Search

Purpose: Current clinical challenges in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) include difficult-to-treat relapsed/refractory disease and considerable long-term toxicities of treatment. Since clinical risk factors lack discriminatory power, intensity of therapy is mainly based on tumor burden. Exploring HL genetics and tumor microenvironment (TME) might provide valuable insights for improved risk stratification., Materials and Methods: In this study, we applied circulating tumor DNA sequencing to 243 patients obtained from pivotal German Hodgkin Study Group trials to identify subtypes of HL. Independent validation of the subtypes was performed in 96 patients treated in the EuroNet-PHL-C2 study. Outcome differences of subtypes were assessed in an event-enriched clinical validation cohort comprising 72 patients from the HD21 trial, using a refined, validated, and clinically feasible assay., Results: We propose a biologic classification of HL consisting of three distinct subtypes: inflammatory immune escape HL is characterized by frequent copy-number variations including immune escape variants such as high-level amplifications of the PD-L1 locus and an inflammatory TME. Virally-driven HL is associated with Epstein-Barr virus and/or human herpesvirus 6 and an inflammatory TME with neutrophils and macrophages, while the tumor mutational burden (TMB) is low. Oncogene-driven HL is defined by a high TMB, recurrent mutations in oncogenic drivers such as TNFAIP3 , ITPKB , and SOCS1 , and a cold TME. A refined and validated assay version aiming at clinically feasible risk stratification showed significant progression-free survival differences between subtypes. In addition, assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) allowed for the detection of patients at very high risk of relapse within the subtypes., Conclusion: We propose a clinically feasible, noninvasive method for individualized risk stratification and MRD monitoring in patients with HL on the basis of circulating tumor DNA sequencing.

Objectives: To compare immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (iRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for response assessment of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in a real-world setting in patients with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Two-hundred fifty-two patients with melanoma and NSCLC who received CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab or PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab or pembrolizumab and who underwent staging CT of the chest and abdomen were retrospectively included. Treatment response evaluation according to the RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST guidelines was performed for all patients. Response patterns, as well as overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and time to progression (TTP), were compared between RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST., Results: Out of 143 patients with progressive disease (PD) according to RECIST 1.1, 48 (33.6%) did not attain confirmation of progression (iCPD) as per iRECIST and six patients who were treated beyond RECIST 1.1 progression reached PD at a later point in time in iRECIST, resulting in a significant difference in TTP between iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 (618.3 ± 626.9 days vs. 538.1 ± 617.9 days, respectively (p < 0.05)). The number of non-responders as per RECIST 1.1 was 79, whereas it was 60 when using iRECIST. ORR was 28.5% for RECIST 1.1 and 34.1% for iRECIST, and corresponding DCR of 67.4% for RECIST 1.1 and 74.6% for iRECIST., Conclusion: iRECIST was more suitable than RECIST 1.1 for capturing atypical response patterns to ICI therapy in patients with melanoma and NSCLC, resulting in differences in the assessment of treatment response., Clinical Relevance Statement: Compared to RECIST 1.1, iRECIST may improve patient care and treatment decisions for patients with NSCLC or melanoma who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinical routine., Key Points: RECIST 1.1 may incorrectly assess atypical treatment patterns to immune checkpoint inhibitors. iRECIST better captured atypical response patterns compared to RECIST 1.1. iRECIST was more suitable for assessing response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung carcinoma and melanoma., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: With prevalence estimates between 50% and 90% of people with cancer, cancer-related fatigue is one of the most common morbidities related to cancer and its treatment. Exercise is beneficial for the treatment of cancer-related fatigue. However, the efficacy of different types of exercise (i.e. cardiovascular training and resistance training) have not yet been investigated systematically and compared directly in a meta-analysis., Objectives: To compare the benefits and harms of cardiovascular training versus resistance training for treatment or prevention of cancer-related fatigue in people with cancer., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases in January 2023. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We integrated results from update searches of previously published Cochrane reviews. In total, our searches included trials from inception to October 2023., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials investigating cardiovascular training compared with resistance training, with exercise as the main component. We included studies on adults with cancer (aged 18 years and older), with or without a diagnosis of cancer-related fatigue, for any type of cancer and any type of cancer treatment, with the intervention starting before, during, or after treatment. We included trials evaluating at least one of our primary outcomes (cancer-related fatigue or quality of life). We excluded combined cardiovascular and resistance interventions, yoga, and mindfulness-based interventions. Our primary outcomes were cancer-related fatigue and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were adverse events, anxiety, and depression., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodology. For analyses, we pooled results within the same period of outcome assessment (i.e. short term (up to and including 12 weeks' follow-up), medium term (more than 12 weeks' to less than six months' follow-up), and long term (six months' follow-up or longer)). We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool, and certainty of the evidence using GRADE., Main Results: We included six studies with 447 participants with prostate, breast, or lung cancer who received radiotherapy or chemotherapy, had surgery, or a combination of these. All studies had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. Three studies had an additional high risk of bias domain; one study for attrition bias, and two studies for selection bias. Interventions in the cardiovascular training groups included training on a cycle ergometer, treadmill, an elliptical trainer, or indoor bike. Interventions in the resistance training group included a varying number of exercises using bodyweight, weights, or resistance bands. Interventions varied in frequency, intensity, and duration. None of the included studies reported including participants with a confirmed cancer-related fatigue diagnosis. The interventions in four studies started during cancer treatment and in two studies after cancer treatment. Before treatment No studies reported interventions starting before cancer treatment. During treatment The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training for short-term cancer-related fatigue (mean difference (MD) -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.52 to 1.84; 4 studies, 311 participants; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) scale where higher values indicate better outcome; very low-certainty evidence) and long-term cancer-related fatigue (MD 1.30, 95% CI -2.17 to 4.77; 1 study, 141 participants; FACIT-Fatigue scale; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training for short-term quality of life (MD 1.47, 95% CI -1.47 to 4.42; 4 studies, 319 participants; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General scale where higher values indicate better outcome; very low-certainty evidence) and for long-term quality of life (MD 3.40, 95% CI -4.85 to 11.65; 1 study, 141 participants; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anemia scale where higher values indicate better outcome; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training on the occurrence of adverse events