Search

Five-year follow-up in a trial involving patients with previously untreated stage III or IV classic Hodgkin's lymphoma showed long-term progression-free survival benefits with first-line therapy with brentuximab vedotin, a CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate, plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD), as compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). A planned interim analysis indicated a potential benefit with regard to overall survival; data from a median of 6 years of follow-up are now available.We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD or ABVD. The primary end point, modified progression-free survival, has been reported previously. The key secondary end point was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed.A total of 664 patients were assigned to receive A+AVD and 670 to receive ABVD. At a median follow-up of 73.0 months, 39 patients in the A+AVD group and 64 in the ABVD group had died (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.88; P = 0.009). The 6-year overall survival estimates were 93.9% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.5) in the A+AVD group and 89.4% (95% CI, 86.6 to 91.7) in the ABVD group. Progression-free survival was longer with A+AVD than with ABVD (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.86). Fewer patients in the A+AVD group than in the ABVD group received subsequent therapy, including transplantation, and fewer second cancers were reported with A+AVD (in 23 vs. 32 patients). Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was recommended after an increased incidence of febrile neutropenia was observed with A+AVD. More patients had peripheral neuropathy with A+AVD than with ABVD, but most patients in the two groups had resolution or amelioration of the event by the last follow-up.Patients who received A+AVD for the treatment of stage III or IV Hodgkin's lymphoma had a survival advantage over those who received ABVD. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas and Seagen; ECHELON-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01712490; EudraCT number, 2011-005450-60.).

The Lugano classification for response assessment in lymphoma recommends the use of the 5-point-scale Deauville Score (DS) to assess response evaluation of end-of-treatment FDG-PET/CT (eotPET) in Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL); nevertheless, there is a paucity of data on its accuracy and reproducibility. We focus here on the cohort of advanced stage IIb-IV HL patients enrolled in the HD0607 clinical trial (NCT identifier 00795613) that having had a negative interim PET performed 6 cycles of ABVD (Doxorubicin, Vinblastine, Vincristine and Dacarbazine) and then performed an eotPET. Negative patients were randomized to radiotherapy and no further treatment while positive patients were treated based on local policies. eotPET was re-evaluated independently by two readers evaluated and progression free survival was analysed (PFS). eotPET of 254 patients were analysed. The median follow-up was 43 months. The best receiver operator characteristics cut-off values to distinguish positive and negative patients was 4. The area-under-the-curve was 0.81 (95%CI, 0.70-0.91). Three-years PFS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.90-0.97) in eotPET negative and 0.22 (95% CI 0.11-0.43) in eotPET positive. DS demonstrated a good reproducibility of positivity/negativity between the readers consensus and local site evaluation where the agreement occurred on 95.0% of patients. The present study demonstrates that eotPET is an accurate tool to predict treatment outcome in HL and confirms the appropriateness of the Lugano classification for eotPET evaluation.

PURPOSE The International Prognostic Score (IPS) has been used in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) for 25 years. However, analyses have documented suboptimal performance of the IPS among contemporarily treated patients. Harnessing multisource individual patient data from the Hodgkin Lymphoma International Study for Individual Care consortium, we developed and validated a modern clinical prediction model. METHODS Model development via Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guidelines was performed on 4,022 patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage adult cHL from eight international phase III clinical trials, conducted from 1996 to 2014. External validation was performed on 1,431 contemporaneously treated patients from four real-world cHL registries. To consider association over a full range of continuous variables, we evaluated piecewise linear splines for potential nonlinear relationships. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS The median age in the development cohort was 33 (18-65) years; nodular sclerosis was the most common histology. Kaplan-Meier estimators were 0.77 for 5-year PFS and 0.92 for 5-year OS. Significant predictor variables included age, sex, stage, bulk, absolute lymphocyte count, hemoglobin, and albumin, with slight variation for PFS versus OS. Moreover, age and absolute lymphocyte count yielded nonlinear relationships with outcomes. Optimism-corrected c-statistics in the development model for 5-year PFS and OS were 0.590 and 0.720, respectively. There was good discrimination and calibration in external validation and consistent performance in internal-external validation. Compared with the IPS, there was superior discrimination for OS and enhanced calibration for PFS and OS. CONCLUSION We rigorously developed and externally validated a clinical prediction model in > 5,000 patients with advanced-stage cHL. Furthermore, we identified several novel nonlinear relationships and improved the prediction of patient outcomes. An online calculator was created for individualized point-of-care use.

Effective and tolerable treatments are needed for older patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma. We report results for older patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma treated in the large phase III ECHELON-1 study of frontline brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). Modified progression-free survival per independent review facility for older versus younger patients (aged ≥60 vs.

