes. The advantages of in vivo dosimetry are easy practicability and the possibility to determine rectum doses during radiation. The advantages of computer-aided planning at ICRU reference points are that calculations are available before radiation and that they can still be taken into account for treatment planning. Both methods should be applied in HDR-brachytherapy of cervical carcinoma.