at any follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 2 studies, 128 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported medium-term cancer-related fatigue or quality of life. After treatment The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training for short-term cancer-related fatigue (MD 1.47, 95% CI -0.09 to 3.03; 1 study, 95 participants; Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 General Fatigue subscale where higher values indicate worse outcome; very low-certainty evidence). Resistance training may improve short-term quality of life compared to cardiovascular training, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -10.96, 95% CI -17.77 to -4.15; 1 study, 95 participants; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 Global Health subscale where higher values indicate better outcome; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported outcomes at medium-term or long-term follow-up., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of cardiovascular training compared with resistance training on treatment of cancer-related fatigue in people with cancer. Larger, well-conducted studies including people with different cancer types receiving different treatments are needed to increase the certainty in the evidence and to better understand who may benefit most from cardiovascular or resistance training. Moreover, studies comparing the effects of cardiovascular and resistance training initiated before as well as after cancer treatment are needed to understand the prophylactic and rehabilitative effects of these exercise types on cancer-related fatigue., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) occurs at two age peaks around 25 and 60 years of age. Due to varying fitness and co-morbidities older patients are a heterogeneous group that has relatively poor treatment outcomes. The evolving therapeutic landscape for older HL is summarized herein., Recent Findings: Due to lack of data from larger trials and approval of novel drugs, first-line treatment of limited-stage HL (i.e. early-stage favourable and unfavourable) remains largely A(B)VD and radiotherapy based. For patients with advanced-stage HL, the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin is approved in combination with AVD chemotherapy (BV-AVD). Due to toxicities such as febrile neutropenia or polyneuropathy and lack of improvement in progression-free and overall survival in the older subgroup, fully concomitant BV-AVD is however not used widely. More recently, promising early data was reported with the combination of nivolumab and AVD (N-AVD) in patients >60 years with advanced-stage HL. Second-line treatment depends on fitness and might include high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation for selected patients. For unfit or multiply relapsed patients, anti-PD1 antibodies are the preferred treatment option., Summary: The increasing number of older HL patients constitutes a therapeutic challenge despite recent advances and the increased usage of targeted agents., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anti-PD1-based first-line treatment holds great promise in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The management of immune-related adverse events in the context of time-limited combined checkpoint blockade and chemotherapy administered in curative intent is a challenge. Kuczmarski and Lynch provide a case-based approach to key toxicities observed in this setting. Commentary on: Kuczmarski et al. Managing common toxicities associated with checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combinations for untreated classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2024;205:100-108., (© 2024 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-induced myocarditis is a rare immune-related adverse event (irAE) with a fatality rate of 40%-46%. However, irMyocarditis can be asymptomatic. Thus, improved monitoring, detection and therapy are needed. This study aims to generate knowledge on pathogenesis and assess outcomes in cancer centers with intensified patient management., Methods: Patients with cardiac irAEs from the SERIO registry (www.serio-registry.org) were analyzed for demographics, ICI-related information (type of ICI, therapy line, combination with other drugs, onset of irAE, and tumor response), examination results, irAE treatment and outcome, as well as oncological endpoints. Cardiac biopsies of irMyocarditis cases ( n  = 12) were analyzed by Nanostring and compared to healthy heart muscle ( n  = 5) and longitudinal blood sampling was performed for immunophenotyping of irMyocarditis-patients ( n  = 4 baseline and n  = 8 during irAE) in comparison to patients without toxicity under ICI-therapy ( n  = 4 baseline and n  = 7 during ICI-therapy) using flow cytometry., Results: A total of 51 patients with 53 cardiac irAEs induced by 4 different ICIs (anti-PD1, anti-PD-L1, anti-CTLA4) were included from 12 centers in 3 countries. Altogether, 83.0% of cardiac irAEs were graded as severe or life-threatening, and 11.3% were fatal (6/53). Thus, in centers with established consequent troponin monitoring, work-up upon the rise in troponin and consequent treatment of irMyocarditis with corticosteroids and -if required-second-line therapy mortality rate is much lower than previously reported. The median time to irMyocarditis was 36 days (range 4-1,074 days) after ICI initiation, whereas other cardiotoxicities, e.g. asystolia or myocardiopathy, occurred much later. The cytokine-mediated signaling pathway was differentially regulated in myocardial biopsies as compared to healthy heart based on enrichment Gene Ontology analysis. Additionally, longitudinal peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples from irMyocarditis-patients indicated ICI-driven enhanced CD4+ Treg cells and reduced CD4+ T cells. Immunophenotypes, particularly effector memory T cells of irMyocarditis-patients differed from those of ICI-treated patients without side effects. LAG3 expression on T cells and PD-L1 expression on dendritic cells could serve as predictive indicators for the development of irMyocarditis., Conclusion: Interestingly, our cohort shows a very low mortality rate of irMyocarditis-patients. Our data indicate so far unknown local and systemic immunological patterns in cardiotoxicity., Competing Interests: LH received speaker and consultancy fees from BiomeDx, BMS, Immunocore, Kyowa Kirin, Merck, MSD, Myoncare, Novartis, Pieris, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, SUN and Therakos. The LMU received research grants or clinical study grants from Agenus, AstraZeneca Inc., BMS, Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Huya Bioscience, Immunocore, IO Biotech, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dome GmbH, Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, and Sanofi Aventis. CE reports on speaker fees from BristolMyers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, Kyowa Kirin, MSD CL received honoraria (lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events) and travel support from: BMS, MSD Merck, Pierre-Fabre, Biontech, Almirall Hermal, Sun Pharma, KyowaKirin, Immunocore, Sanofi, Novartis. DT reports consultancy, speaker fees or travel grants: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Recordati, Kyowa Kirin, Sun Pharma and Pierre Fabre. LZ served as consultant and has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. PJB reports research funding (inst) by BeiGene, BMS, MSD and Takeda; an advisory role to BeiGene, BMS, MSD, Need Inc., Stemline and Takeda; honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, MSD, Need Inc., Stemline and Takeda and stock options from Need Inc. RG received honoraria for advice and lectures from BristolMyers Squibb, Roche Pharma, MerckSharpDohme, Novartis, Merck-Serono, Amgen, Almirall Hermal, Pierre-Fabre, Sun Pharma, Immunocore, 4SC, Delcath, Sanofi/Regeneron. Ralf Gutzmer received travel support from SUN Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim and PierreFabre. Ralf Gutzmer received research grants from Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck Serono, Amgen, SUN Pharma, KyowaKirin, Admiral Hermal. RD has intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA, Pfizer, Simcere and touchIME outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Wang, Ertl, Schmitt, Hammann, Kramer, Grabmaier, Schöberl, Anz, Piseddu, Pesch, Vera, Froehlich, Weckbach, Tomsitz, Loquai, Zimmer, Mangana, Dummer, Gutzmer, Klespe, Stege, Meiss, Thoms, Terheyden, Bröckelmann, Johnson, French and Heinzerling.)