PURPOSE 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is currently the standard technique to define minimal residual disease (MRD) status outside the bone marrow (BM) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). This study aimed to define criteria for PET complete metabolic response after therapy, jointly analyzing a subgroup of newly diagnosed transplantation-eligible patients with MM enrolled in two independent European randomized phase III trials (IFM/DFCI2009 and EMN02/HO95). PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred twenty-eight patients were observed for a median of 62.9 months. By study design, PET/CT scans were performed at baseline and before starting maintenance (premaintenance [PM]). The five-point Deauville scale (DS) was applied to describe BM (BM score [BMS]) and focal lesion (FL; FL score [FS]) uptake and tested a posteriori in uni- and multivariable analyses for their impact on clinical outcomes. RESULTS At baseline, 78% of patients had FLs (11% extramedullary), 80% with an FS ≥ 4. All patients had BM diffuse uptake (35.5% with BMS ≥ 4). At PM, 31% of patients had visually detectable FLs (2% extramedullary), 24% and 67.7% of them with an FS of 3 and ≥ 4, respectively. At PM, 98% of patients retained residual BM diffuse uptake, which was significantly lower than at baseline (mainly between BMS 2 and 3, BMS was ≥ 4 in only 8.7% of patients). By both uni- and multivariable analysis, FS and BMS < 4 were associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at PM (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.6 and 0.47, respectively; PFS: HR, 0.36 and 0.24, respectively) CONCLUSION FL and BM FDG uptake lower than the liver background after therapy was an independent predictor for improved PFS and OS and can be proposed as the standardized criterion of PET complete metabolic response, confirming the value of the DS for patients with MM.

Background: The phase 3 GIMEMA-MMY-3006 trial, which compared bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) combination therapy with thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before and consolidation therapy after double autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, showed the superiority of the triplet regimen over the doublet in terms of increased complete response rate and improved progression-free survival. We report the results from the final analysis of the study. Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, patients aged 18–65 years with previously untreated symptomatic multiple myeloma and a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher were enrolled at 73 centres in Italy. Patients were randomised (1:1) by a web-based system to receive three 21-day cycles of thalidomide (100 mg daily orally for the first 14 days and 200 mg daily thereafter) plus dexamethasone (total 320 mg per cycle; 40 mg on days 1–2, 4–5, 8–9, and 11–12 in the VTD regimen, and 40 mg on days 1–4 and 9–12 in the TD regimen), either alone (TD group) or with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; VTD group). After double autologous HSCT, patients received two 35-day cycles of either the VTD or TD regimen, according to random assignment, as consolidation therapy. The primary outcome was the rate of complete response and near complete response after induction (already reported). In this updated analysis we assessed long-term progression-free survival and overall survival (secondary endpoints of the study) with an extended 10-year median follow-up, and analysed the variables influencing survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01134484. Findings: Between May 10, 2006, and April 30, 2008, 480 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive VTD (241 patients) or TD (239 patients). Six patients withdrew consent before start of treatment. 236 (99 [42%] women) in the VTD group and 238 (102 [43%] women) in the TD group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The data cutoff date for this analysis was May 31, 2018. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 124·1 months (IQR 117·2–131·7). The 10-year progression-free survival estimate for patients in the VTD group was 34% (95% CI 28–41) compared with 17% (13–23) for the TD group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·50–0·77]; p

BACKGROUND Qualitative assessment using the Deauville five-point scale (DS) is the gold standard for interim and end-of treatment PET interpretation in lymphoma. In the present study we assessed the reliability and the prognostic value of different semi- quantitative (SQ) parameters in comparison with DS for interim PET (iPET) interpretation in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). METHODS A cohort of 82 out of 260 patients with advanced stage HL enrolled in the International Validation Study (IVS), scored as 3 to 5 by the expert panel was included in the present report. Two nuclear medicine physicians blinded to patient history, clinical data and treatment outcome reviewed independently the iPET using the following parameters: DS, SUVMax, SUVPeak of the most active lesion, QMax (ratio of SUVMax of the lesion to liver SUVMax) and QRes (ratio of SUVPeak of the lesion to liver SUVMean). The optimal sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value to predict treatment outcome was calculated for all the above parameters with the Receiver Operator Characteristics analysis. RESULTS The prognostic value of all parameters were similar, the best cut-off value being 4 for DS (Area Under the Curve, AUC, 0.81 CI95%: 0.72-0.90), 3.81 for SUVMax (AUC 0.82 CI95%: 0.73-0.91), 3.20 for SUVPeak (AUC 0.86 CI95%: 0.77-0.94), 1.07 for QMax (AUC 0.84 CI95%: 0.75-0.93) and 1.38 for QRes (AUC 0.84 CI95%: 0.75-0.93). The reproducibility of different parameters was similar as the inter-observer variability measured with Cohen's kappa were 0.93 (95% CI 0.84-1.01) for the DS, 0.88 (0.77-0.98) for SUVMax, 0.82 (0.70-0.95) for SUVPeak, 0.85 (0.74-0.97) for QRes and 0.78 (0.65-0.92) for QMax. Due to the high specificity of SUVPeak (0.87) and to the good sensitivity of DS (0.86), upon the use of both parameters the positive predictive value increased from 0.65 of the DS alone to 0.79. When both parameters were positive in iPET, 3-years Failure-Free Survival (FFS) was significantly lower compared to patients whose iPET was interpreted with qualitative parameters only (DS 4 or 5): 21% vs 35%. On the other hand, the FFS of patients with negative results was not significantly different (88% vs 86%). CONCLUSIONS In this study we demonstrated that, combining semi-quantitative parameters with SUVPeak to a pure qualitative interpretation key with DS, it is possible to increase the positive predictive value of iPET and to identify with higher precision the patients subset with a very dismal prognosis. However, these retrospective findings should be confirmed prospectively in a larger patient cohort.