Hodgkin-Reed-Sternberg cells (HRSCs) in classic Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) frequently lack expression of human leukocyte antigen class I (HLA-I), considered to hamper activation of cytotoxic T cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Here, we demonstrate HLA-I expression on HRSCs to be a strong determinant of TME composition whereas expression of HLA-II was associated with only minor differential gene expression in the TME. In HLA-I-positive HL the HRSC content and expression of CCL17/TARC in HRSCs are low, independent of the presence of Epstein-Barr virus in HRSCs. Additionally, HLA-I-positive HL shows a high content of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells. However, an increased expression of the inhibitory immune checkpoint LAG3 on CD8+ T cells in close proximity to HRSCs is observed. Suggesting interference with cytotoxic activity, we observed an absence of clonally expanded T cells in the TME. While HLA-I-positive HL is not associated with an unfavorable clinical course in our cohorts, they share features with the recently described H2 subtype of HL. Given the major differences in TME composition, immune checkpoint inhibitors may differ in their mechanism of action in HLA-I-positive compared to HLA-I-negative HL., Competing Interests: Dr von Tresckow is an advisor or consultant for Allogene, BMS/Celgene, Cerus, Incyte, IQVIA, Gilead Kite, Lilly, Miltenyi, Novartis, Noscendo, Pentixapharm, Roche, Amgen, Pfizer, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Gilead Kite; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Incyte, Lilly, Novartis, Roche Pharma AG, Takeda, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; reports research funding from Novartis (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), and Takeda (Inst); and reports travel support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead Kite, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Takeda, and Novartis all outside the submitted work. Dr P. Borchmann reports grants from BMS during the conduct of the study. Dr Engert reports grants and nonfinancial support from BMS during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Takeda, BMS, and MSD outside the submitted work. Dr Bröckelmann is an advisor or consultant for BeiGene, BMS, MSD, Stemline, and Takeda, received honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, MSD, Stemline, and Takeda, received travel support from BeiGene, Celgene, and Takeda, and reports research funding from BeiGene (Inst), BMS (Inst), MSD (Inst) and Takeda (Inst). Dr Klapper reports grants from Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Incyte, and Regeneron paid to his institution outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Authors. HemaSphere published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Hematology Association.)

Purpose: Combined modality treatment with chemotherapy followed by consolidation radiation therapy (RT) provides excellent outcomes for patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. The international standard of care for consolidation RT, involved-site/involved-node radiation therapy (ISRT/INRT), has never been evaluated in a randomized phase 3 trial against the former standard involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT)., Methods and Materials: In the multicenter phase 3 GHSG (German Hodgkin Study Group) HD17 trial, patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma were randomized between the standard Combined modality treatment group and a positron-emission tomography (PET)-guided group. In the standard group, patients received 2 cycles of escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) and 2 cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) followed by 30 Gy IFRT. In the experimental group, patients received no further therapy if postchemotherapy PET was negative and 30 Gy GHSG INRT, comparable to and therefore termed here ISRT, if PET was positive. Here, we analyze the interim PET-positive patients in a post hoc analysis, and therefore the randomized comparison of IFRT versus INRT/ISRT., Results: A total of 1100 patients were randomized, of which 311 had a positive PET after chemotherapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 4-year progression-free survival were 96.8% (95% CI, 91.6%-98.8%) in the IFRT group and 95.4% (95% CI, 89.9%-97.9%; HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.44-4.42) in the ISRT group. The pattern of recurrence analyses indicated that none of the cases of disease progression or recurrence in the ISRT group would have been prevented by the use of IFRT. Acute grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 8.5% of IFRT patients and 2.6% of ISRT patients (P = .03)., Conclusions: For the first time, consolidation INRT/ISRT was randomly compared with IFRT in a phase 3 trial. Regarding progression-free survival, no advantage of IFRT could be demonstrated. In summary, our data confirm the status of INRT/ISRT as the current standard of care., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The primary analysis of the GHSG HD16 trial indicated a significant loss of tumor control with PET-guided omission of radiotherapy (RT) in patients with early-stage favorable Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). This analysis reports long-term outcomes. Overall, 1150 patients aged 18-75 years with newly diagnosed early-stage favorable HL were randomized between standard combined-modality treatment (CMT) (2x ABVD followed by PET/CT [PET-2] and 20 Gy involved-field RT) and PET-2-guided treatment omitting RT in case of PET-2 negativity (Deauville score [DS] < 3). The study aimed at excluding inferiority of PET-2-guided treatment and assessing the prognostic impact of PET-2 in patients receiving CMT. At a median follow-up of 64 months, PET-2-negative patients had a 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 94.2% after CMT (n = 328) and 86.7% after ABVD alone (n = 300; HR = 2.05 [1.20-3.51]; p = 0.0072). 5-year OS was 98.3% and 98.8%, respectively (p = 0.14); 4/12 documented deaths were caused by second primary malignancies and only one by HL. Among patients assigned to CMT, 5-year PFS was better in PET-2-negative (n = 353; 94.0%) than in PET-2-positive patients (n = 340; 90.3%; p = 0.012). The difference was more pronounced when using DS4 as cut-off (DS 1-3: n = 571; 94.0% vs. DS ≥ 4: n = 122; 83.6%; p < 0.0001). Taken together, CMT should be considered standard treatment for early-stage favorable HL irrespective of the PET-2-result., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) for whom autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) had failed experienced frequent and durable responses to nivolumab in the phase 2 CheckMate 205 trial. We present updated results (median follow-up, ∼5 years). Patients with R/R cHL who were brentuximab vedotin (BV)-naive (cohort A), received BV after auto-HCT (cohort B), or received BV before and/or after auto-HCT (cohort C) were administered with nivolumab 3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients in cohort C with complete remission (CR) for 1 year could discontinue nivolumab and resume upon relapse. Among 243 patients (cohort A, n = 63; B, n = 80; and C, n = 100), the objective response rate (ORR) was 71.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.1-76.8); the CR rate was 21.4% (95% CI, 16.4-27.1). Median duration of response, CR, and partial remission were 18.2 (95% CI, 14.7-26.1), 30.3, and 13.5 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months (95% CI, 11.3-18.5). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached; OS at 5 years was 71.4% (95% CI, 64.8-77.1). In cohort C, all 3 patients who discontinued in CR and were subsequently re-treated achieved objective response. No new or unexpected safety signals were identified. This 5-year follow-up of CheckMate 205 demonstrated favorable OS and confirmed efficacy and safety of nivolumab in R/R cHL after auto-HCT failure. Results suggest patients may discontinue treatment after persistent CR and reinitiate upon progression. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02181713., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

B-cell content in the tumour microenvironment (TME) of classic Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is known to be associated with prognosis. Here we demonstrate that whole slide image analysis using routinely available slides predicts outcomes in patients treated with ABVD in a prospective trial with a high B-cell content being associated with a favourable prognosis. B cells in the TME did not correlate with B cells in peripheral blood. In the TME maturation, stages of B cells (naive and memory) were consistent. However, we detected down-regulation of CD73 in HL with low B cells suggestive of an antibody-independent function of B cells in the TME of HL., (© 2023 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Microenvironmental bystander cells are essential for the progression of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We have discovered previously that LYN kinase promotes the formation of a microenvironmental niche for CLL. Here we provide mechanistic evidence that LYN regulates the polarization of stromal fibroblasts to support leukemic progression. LYN is overexpressed in fibroblasts of lymph nodes of CLL patients. LYN-deficient stromal cells reduce CLL growth in vivo. LYN-deficient fibroblasts show markedly reduced leukemia feeding capacity in vitro. Multi-omics profiling reveals that LYN regulates the polarization of fibroblasts towards an inflammatory cancer-associated phenotype through modulation of cytokine secretion and extracellular matrix composition. Mechanistically, LYN deletion reduces inflammatory signaling including reduction of c-JUN expression, which in turn augments the expression of Thrombospondin-1, which binds to CD47 thereby impairing CLL viability. Together, our findings suggest that LYN is essential for rewiring fibroblasts towards a leukemia-supportive phenotype., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. In the investigator-sponsored randomized phase II NIVAHL trial for early-stage unfavorable classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), two schedules of four cycles of nivolumab, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine followed by 30 Gy involved-site radiotherapy resulted in high complete remission rates and an unprecedented 1-year progression-free survival in 109 patients. In this article, we report the preplanned final analysis conducted three years after the registration of the last patient including long-term safety results. No survival events were observed since the primary analysis, and after a median follow-up (FU) of 41 months, the overall survival was 100% in both treatment groups. The progression-free survival was 98% and 100% in the sequential and concomitant nivolumab, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine treatment groups, respectively. At last FU, the mean forced expiratory pressure in one second was 95.5% (standard deviation 12.7%), the mean diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide adjusted for hemoglobin was 82.8% (standard deviation 15.4%), and the left ventricular ejection fraction was in the normal range in 95% of patients. Hypothyroidism requiring long-term medication occurred in 15% of patients, who were nearly exclusively female (87%). No second primary malignancies occurred, and no patient required corticosteroid treatment at last FU. Patient-reported normalized global quality-of-life score measured by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 improved over time. This preplanned FU analysis of the largest anti-programmed death protein 1 HL first-line trial to date confirms the outstanding efficacy and relatively favorable safety profile of this therapeutic approach.

A patient with immunodeficiency due to a B-cell lymphoma has repeatedly been tested positive for SARS-CoV‑2 during the ongoing SARS-CoV‑2 pandemic and has twice received in-hospital treatment. Chronic and recurrent SARS-CoV‑2 infections are a threat to the individual health of immunodeficient patients. Only few therapeutic options are available especially due to emerging virus variants with immune escape mechanisms. The medical care of immunodeficient patients with SARS-CoV‑2 infections is a great challenge to the treating physician in the ongoing pandemic., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) relapsing after second-line therapy have a dismal prognosis and novel approaches are required for this patient group. Based on promising (pre-)clinical data and the favourable toxicity profile, we performed a phase II clinical trial with the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients with relapsed or refractory cHL (r/r cHL)., Methods: Patients ≥18 years with histologically confirmed r/r cHL who failed second-line treatment were included. Ruxolitinib was given orally at a dose of 25 mg twice daily in continuous 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was the PET/CT-based overall response rate (ORR; complete response (CR) or partial response (PR)) after 2 cycles; secondary endpoints included progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as well as feasibility. The Jericho Trial adopted a 2-stage phase 2 design (Simon 1989)., Results: Among the 12 included patients in stage 1, 2 had a PR, 3 had a stable disease (SD) and 6 had progressive disease (PD) after two treatment cycles (ORR: 2/12 evaluable patients, 16.7%). Median PFS was 3.6 months, the 1-year OS estimate was 50.6% (median not reached). The toxicity profile was favourable with only one grade IV adverse event (7.1%) reported., Conclusion: Ruxolitinib exhibited a favourable side effect profile but modest activity in r/r cHL. Although the formal stopping criterion after stage 1 was not met, the trial did not continue to stage 2 due to the low response and PFS rates observed in stage 1., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: High efficacy in terms of protection from severe COVID-19 has been demonstrated for several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, patients with compromised immune status develop a weaker and less stable immune response to vaccination. Strong immune response may not always translate into clinical benefit, therefore it is important to synthesise evidence on modified schemes and types of vaccination in these population subgroups for guiding health decisions. As the literature on COVID-19 vaccines continues to expand, we aimed to scope the literature on multiple subgroups to subsequently decide on the most relevant research questions to be answered by systematic reviews., Objectives: To provide an overview of the availability of existing literature on immune response and long-term clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters, and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 6 December 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that published results on immunity outcomes after vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, Sputnik V or Sputnik Light, BBIBP-CorV, or CoronaVac on predefined vulnerable subgroups such as people with malignancies, transplant recipients, people undergoing renal replacement therapy, and people with immune disorders, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children. We included studies if they had at least 100 participants (not considering healthy control groups); we excluded case studies and case series., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data independently and in duplicate onto an online data extraction form. Data were represented as tables and as online maps to show the frequency of studies for each item. We mapped the data according to study design, country of participant origin, patient comorbidity subgroup, intervention, outcome domains (clinical, safety, immunogenicity), and outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Out of 25,452 identified records, 318 studies with a total of more than 5 million participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Participants were recruited mainly from high-income countries between January 2020 and 31 October 2021 (282/318); the majority of studies included adult participants (297/318).  Haematological malignancies were the most commonly examined comorbidity group (N = 54), followed by solid tumours (N = 47), dialysis (N = 48), kidney transplant (N = 43), and rheumatic diseases (N = 28, 17, and 15 for mixed diseases, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively). Thirty-one studies included pregnant or breastfeeding women. The most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2 (N = 283), followed by mRNA-1273 (N = 153), AZD1222 (N = 66), Ad26.COV2.S (N = 42), BBIBP-CorV (N = 15), CoronaVac (N = 14), and Sputnik V (N = 5; no studies were identified for Sputnik Light). Most studies reported outcomes after regular vaccination scheme.  The majority of studies focused on immunogenicity outcomes, especially seroconversion based on binding antibody measurements and immunoglobulin G (IgG) titres (N = 179 and 175, respectively). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 126 and 54 studies, whilst SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of severity was reported in 80 studies. Mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 36 studies. Please refer to our evidence gap maps for more detailed information., Authors' Conclusions: Up to 6 December 2021, the majority of studies examined data on mRNA vaccines administered as standard vaccination schemes (two doses approximately four to eight weeks apart) that report on immunogenicity parameters or adverse events. Clinical outcomes were less commonly reported, and if so, were often reported as a secondary outcome observed in seroconversion or immunoglobulin titre studies. As informed by this scoping review, two effectiveness reviews (on haematological malignancies and kidney transplant recipients) are currently being conducted., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

In patients with relapse of classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) after autologous stem cell transplant, brentuximab vedotin and anti-PD1 treatment, the outcome is poor. To assess the efficacy of the bispecific anti-CD30/CD16A, NK-cell engaging antibody AFM13 and to select the optimal treatment schedule (arm A-C), we initiated a randomized two-stage phase II trial (NCT02321592). Due to slow recruitment, the trial was terminated after treatment of 25 patients. Treatment with AFM13 was well tolerated: only two treatment-associated serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported; all SAEs resolved completely. With an objective response rate (ORR) of 16.7% (1/5 in arm A, 1/11 in arm B, and 2/8 in arm C) and a 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) of 12.6% (95% CI 3.2-28.9), treatment efficacy of AFM13 monotherapy in all evaluable patients was modest. The continuous application schedule (arm C) might be more effective, but the visit schedule should be better aligned with patients' daily life.