We investigate the impact of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (G-PP, N = 83) versus no G-PP (N = 579) on safety and efficacy of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A + AVD) in the ECHELON-1 study of previously untreated stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. G-PP was associated with lower incidence of ≥ grade 3 neutropenia (29% versus 70%) and febrile neutropenia (11% versus 21%). Fewer dose delays (35% versus 49%), reductions (20% versus 26%), and hospitalizations (29% versus 38%) were observed. Seven neutropenia-associated deaths occurred in the A + AVD arm; none received G-PP. A + AVD with G-PP was associated with decreased risk of a modified progression-free survival event by 26% compared with A + AVD alone (95% CI: 0.40–1.37). G-PP reduced the rate and severity of adverse events, including febrile neutropenia, reduced treatment delays, dose reductions, and discontinuations, and may thus improve efficacy outcomes. These data support G-PP for all patients treated with A + AVD.

Background: While HL is a highly curable cancer, patients (pts) with advanced stage disease experience increased risk of relapse. Delineation of prognosis is desired to compare cohorts and outcomes between trials, and to define groups of pts for whom reduction in treatment may be appropriate or where novel therapeutic approaches are needed. The International Prognostic Score (IPS), which was derived from a discovery set of 1,618 HL pts with complete data, was a seminal publication in the field (Hasenclever and Diehl NEJM 1998). However, these data were published >20 years ago with a significant minority of pts having received chemotherapy regimens no longer in clinical use. More contemporary analyses have shown altered utility of the IPS (e.g., Moccia JCO 2012; Diefenbach BJH 2015). In addition, prior studies identified bulk disease as an adverse prognostic factor in advanced stage HL (Laskar JCO 2004; Johnson JCO 2010). Our objective was to leverage individual pt data (IPD) from HoLISTIC (www.hodgkinconsortium.com) to discover a new, robust, and modern prognostication index for advanced-stage HL pts applicable to diverse settings across the world. Methods: We created a data repository of IPD from clinical trials for newly diagnosed HL pts, which includes 4,085 advanced-stage (III or IV) pts treated in 8 large, prospective studies completed in the modern era (ie, IIL HD9601: Gobbi JCO 2005; Italian HD2000: Federico JCO 2009; ECOG 2496: Gordon JCO 2013; SWOG 0816: Press JCO 2016; IIL HD0801: Zinzani JCO 2016; RATHL: Johnson NEJM 2016; GITIL HD0607: Gallamini JCO 2017; and COG AHOD 0831: Kelly BJH 2019) as well as prominent cancer registries (eg, the Mayo/Iowa Molecular Epidemiologic Resource (MER)). The discovery analysis herein included pts from the ECOG 2496, HD0801 IIL, GITIL HD0607, and SWOG 0816 studies. Furthermore, it was restricted to pts (n=1,279) on these trials with complete data for all 9 covariates of interest: age; sex; advanced stage (III vs IV); B symptoms; any bulk; and values of hemoglobin, white blood count (WBC), lymphocyte count, and albumin. Using Cox proportional hazard (PH) models, we evaluated univariate associations between 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the aforementioned prognostic variables. Age was categorized based on plots and optimum model fit (c statistic). Lab values were dichotomized using cut-points from the 1998 IPS. Per convention, treatment factors were not included in the model. To identify independent prognostic factors of PFS and OS, a parsimonious Cox PH model was fit using backward selection of all potential risk factors (P Results: Among all pts, characteristics included: median age of 32.9 years (IQR 25.4-44, range 15-83); 55% male; 49% stage IV; 63% B symptoms; 26% bulk >10 cm; 20% hemoglobin 50 years, stage IV disease, B symptoms, and bulky disease were associated with worse PFS; and age >50 years, stage IV disease, bulky disease, anemia, and low albumin were associated with worse OS (Fig B). KM plots for age, stage, and bulk are presented in Fig C. Conclusions. In this international, multi-study analysis of advanced stage HL in the modern era, we identified several factors that were associated with both worse PFS and OS on MVA (ie, age, stage IV disease, and bulky disease). The finding of bulky disease as a significant prognostic factor warrants further investigation. In addition, we detected an age-related U-shaped impact on PFS with inferior outcomes for pts ages 15-25 years and ≥50 years, the latter in an increasing linear fashion. Altogether, these data will serve as a training cohort for a modern HL prognostication index that will be augmented and analyzed with a large independent validation cohort (vis-à-vis the remaining HL data in the HoLISTIC consortium), which will be presented at the ASH meeting. Disclosures Parsons: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Advani:Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Federico:Spectrum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma s.r.l.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cephalon/Teva: Research Funding. Friedberg:Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.: Other; Bayer: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy. Hutchings:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Daiichi: Research Funding; Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Genmab: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Johnson:MorphoSys: Honoraria; Kymera: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Oncimmune: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Oncimmune: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genmab: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers: Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADCT: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding. Evens:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction Historically, nearly all relapses in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) occur within the first 5 years (Radford et al, BMJ 1997). In the phase 3 ECHELON-1 study (NCT01712490), treatment with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) significantly improved modified progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with newly-diagnosed Stage III/IV cHL compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) (Connors et al, NEJM 2018). 3- and 4-year follow-up (Straus et al, Blood 2020; Bartlett et al, Blood 2019) reported durable PFS benefit with A+AVD vs ABVD in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population that was consistent across most key pt subgroups, irrespective of interim positron emission tomography (PET) scan status, disease stage, and baseline disease risk factor score. We report updated efficacy and safety results for pts in the ECHELON-1 study after a median follow-up of 55.6 months. Methods In this evaluation of longer follow-up, an exploratory analysis of PFS (time from randomization to relapse, progression, or death from any cause) per investigator (INV) was conducted, with a cutoff date of May 18, 2020. Pts with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. An interim PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2) was required. Resolution and improvement (defined as improvement by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment) of peripheral neuropathy (PN) in pts with ongoing symptoms at the end of treatment (EoT) were monitored during the extended follow-up period. The rate of secondary malignancies, and the incidence and outcomes of pregnancies among pts and their partners were also assessed. Results With extended follow-up (median 55.6 months; 95% CI 55.2-56.7) estimated 5-year PFS rates were 82.0% (95% CI 78.7-84.8) for A+AVD and 75.2% (95% CI 71.5-78.4) for ABVD. Overall, PFS per INV favored A+AVD over ABVD (HR 0.691; 95% CI 0.543-0.880; p=0.003) (Table). Exploratory subgroup analyses by PET2 status and age demonstrated PFS benefits regardless of PET2 status (Table); estimated 5-year PFS per INV with A+AVD vs ABVD in the ITT population was 84.7% vs 78.8% in PET2-negative pts (HR 0.676; 95% CI 0.512-0.892; p=0.005), and 60.6% vs 45.9% in PET2-positive pts (HR 0.703; 95% CI 0.393-1.256; p=0.230). PFS benefit with A+AVD over ABVD was also independent of the number of International Prognostic Factors Project (IPFP) risk factors (Figure). After a median follow-up of almost 5-years, 84% (370/442) and 86% (245/286) of pts with treatment-emergent PN reported complete resolution or improvement of symptoms in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Median time to complete resolution of PN events that were ongoing at EoT was 30 weeks (range 0-262) in the A+AVD arm and 16 weeks (range 0-267) in the ABVD arm; median time to improvement was 49 weeks (range 8-270) and 12 weeks (range 2-70) , respectively. Of the 132 (30%) pts with ongoing PN in the A+AVD arm, 77 (17%), 39 (9%), 15 (3%) and 1 ( Conclusions After a median follow-up of 55.6 months, A+AVD continues to demonstrate a robust and durable treatment benefit independent of disease stage, risk factor score, and PET2 status. In addition, compared with ABVD, treatment adaptation by interim PET2 status is not required and bleomycin exposure is avoided. The sustained PFS benefit with A+AVD is coupled with a manageable safety profile with symptoms of PN improving or resolving over time and similar pregnancy rates in both treatment arms. The benefits observed with A+AVD at this important milestone suggest that A+AVD is an attractive treatment option for all pts with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL. Disclosures Straus: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Connors:Seattle Genetics: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations; Takeda: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations. Illés:Takeda, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche;: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Novartis Pharma SAS, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Israel, Roche;: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Novartis,Roche, Takeda: Consultancy. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy; Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:KITE: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosis: Other: Ad board; AstraZeneca: Other: Ad board; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Smolewski:Roche Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Morphosis: Honoraria. Savage:Roche (institutional): Research Funding; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Servier: Consultancy; BeiGene: Other: Steering Committee; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie: Honoraria. Bartlett:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Walewski:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zinzani:Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hutchings:Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda: Research Funding; Genmab, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munoz:Juno/Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Consultancy; Innovent: Consultancy; Acrotech/Aurobindo: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kim:JJ: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirn: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Advani:Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Younes:HCM: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Gallamini:Takeda: Other: Speaker. Liu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Little:Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fenton:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Radford:GlaxoSmithKline: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; ADCT: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Simple Summary In the present review the authors report the predictive value of FDG/PET-CT (PET) on treatment outcome of Hodgkin lymphoma patients showing a post-chemotherapy residual mass, based on the published reports of PET-guided consolidation radiotherapy after different-intensity chemotherapy regimens such as ABVD or BEACOPPescalated. A special focus will be dedicated to the role of PET for assessing patients with a residual mass during and after immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Finally, the interpretation criteria of PET will be also reviewed, and the role of alternative imaging techniques discussed. Abstract In the present review, the authors report the published evidence on the use of functional imaging with FDG-PET/CT in assessing the final response to treatment in Hodgkin lymphoma. Despite a very high overall Negative Predictive Value of post-chemotherapy PET on treatment outcome ranging from 94% to 86%, according to different treatment intensity, the Positive Predicting Value proved much lower (40–25%). In the present review the Authors discuss the role of PET to guide consolidation RT over a RM after different chemotherapy regimens, both in early and in advanced-stage disease. A particular emphasis is dedicated to the peculiar issue of the qualitative versus semi-quantitative methods for End-of Therapy PET scan interpretation. A short hint will be given on the role of FDG-PET to assess the treatment outcome after immune checkpoint inhibitors.