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) appears limited due to disease and treatment-associated immune impairment. We conducted a systematic review of prospective studies published from 10/12/2021 onwards in medical databases to assess clinical efficacy parameters, humoral and cellular immunogenicity and adverse events (AE) following two doses of COVID-19 approved vaccines. In 57 eligible studies reporting 7393 patients, clinical outcomes were rarely reported and rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 0-11.9%), symptomatic disease (0-2.7%), hospital admission (0-2.8%), or death (0-0.5%) were low. Seroconversion rates ranged from 38.1-99.1% across studies with the highest response rate in myeloproliferative diseases and the lowest in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients with B-cell depleting treatment had lower seroconversion rates as compared to other targeted treatments or chemotherapy. The vaccine-induced T-cell response was rarely and heterogeneously reported (26.5-85.9%). Similarly, AEs were rarely reported (0-50.9% ≥1 AE, 0-7.5% ≥1 serious AE). In conclusion, HM patients present impaired humoral and cellular immune response to COVID-19 vaccination with disease and treatment specific response patterns. In light of the ongoing pandemic with the easing of mitigation strategies, new approaches to avert severe infection are urgently needed for this vulnerable patient population that responds poorly to current COVID-19 vaccine regimens., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHL) with a generally favorable prognosis after immunochemotherapy. The outcome of BL is superior to DLBCL. In 2016, a distinct group of lymphomas displaying characteristics of both BL and DLBCL (high grade B-cell lymphoma, HGBL) was introduced into the WHO classification. Histopathological discrimination of BL, DLBCL, and HGBL may be challenging. Data on the frequency of histopathological difficulties resulting in revision of the final diagnosis of BL/DLBCL/HGBL and its impact on the prognosis are limited., Methods: We assessed histopathological features and clinical outcomes of 66 patients with suspected diagnosis of BL at the reporting institution between 2010 and 2020., Results: The median age was 51 years (range 19-82) and final histopathological diagnosis revealed BL (n = 40), DLBCL (n = 12), or HGBL (n = 14). Patients with DLBCL and HGBL were either treated with DLBCL-directed (83.3% and 35.7%) or BL-directed (16.7% and 64.3%) protocols. Patients in whom diagnosis was revised from DLBCL to BL after initiation of DLBCL-directed treatment had a significantly inferior progression-free survival (PFS) than patients initially diagnosed with BL (p = 0.045), thus resembling rather the prognosis of DLBCL/HGBL. There was no difference between patients with DLBCL and HGBL, respectively, regarding PFS and OS (p = 0.38 and p = 0.27)., Conclusion: These results suggest that timely and precise histopathological diagnosis as well as reference histopathological review of the underlying lymphoma is critical to determine up-front treatment strategies. Consequently, selection of more aggressive treatment protocols in case of difficulties with discrimination between DLBCL/HGBL/BL may be a reasonable approach., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

While classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is highly susceptible to anti-programmed death protein 1 (PD1) antibodies, the exact modes of action remain controversial. To elucidate the circulating lymphocyte phenotype and systemic effects during anti-PD1 1st-line HL treatment we applied multicolor flow cytometry, FluoroSpot and NanoString to sequential samples of 81 HL patients from the NIVAHL trial (NCT03004833) compared to healthy controls. HL patients showed a decreased CD4 T-cell fraction, a higher percentage of effector-memory T cells and higher expression of activation markers at baseline. Strikingly, and in contrast to solid cancers, expression for 10 out of 16 analyzed co-inhibitory molecules on T cells (e.g., PD1, LAG3, Tim3) was higher in HL. Overall, we observed a sustained decrease of the exhausted T-cell phenotype during anti-PD1 treatment. FluoroSpot of 42.3% of patients revealed T-cell responses against ≥1 of five analyzed tumor-associated antigens. Importantly, these responses were more frequently observed in samples from patients with early excellent response to anti-PD1 therapy. In summary, an initially exhausted lymphocyte phenotype rapidly reverted during anti-PD1 1st-line treatment. The frequently observed IFN-y responses against shared tumor-associated antigens indicate T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity and could represent an important resource for immune monitoring and cellular therapy of HL., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

To evaluate patterns of rrHL after contemporary first-line treatment we studied 409 patients with first rrHL (HD13: n = 87, HD14: n = 118, HD15: n = 188, HDR3i: n = 51) at a median age of 37.4 years (18.4-76.8) from the GHSG database. Time to first relapse was ≤12 months in 49% and stage III/IV rrHL present in 52% of patients. In total, 291 patients received high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) and intended ASCT failed in 38 patients. ASCT was primarily not intended in 80 patients largely due to low risk disease or age/comorbidities. Overall, 10-year progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates after first relapse were 48.2% (95% CI 41.9-54.2%) and 59.4% (95% CI 53.0-65.2%), respectively, with significant differences between subgroups. Inferior survival was observed with no ASCT due to advanced age/comorbidities (five-year PFS 36.2%, 95% CI 17.7-55.0%) or failure of salvage therapy (five-year PFS 36.3%, 95% CI 19.7-53.2%). Similarly, presence of primary refractory disease or stage IV at rrHL conferred inferior survival. In patients with low-risk disease, however, survival appeared favorable even without ASCT (10 y PFS 72.6%, 95% CI 53.7-84.8%). We herein confirm the curative potential of current rrHL treatments providing a robust benchmark to evaluate novel therapeutic strategies in rrHL. Approximately 50% of rrHL patients experienced a consecutive relapse., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Reinduction chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (HDCT + ASCT) is second-line standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r cHL) but has a high failure rate. Because response to reinduction is predictive of the outcome after HDCT + ASCT, we aimed to improve the standard dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine and cisplatinum (DHAP) reinduction regimen by addition of the oral mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus (everDHAP). Transplant-eligible patients aged 18-60 years with histologically confirmed r/r cHL were included in this experimental phase I/II trial. Everolimus (10 mg/day, determined in phase-I-part) was administered on day 0-13 of each DHAP cycle. From July 2014 to March 2018, 50 patients were recruited to the phase II everDHAP group; two were not evaluable, three discontinued due to toxicity. Randomization to a placebo group stopped in October 2015 due to poor recruitment after nine patients. The primary end-point of computed tomography (CT)-based complete remission (CR) after two cycles of everDHAP was expected to be ≥40%. With a CT-based CR rate of 27% (n = 12/45) after two cycles of everDHAP the trial did not meet the primary end-point. Adding everolimus to DHAP is thus feasible; however, the everDHAP regimen failed to show an improved efficacy., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

High programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein expression and copy number alterations (CNAs) of the corresponding genomic locus 9p24.1 in Hodgkin- and Reed-Sternberg cells (HRSC) have been shown to be associated with favourable response to anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibition in relapsed/refractory (r/r) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In the present study, we investigated baseline 9p24.1 status as well as PD-L1 and major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II protein expression in 82 biopsies from patients with early stage unfavourable cHL treated with anti-PD-1-based first-line treatment in the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) NIVAHL trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03004833). All evaluated specimens showed 9p24.1 CNA in HRSC to some extent, but with high intratumoral heterogeneity and an overall smaller range of alterations than reported in advanced-stage or r/r cHL. All but two cases (97%) showed PD-L1 expression by the tumour cells in variable amounts. While MHC-I was rarely expressed in >50% of HRSC, MHC-II expression in >50% of HRSC was found more frequently. No obvious impact of 9p24.1 CNA or PD-L1 and MHC-I/II expression on early response to the highly effective anti-PD-1-based NIVAHL first-line treatment was observed. Further studies evaluating an expanded panel of potential biomarkers are needed to optimally stratify anti-PD-1 first-line cHL treatment., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly being used to treat numerous cancer types. Together with improved recognition of toxicities, this has led to more frequent identification of rare immune-related adverse events (irAE), for which specific treatment strategies are needed. Neutropenia is a rare hematological irAE that has a potential for a high mortality rate because of its associated risk of sepsis. Prompt recognition and timely treatment of this life-threatening irAE are therefore critical to the outcome of patients with immune-related neutropenia., Methods: This multicenter international retrospective study was conducted at 17 melanoma centers to evaluate the clinical characteristics, diagnostics, treatment, and outcomes of melanoma patients with grade 4 neutropenia (<500 neutrophils/µl blood) treated with ICI between 2014 and 2020. Some of these patients received metamizole in addition to ICI (ICI+/met+). Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) of these patients were compared to BMB from non-ICI treated patients with metamizole-induced grade 4 neutropenia (ICI-/met+)., Results: In total, 10 patients (median age at neutropenia onset: 66 years; seven men) with neutropenia were identified, equating to an incidence of 0.14%. Median onset of neutropenia was 6.4 weeks after starting ICI (range 1.4-49.1 weeks). Six patients showed inflammatory symptoms, including fever (n=3), erysipelas (n=1), pharyngeal abscess (n=1), and mucositis (n=1). Neutropenia was diagnosed in all patients by a differential blood count and additionally performed procedures including BMB (n=5). Nine of 10 patients received granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) to treat their grade 4 neutropenia. Four patients received systemic steroids (including two in combination with G-CSF, and one in combination with G-CSF and additional ciclosporin A). Four patients were treated with one or more antibiotic treatment lines, two with antimycotic treatment, and one with additional antiviral therapy. Five patients received metamizole concomitantly with ICI. One fatal outcome was reported. BMB indicated a numerically lower CD4+ to CD8+ T cells ratio in patients with irNeutropenia than in those with metamizole-induced neutropenia., Conclusion: Grade 4 neutropenia is a rare but potentially life-threatening side effect of ICI treatment. Most cases were sufficiently managed using G-CSF; however, adequate empiric antibiotic, antiviral, and antimycotic treatments should be administered if neutropenic infections are suspected. Immunosuppression using corticosteroids may be considered after other causes of neutropenia have been excluded., Competing Interests: AZ received travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. RK has received speaker fees by NG-Akademie GmbH and Hollister Incorporated, outside the submitted work. MS is an honoraria and/or travel grants from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis. AG: Speaker´s honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Sharp & Dohme and Roche; intermittent advisory board relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme; travel and congress fee support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals and Roche. Clinical studies: Amgen, Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Novartis, Merck, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Roche. BB received speaker fees for BMS, MSD, Novartis. Travel accomodation: BMS, Pierre Fabre. MS is an honoria for advisory board for Sanofi/Regneron and speaker fees für Novartis Pharma AG. GM has received speaker fees from PharmaMar, outside the submitted work. DJ received advisory board honoraria from BMS, Catalyst, Iovance, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, Oncosec, and Pfizer, and research funding from BMS and Incyte. LS is an honoraria for advisory boards & speaker fees from BMS. CaL received Advisory board: Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, SunPharma, Biontech, Kyowa Kirin, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Merck; Speakers fee: Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, SunPharma, Biontech, Kyowa Kirin, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Merck; Travel reimbursement: Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, SunPharma, Biontech, Kyowa Kirin, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Merck. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, Pierre Fabre, SUNPHARMA and LEO. GL is a consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexel AG, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, SkylineDX B.V., Specialised Therapeutics Australia Pty Ltd. AM is an honoraria for advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. MC is a consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck and Sanofi, and received honoraria from BMS, MSD, and Novartis. CeL received Honoraria: Roche; BMS; Novartis; Amgen; MSD; Pierre Fabre; Pfizer; Incyte; Consulting or Advisory Role: BMS; MSD; Novartis; Amgen; Roche; Merck Serono; Sanofi; Pierre Fabre; Speakers’ Bureau: Roche; BMS; Novartis; Amgen; MSD; Research Funding: Roche; BMS; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: BMS; MSD; Novartis; Sanofi; Pierre Fabre; Other Relationship: Avantis Medical Systems (board). MT received grants and personal fees from MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, BMS, Bayer, Eisai, Novartis, Pfizer, Rakuten Medical, Merck Biopharma, personal fees from LOXO, Celgene, Amgen, outside the submitted work. PB received research funding from BeiGene, BMS, MSD and Takeda; advisory board honoraria from Takeda; speakers honoraria from BMS and travel support from Celgene, all outside the submitted work. TEi received speaker fees from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Sanofi Genzyme, Alirall Hermal and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. KK has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis, and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac and Novartis. RG: Invited speaker: Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre. Advisory board: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, 4SC, Bayer, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Immunocore. Research grants: Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi. Travel/meeting support: Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck-Serono, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. CB received advisory board honoraria and/or speaker´s fees from Amgen, BMS, Immunocore, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pierre Fabre. JB is receiving speaker’s bureau honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, Recordati and Sanofi, is a paid consultant/advisory board member/DSMB member for Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, InProTher, ICON, MerckSerono, Pfizer, 4SC, and Sanofi/Regeneron. His group receives research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, HTG, IQVIA, and Alcedis. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Medac, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. FM has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. JH received research support from BMS; advisory board honoraria from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and MSD; speakers honoraria from GSK, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Almirall and travel support from Pierre Fabre and 4SC. DS reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech, grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from BMS, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, grant, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, personal fees from Immunocore, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from 4SC, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi/Regeneron, personal fees from Array BioPharma, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Philogen, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Nektar, personal fees from Sandoz, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from SunPharma, Replimune, Helsinn, OncoSec and InFlaRx outside the submitted work. LH reports Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants or research funding: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, Curevac, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. Clinical studies: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Curevac and Novartis. LZ reports being a consultant and/or receiving honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Sunpharma and Sanofi; research funding to institution from Novartis; and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Zaremba, Kramer, De Temple, Bertram, Salzmann, Gesierich, Reinhardt, Baroudjian, Sachse, Mechtersheimer, Johnson, Weppler, Spain, Loquai, Dudda, Pföhler, Hepner, Long, Menzies, Carlino, Lebbé, Enokida, Tahara, Bröckelmann, Eigentler, Kähler, Gutzmer, Berking, Ugurel, Stadtler, Sucker, Becker, Livingstone, Meier, Hassel, Schadendorf, Hanoun, Heinzerling and Zimmer.)