We investigated the feasibility and activity of an intensified dose-dense ABVD (dd-ABVD) regimen in patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). This prospective, multicenter, phase II study enrolled 96 patients with newly diagnosed, unfavorable stage I or II classical HL. The patients received four cycles of dd-ABVD followed by radiotherapy. Interim PET (PET-2) was mandatory after two courses. Primary endpoints were the evaluation of dd-ABVD feasibility and activity (incidence of PET-2 negativity). The feasibility endpoint was achieved with 48/52 (92.3%) patients receiving > 85% of the programmed dose. The mean dose intensity in the overall patient population (n = 96) was 93.7%, and the median duration of dd-ABVD was 85 days (range, 14–115) versus an expected duration of 84 days. PET-2 was available for 92/96 (95.8%) patients, of whom 79 were PET-2 negative (85.9%). In total, 90 (93.8%) patients showed complete response at the end of treatment. With a follow-up of 80.9 months (3.3–103.2), the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached. At 84 months, PFS and OS rates were 88.4% and 95.7%, respectively. No evidence for a difference in PFS or OS was observed for PET-2-negative and PET-2-positive patients. Infections were documented in 8.3% and febrile neutropenia in 6.2% of cases. Four patients died: one had alveolitis at cycle 3, one death was unrelated to treatment, and two died from a secondary cancer. dd-ABVD is feasible and demonstrates activity in early-stage unfavorable HL. The predictive role of PET-2 positivity in early-stage unfavorable HL remains controversial. The study was registered in the EudraCT (reference number, 2011–003,191-36) and the ClinicalTrials.gov (reference number, NCT02247869) databases.

Summary Background Despite advances in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma with the introduction of PET-adapted regimens, practical challenges prevent more widespread use of these approaches. The ECHELON-1 study assessed the safety and efficacy of front-line A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) versus ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) in patients with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The primary analysis showed improved modified progression-free survival with A+AVD. We present an updated analysis of ECHELON-1 at 5 years, an important landmark for this patient population. Methods ECHELON-1 was an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 218 clinical sites, including hospitals, cancer centres, and community clinics, in 21 countries. Previously untreated patients (≥18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤2) with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, 1·2 mg/kg of bodyweight, doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 of body surface area, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and dacarbazine 375 mg/m2) or ABVD (doxorubicin 25 mg/m2, bleomycin 10 U/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and dacarbazine 375 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to six cycles. Stratification factors included region (Americas vs Europe vs Asia) and International Prognostic Score risk group (low, intermediate, or high risk). The primary endpoint was modified progression-free survival; this 5-year update includes analysis of progression-free survival as per investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population, which was an exploratory endpoint, although the 5-year analysis was not prespecified in the protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01712490 ) and EudraCT (2011-005450-60), and is ongoing. Findings Between Nov 19, 2012, and Jan 13, 2016, 1334 patients were randomly assigned to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670). At a median follow-up of 60·9 months (IQR 52·2–67·3), 5-year progression-free survival was 82·2% (95% CI 79·0–85·0) with A+AVD and 75·3% (71·7–78·5) with ABVD (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·53–0·87]; p=0·0017). Among PET-2-negative patients, 5-year progression-free survival was higher with A+AVD than with ABVD (84·9% [95% CI 81·7–87·6] vs 78·9% [75·2–82·1]; HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·50–0·88]; p=0·0035). 5-year progression-free survival for PET-2-positive patients was 60·6% (95% CI 45·0–73·1) with A+AVD versus 45·9% (32·7–58·2) with ABVD (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·39–1·26]; p=0·23). Peripheral neuropathy continued to improve or resolve over time with both A+AVD (375 [85%] of 443 patients) and ABVD (245 [86%] of 286 patients); more patients had ongoing peripheral neuropathy in the A+AVD group (127 [19%] of 662) than in the ABVD group (59 [9%] of 659). Fewer secondary malignancies were reported with A+AVD (19 [3%] of 662) than with ABVD (29 [4%] of 659). More livebirths were reported in the A+AVD group (n=75) than in the ABVD group (n=50). Interpretation With 5 years of follow-up, A+AVD showed robust and durable improvement in progression-free survival versus ABVD, regardless of PET-2 status, and a consistent safety profile. On the basis of these findings, A+AVD should be preferred over ABVD for patients with previously untreated stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Funding Millennium Pharmaceuticals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company), and Seagen.