Background: Individualization of treatment in Hodgkin's lymphoma is necessary to improve cure rates and reduce treatment side effects. Currently, it is hindered by a lack of genomic characterization and sensitive molecular response assessment. Sequencing of cell-free DNA is a powerful strategy to understand the cancer genome and can be used for extremely sensitive disease monitoring. In Hodgkin's lymphoma, a high proportion of cell-free DNA is tumor-derived, whereas traditional tumor biopsies only contain a little tumor-derived DNA., Methods: We comprehensively genotype and assess minimal residual disease in 121 patients with baseline plasma as well as 77 follow-up samples from a subset of patients with our targeted cell-free DNA sequencing platform., Findings: We present an integrated landscape of mutations and copy number variations in Hodgkin's lymphoma. In addition, we perform a deep analysis of mutational processes driving Hodgkin's lymphoma, investigate the clonal structure of Hodgkin's lymphoma, and link several genotypes to Hodgkin's lymphoma phenotypes and outcome. Finally, we show that minimal residual disease assessment by repeat cell-free DNA sequencing, as early as a week after treatment initiation, predicts treatment response and progression-free survival, allowing highly improved treatment guidance and relapse prediction., Conclusions: Our targeted cell-free DNA sequencing platform reveals the genomic landscape of Hodgkin's lymphoma and facilitates ultrasensitive detection of minimal residual disease., Funding: Mildred Scheel School of Oncology Aachen-Bonn-Cologne-Düsseldorf MD Research Stipend, Next Generation Sequencing Competence Network grant 423957469, Deutsche Krebshilfe grant 70112502, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) grant EN 179/13-1, the HL MRD consortium, and the Frau-Weiskam und Christel Ruranski-Stiftung., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests P.J.B. reports research grants from BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Takeda and personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Takeda, all outside the submitted work. S.S. received travel grants from GSK. D.M.P. reports being founder and CSO of Exbiome and an occasional advisor for Takeda. B.v.T. reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, Pentixapharm, and Roche; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from MSD and Takeda; and grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. S.B. reports being founder, CEO, and shareholder of Liqomics and personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Takeda outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare type of aggressive lymphoma of the central nervous system. Treatment strategies improved significantly over the past decades differ regionally but mainly consist of rituximab and high-dosed methotrexate (MTX)-based therapies., Methods: We assessed clinical outcomes of 100 patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL between 2010-2020 at the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany., Results: Patients were 23-88 years of age and either treated with MTX-based regimens (PRIMAIN, MARTA, MATRix), individual regimens, or best supportive care, respectively. Overall response rates were generally high (66,7-83,8%), but different organ toxicities required dose adjustments in most groups. Two-year overall survival rates were 57,9% (PRIMAIN), 63,6% (MARTA), 65,4% (MATRix), and 37,5% (Other), respectively. Out of 9 patients suffering from relapse >12 months from primary diagnosis, 7 patients (77,8%) received methotrexate-based salvage therapy with 2-year overall survival of 4/6 patients (66,7%)., Conclusion: Although a relevant proportion of patients are not eligible for clinical trials due to age, performance status, or comorbidities, these results prove feasibility of different MTX-based treatment strategies in clinical routine. Even elderly patients displayed surprisingly favorable outcomes. However, with compromising organ toxicities, reduction of intensity should be part of strategies in future clinical trials., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: With the increasing use of checkpoint inhibitors, rare immune-related adverse events (irAE) are being identified. Haematological irAE (hem-irAE) are difficult to treat and have shown high mortality rates. In order to improve side-effect management for these potentially life-threatening events, we analysed frequency, severity and outcomes., Patients and Methods: Patients who developed hem-irAE while being treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) therapy were retrospectively identified from 18 international cancer centres., Results: In total, more than 7626 patients treated with ICI were screened, and 50 patients with hem-irAE identified. The calculated incidence amounts to 0.6% and median onset was 6 weeks after the ICI initiation (range 1-128 weeks). Thrombocytopenia and leucopaenia were the most frequent hem-irAE with 34% (17/50) and 34% (17/50), respectively, followed by anaemia 28% (14/50), hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (4% (2/50)), aplastic anaemia (2% (1/50)), acquired haemophilia A (2% (1/50)) and coagulation deficiency (2% (1/50)). Simultaneous thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred in two patients, concurrent anaemia and thrombocytopenia in one patient. Other than cessation of ICI (in 60%) and corticosteroids (in 78%), treatment included second-line immunosuppression in 24% of cases. Events resolved in 78% (39/50), while 18% (9/50) had persistent changes, and 2% (1/50) had fatal outcomes (agranulocytosis)., Conclusion: Hem-irAE can affect all haematopoietic blood cell lineages and may persist or even be fatal. Management may require immunosuppression beyond corticosteroids. Although these irAE are rare, treating physicians should be aware, monitor blood counts regularly and promptly act upon detection., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships, which may be considered as potential competing interests: Rafaela Kramer: NoneZaremba Anne: Received travel support from Novartis, Genzyme and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Alvaro Moreira: Speaker's honoraria from AbbVie, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Roche; consultant's honoraria from Almirall. Selma Ugurel: Selma Ugurel declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp and Dohme. Douglas Johnson: Advisory boards for Array Biopharma, BMS, Catalyst, Iovance, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, and research funding from BMS and Incyte. Jessica C. Hassel: honoraria from BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi; consultant's honoraria from Pierre Faber, MSD, Sunpharma; science grant from BMS. Martin Salzmann: honoraria and travel grants from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis and Pfizer. Anja Gesierich: speaker's honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Sharp and Dohme and Roche; Consultant's honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme; travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals and Roche. Clinical studies: Amgen, Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Novartis, Merck, MSD Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer and Roche. Alisonn Weppler: none. Lavinia Spain: Honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb for Advisory Boards Carmen Loquai: Advisory board, speakers fee, travel reimbursement: Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, BMS, Merck, MSD, Biontech, Almiral Hermal, Kyowa Kirin, Sun Pharma, Sanofi Milena Dudda: none. Claudia Pföhler: Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Pierre Fabre, LEO. Clinical studies: Novartis, BMS. Adriana Hepner: AH is employee of AstraZeneca with stock options in the company, has received honoraria from Novartis and travel expenses from Roche. Georgina V. Long: consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, SkylineDX B.V. Alexander Menzies: advisory board BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics Matteo S. Carlino: MSC has served on advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Merck, Ideaya, Regeneron, Nektar, Eisai and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis Michael M. Sachse: Speaker fees: Roche, MSD, Novartis Céleste Lebbé: Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants or research funding: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. Clinical studies: BMS, MSD, Merck, Sanofi, Incyrte, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Curevac, Genentech and Novartis Barouyr Baroudjian: Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Tomohiro Enokida: none. Makoto Tahara: reports grants and personal