Approximately one‐third of patients diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma presenting with Stage IV disease do not survive past 5 years. We present updated efficacy and safety analyses in high‐risk patient subgroups, defined by Stage IV disease or International Prognostic Score (IPS) of 4–7, enrolled in the ECHELON‐1 study that compared brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A + AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as first‐line therapy after a median follow‐up of 37.1 months. Among patients treated with A + AVD (n = 664) or ABVD (n = 670), 64% had Stage IV disease and 26% had an IPS of 4–7. Patients with Stage IV disease treated with A + AVD showed consistent improvements in PFS at 3 years as assessed by investigator (hazard ratio [HR], 0.723; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.537–0.973; p = 0.032). Similar improvements were seen in the subgroup of patients with IPS of 4–7 (HR, 0.588; 95% CI, 0.386–0.894; p = 0.012). The most common adverse events (AEs) in A + AVD‐treated versus ABVD‐treated patients with Stage IV disease were peripheral neuropathy (67% vs. 40%) and neutropenia (71% vs. 55%); in patients with IPS of 4–7, the most common AEs were peripheral neuropathy (69% vs. 45%), neutropenia (66% vs. 55%), and febrile neutropenia (23% vs. 9%), respectively. Patients in high‐risk subgroups did not experience greater AE incidence or severity than patients in the total population. This updated analysis of ECHELON‐1 shows a favorable benefit‐risk balance in high‐risk patients.

Two hundred twenty-eight patients were observed for a median of 62.9 months. By study design, PET/CT scans were performed at baseline and before starting maintenance (premaintenance [PM]). The five-point Deauville scale (DS) was applied to describe BM (BM score [BMS]) and focal lesion (FL; FL score [FS]) uptake and tested a posteriori in uni- and multivariable analyses for their impact on clinical outcomes.At baseline, 78% of patients had FLs (11% extramedullary), 80% with an FS ≥ 4. All patients had BM diffuse uptake (35.5% with BMS ≥ 4). At PM, 31% of patients had visually detectable FLs (2% extramedullary), 24% and 67.7% of them with an FS of 3 and ≥ 4, respectively. At PM, 98% of patients retained residual BM diffuse uptake, which was significantly lower than at baseline (mainly between BMS 2 and 3, BMS was ≥ 4 in only 8.7% of patients). By both uni- and multivariable analysis, FS and BMS4 were associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at PM (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.6 and 0.47, respectively; PFS: HR, 0.36 and 0.24, respectively).FL and BM FDG uptake lower than the liver background after therapy was an independent predictor for improved PFS and OS and can be proposed as the standardized criterion of PET complete metabolic response, confirming the value of the DS for patients with MM.

PURPOSE To investigate the role of consolidation radiotherapy (cRT) in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) presenting at baseline with a large nodal mass (LNM) in complete metabolic response after doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Advanced-stage (IIB-IVB) HL patients, enrolled in the HD 0607 trial (Clinicaltrial.gov identifier NCT00795613 ), with both a negative PET after two (PET-2) and six (PET-6) ABVD cycles, who presented at baseline with an LNM, defined as a nodal mass with the largest diameter ≥ 5 cm, were prospectively randomly assigned to receive cRT over the LNM or no further treatment (NFT). RESULTS Among 296 randomly assigned patients, the largest diameter of LNM at baseline was 5-7 cm in 101 (34%; subgroup A) and 8-10 cm in 96 (32%; subgroup B), whereas classic bulky (diameter > 10 cm) was detected in 99 (33%; subgroup C). Two hundred eighty patients (88%) showed a postchemotherapy RM. The median dose of cRT was 30.6 Gy (range, 24-36 Gy). After a median follow-up of 5.9 years (range, 0.5-10 years), the 6-year progression-free survival rate of patients who underwent cRT or NFT was, respectively, 91% (95% CI, 84% to 99%) and 95% (95% CI, 89% to 100%; P = .62) in subgroup A; 98% (95% CI, 93% to 100%) and 90% (95% CI, 80% to 100%; P = .24) in subgroup B; 89% (95% CI, 81% to 98%) and 86% (95% CI, 77% to 96%; P = .53) in subgroup C (classic bulky). CONCLUSION cRT could be safely omitted in patients with HL presenting with an LNM and a negative PET-2 and PET-6 scan, irrespective from the LNM size detected at baseline.

The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated that brentuximab vedotin (A) with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD; A+AVD) exhibited superior modified progression-free survival (PFS) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) for frontline treatment of patients with stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Maturing positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted trial data highlight potential limitations of PET-adapted approaches, including toxicities with dose intensification and higher-than-expected relapse rates in PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2)-negative (PET2−) patients. We present an update of the ECHELON-1 study, including an exploratory analysis of 3-year PFS per investigator. A total of 1334 patients with stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive 6 cycles of A+AVD (n = 664) or ABVD (n = 670). Interim PET2 was required. At median follow-up of 37 months, 3-year PFS rates were 83.1% with A+AVD and 76.0% with ABVD; 3-year PFS rates in PET2− patients aged

Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) can now be used to stage and restage multiple myeloma (MM) and lymphoma. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the standard tool to detect BM involvement (BMI). The 2016 diagnostic criteria of the International Myeloma Working Group identify WB-MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) as the most sensitive imaging techniques for detecting skeletal and extra-skeletal MM invasion, respectively. Preliminary findings have also shown that WB-MRI is better than CT and equal to PET/CT in staging aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma, whereas MRI is better for diagnosing BMI in patients with low-grade lymphoma. Signal intensity (SI) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) are useful metrics to quantify the chemotherapy response in WB-MRI.

Background: Despite its high overall accuracy in predicting ABVD outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL), interim PET performed after 2 chemotherapy cycles (PET-2) showed a sub-optimal negative predictive value (PV) on treatment response. In fact, PET-2 negative patients (p.) treated with six ABVD cycles in four prospective trials (RATHL, GITIL/FIL HD 0607, SWOG 0816 and Echelon-1), showed a 3-Y PFS ranging between 79% to 87%, even declining to 74% after a 5-year follow-up (Stephens 2019). A high Total Metabolic Tumor Volume (TMTV) calculated in baseline PET (cutoff value 471 ml.) , along with a high IPS (≥2) proved able to identify a small p. subset (7%) of PET-2 neg. p. with a 3-Y PFS of only 56% (Gallamini 16° ICML, 2021). A new TMTV-derived parameter aimed to image tumor spread, the tumor distance (DMAX), proved able to predict ABVD outcome in a retrospective series of HL p. from a single center (Durmo, 16° ICML 2021). We report here the PV on ABVD outcome of DMAX combined with IPS in a large cohort of PET-2 negative p. prospectively enrolled in the HD0607 clinical trial. Methods: Out of 783 p. with advanced HL (IIB-IVB) included in the HD0607 clinical trial (NCT00795613), 630 (81%) of them with both negative PET-2 and end-of therapy PET, were randomly assigned to no further therapy or consolidation radiotherapy over the area of a large nodal mass detected at baseline. A single experienced nuclear medicine physician calculated DMAX and TMTV in 331 out of 630 (52%) PET-2 negative p. in which the baseline PET images were available for review. Three different tumor segmentation methods for TMTV computing were chosen, with (1) a relative threshold of 41% of SUVmax in each lesion, (2) a fixed threshold of SUV=2.5 or (3) of SUV=4. DMAX was calculated as the maximum distance among any pixel of the tumor belonging to any lesions in the body. Results: The demographics of the 331 p. included in the present study and of the overall cohort of 630 PET-2 negative p. were: median age 31 (14-60) Vs. 31 (14-60), M/F ratio 0.86 Vs. 0.89; WHO Performance Status 0-1 91.5% Vs. 91.4%; B-symptoms 81.8 Vs. 81.1%; Stage IIB, III and IV 35.0, 35.0, 29.9, Vs.36.3, 33.0 and 30.0%; IPS 0-1 39.3 Vs. 39.8%, IPS 2-3 48.3 Vs. 49.4%, IPS >3 12.4 Vs. 10.6%, Bulky 18.1 Vs. 17.9%. No difference in 6-y PFS was found for p. randomized to NFT or cRT (p=.48; Gallamini JCO 2020). After a median follow-up of 40.6 (4.8-87.2) months, the 3-Y PFS for the 331 p. included in the present analysis and for all the 630 PET-2 negative p. was 84% (95% CI 81% to 87%) and 87% (95% CI, 84% to 89%), respectively. Treatment failure was recorded in 51/331 (15.4%) and 81/627 (12.9%), respectively. Based on a ROC analysis the three different segmentation methods for MTV computing proved to be equivalent (AUC values 0.620-0.525) and hence the 41% threshold was chosen for consistency with previous works. Median and average DMAX values were 12.5 cm. and 15.3 cm. The most accurate cutoff value for DMAX to predict treatment outcome (3-Y PFS) was 16.2 cm., with an AUC of 0.62 (95% CI 0.53-0.70). With this cutoff value DMAX was able to identify two cohorts of patients with a statistically different 3y-PFS: 90% (CI 85-93%) and 76% (95% CI 69-85%), p < 0.001. In multivariate analysis (Cox regression model) including all the above demographics and clinical parameters, as well as TMTV and DMX, only DMAX turned out significant in predicting relapse, with a HR of 1.46 (95% CI1.06-2.01), p=0.02. Upon combining DMAX (higher or lower than 16.2 cm.) and IPS (0-1 Vs. ≥2) in a two-factor predictive model, three categories of p. with a statistically different treatment outcome (P < 0.0001) have been identified: (1) both low DMAX and low IPS, N =30 (9%), 3-Y PFS 100% (95% CI 96-100); (2) either high DMAX and low IPS or high IPS and low DMAX, N= 198 (60%); 3-Y PFS 88% (95% CI 83-93), and (3) both high DMAX and IPS, N= 103 (31%); 3-Y PFS 72% (95% CI 65-82), p Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

FDG PET/CT (18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography) is a useful tool to image multiple myeloma (MM). However, simple and reproducible reporting criteria are still lacking and there is the need for harmonization. Recently, a group of Italian nuclear medicine experts defined new visual descriptive criteria (Italian Myeloma criteria for Pet Use: IMPeTUs) to standardize FDG PET/CT evaluation in MM patients. The aim of this study was to assess IMPeTUs reproducibility on a large prospective cohort of MM patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients affected by symptomatic MM who had performed an FDG PET/CT at baseline (PET0), after induction (PET-AI), and the end of treatment (PET-EoT) were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter trial (EMN02)(NCT01910987; MMY3033). After anonymization, PET images were uploaded in the web platform WIDEN® and hence distributed to five expert nuclear medicine reviewers for a blinded independent central review according to the IMPeTUs criteria. Consensus among reviewers was measured by the percentage of agreement and the Krippendorff's alpha. Furthermore, on a patient-based analysis, the concordance among all the reviewers in terms of positivity or negativity of the FDG PET/CT scan was tested for different thresholds of positivity (Deauville score (DS 2, 3, 4, 5) for the main parameters (bone marrow, focal score, extra-medullary disease). RESULTS: Eighty-six patients (211 FDG PET/CT scans) were included in this analysis. Median patient age was 58 years (range, 35-66 years), 45% were male, 15% of them were in stage ISS (International Staging System) III, and 42% had high-risk cytogenetics. The percentage agreement was superior to 75% for all the time points, reaching 100% of agreement in assessing the presence skull lesions after therapy. Comparable results were obtained when the agreement analysis was performed using the Krippendorff's alpha coefficient, either in every single time point of scanning (PET0, PET-AI or PET-EoT) or overall for all the scans together. DS proved highly reproducible with the highest reproducibility for score 4. CONCLUSIONS: IMPeTUs criteria proved highly reproducible and could therefore be considered as a base for harmonizing PET interpretation in multiple myeloma. A prospective clinical validation of IMPeTUs criteria is underway.

Objective Historically, nearly all relapses in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) occur within the first 5 years of treatment (Radford et al., BMJ 1997;314:346). In ECHELON-1, brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) significantly improved modified progression-free survival (PFS) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with stage III/IV cHL (Connors et al., NEJM 2018;378:331). We report updated efficacy and safety results; median follow-up was 60.9 months. Design This phase 3, open-label study (NCT01712490) randomized patients with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL to receive 6 cycles of A+AVD or ABVD. Patients underwent an interim positron emission tomography scan after cycle 2 (PET2). An exploratory analysis of PFS per investigator was conducted. Results There were 664 and 670 patients randomized to receive A+AVD and ABVD, respectively. 64%, 62%, and 58% of patients had stage IV disease, extranodal involvement at diagnosis, and B symptoms, respectively. Five-year PFS was 82.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.0–85.0) with A+AVD and 75.3% (95% CI: 71.7–78.5) with ABVD. Overall, PFS favored A+AVD (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.681; 95% CI: 0.534–0.867; P=0.002). PFS benefits were observed regardless of PET2 status and International Prognostic Score. Estimated 5-year PFS with A+AVD versus ABVD was 84.9% versus 78.9% in PET2-negative patients (HR: 0.663; 95% CI: 0.502–0.876; P=0.004), and 60.6% versus 45.9% in PET2-positive patients (HR: 0.702; 95% CI: 0.393–1.255; P=0.229). Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN) resolved or improved in 85% (n=375/443) and 86% (n=245/286) of the patients with PN on A+AVD and ABVD, respectively. Secondary malignancies occurred in 19 and 29 patients with A+AVD and ABVD, respectively. A total of 131 female patients or partners of male patients reported a pregnancy; both arms showed similar proportions of ongoing pregnancies or live births. Conclusions At 5 years, A+AVD still demonstrates clinically meaningful improvement in PFS versus ABVD, independent of PET2 status, with a manageable safety profile, including resolution or improvement of PN. The PFS benefit observed with A+AVD at this important milestone suggests that A+AVD is an attractive treatment option for all patients with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL. Funding Millennium Pharmaceuticals and Seagen