fees from Ono Pharmaceutical, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from BMS, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Bayer, grants and personal fees from Eisai, grants and personal fees from Merck serono, personal fees from LOXO, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Rakuten Medical, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Max Schlaak: Consultancy, speaker fees or travel grants: BMS, MSD, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma Kinan Hayani: none. Paul Bröckelmann: PJB declares honoraria and non-financial support by Bristol-Myers Squibb and research funding by Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD Sharp and Dohme. Friedegund Meier: F.M. has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. Lydia Reinhardt: none. Philip Friedlander: none. Thomas Eigentler: received fees for advisory boards from Roche, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Sanofi and Philogen Katharina C. Kähler: serves as consultant to Roche, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre and received travel grants and speaker fees from Roche, BMS, MSD, Amgen, Pierre Fabre and Philogen. Lisa Zimmer: LZ has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, research funding from Novartis and has served on advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme; travel support: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Sunpharma Lucie Heinzerling: Consultancy, speaker fees, travel grants or research funding: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, Curevac, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. Clinical studies: BMS, MSD, Merck, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Curevac and Novartis., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To improve the long-term tumour control in early, unfavourable Hodgkin Lymphoma, the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) HD14 trial compared four cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) with an intensified chemotherapy regimen consisting of two cycles of escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (escalated BEACOPP) plus two cycles of ABVD. The final analysis of the trial showed a significant advantage in terms of freedom from treatment failure (difference 7·2% [95% CI 3·8-10·5] at 5 years) for patients who received two cycles of escalated BEACOPP and two cycles of ABVD. However, there was no difference in overall survival between the two groups. To evaluate long-term efficacy and toxicity of this strategy, we did a follow-up analysis., Methods: Patients aged 18-60 years with performance status of 2 or less and primary diagnosis of early, unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma (all histologies) were included in an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive four cycles of ABVD (ABVD group) or two cycles of escalated BEACOPP and two cycles of ABVD (2 + 2 group), both groups also received 30 Gy involved field radiotherapy. The ABVD dosing regimen was doxorubicin 25 mg/m 2 (days 1 and 15), bleomycin 10 mg/m 2 (days 1 and 15), vinblastine 6 mg/m 2 (days 1 and 15), and dacarbazine 375 mg/m 2 (days 1 and 15), repeated on day 29. The escalated BEACOPP dosing regimen was cyclophosphamide 1250 mg/m 2 (day 1), doxorubicin 35 mg/m 2 (day 1), etoposide 200 mg/m 2 (days 1-3), procarbazine 100 mg/m 2 (days 1-7), prednisone 40 mg/m 2 (days 1-14), vincristine 1·4 mg/m 2 (day 8; maximum 2 mg), and bleomycin 10 mg/m 2 (day 8), repeated on day 22. After closure of the ABVD group according to prespecified rules, patients were assigned to receive two cycles of escalated BEACOPP and two cycles of ABVD (non-randomised 2 + 2 group), which continued until the end of the predefined 5-year recruitment period. In this prespecified long-term follow-up analysis, we aimed to evaluate the secondary endpoints progression-free survival, overall survival, and long-term toxicity. To this end, we did a descriptive intention-to-treat analysis of all qualified HD14 patients and on the predefined subsets of randomised qualified HD14 patients and patients in the non-randomised 2 + 2 group. The trial was registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial database, 04761296., Findings: Between Jan 28, 2003, and Dec 29, 2009, 1686 patients were randomly assigned to the ABVD group (847 [50·2%] patients) and the 2 + 2 group (839 [49·8%] patients). 370 additional patients were recruited to the non-randomised 2 + 2 group. 1550 (92%) randomly assigned patients (median observation time 112 months [IQR 80-132]) and 339 (92%) patients in the non-randomised 2 + 2 group (median observation time 74 months [58-100]) were included in the qualified analysis set. 10-year overall survival in the randomly assigned patients was 94·1% (95% CI 92·0-95·7) for the ABVD group and 94·1% (91·8-95·7) for the 2 + 2 group (HR 1·0 [95% CI 0·6-1·5]; p=0·88). 8-year overall survival in the non-randomised 2 + 2 group was 95·1% (95% CI 91·6-97·2). 10-year progression-free survival in the randomly assigned patients was 85·6% (95% CI 82·6-88·1) for the ABVD group and 91·2% (88·4-93·3) for the 2 + 2 group (HR 0·5% [95% CI 0·4-0·7]; p=0·0001), accounting for a significant difference of 5·6% (95% CI 1·9-9·2) favouring the 2 + 2 group (p=0·0001). In the non-randomised 2 + 2 group, 8-year progression-free survival was 94·5% (95% CI 91·1-96·6). Standardised incidence ratios of second primary malignancies were similar between the ABVD group (2·3 [95% CI 1·6-3·1]) and the 2 + 2 group (2·5 [1·8-3·4]; Gray's p=0·80). Standardised incidence ratio of second primary malignancies was 3·1 (95% CI 1·7-5·0) in the non-randomised 2 + 2 group., Interpretation: This long-term analysis confirms superior tumour control in the 2 + 2 group compared with the ABVD group without translating into an overall survival difference. At longer follow-up, there is no difference regarding second primary malignancies between groups. In conclusion, the 2 + 2 regimen spares a significant number of patients from the burden of relapse and additional treatment without increased long-term toxicity., Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe eV and Swiss Federal Government., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combined-modality treatment consisting of chemotherapy and consolidation radiotherapy is standard of care for patients with early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma. However, the use of radiotherapy can have long-term sequelae, which is of particular concern, as Hodgkin lymphoma is frequently diagnosed in young adults with a median age of approximately 30 years. In the German Hodgkin Study Group HD17 trial, we investigated whether radiotherapy can be omitted without loss of efficacy in patients who have a complete metabolic response after receiving two cycles of escalated doses of etoposide, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin, and regular doses of bleomycin, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) plus two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy (2 + 2)., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, patients (aged 18-60 years) with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma (all histologies) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less were enrolled at 224 hospitals and private practices in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either standard combined-modality treatment, consisting of the 2 + 2 regimen (eBEACOPP consisted of 1250 mg/m 2 intravenous cyclophosphamide on day 1, 35 mg/m 2 intravenous doxorubicin on day 1, 200 mg/m 2 intravenous etoposide on days 1-3, 100 mg/m 2 oral procarbazine on days 1-7, 40 mg/m 2 oral prednisone on days 1-14, 1·4 mg/m 2 intravenous vincristine on day 8 [maximum dose of 2 mg per cycle], and 10 mg/m 2 intravenous bleomycin on day 8; ABVD consisted of 25 mg/m 2 intravenous doxorubicin, 10 mg/m 2 intravenous bleomycin, 6 mg/m 2 intravenous vinblastine, and 375 mg/m 2 intravenous dacarbazine, all given on days 1 and 15) followed by 30 Gy involved-field radiotherapy (standard combined-modality treatment group) or PET4-guided treatment, consisting of the 2 + 2 regimen followed by 30 Gy of involved-node radiotherapy only in patients with positive PET at the end of four cycles of chemotherapy (PET4; PET4-guided treatment group). Randomisation was done centrally and used the minimisation method and seven stratification factors (centre, age, sex, clinical symptoms, disease localisation, albumin concentration, and bulky disease), and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until central review of the PET4 examination had been completed. With the final analysis presented here, the primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the PET4-guided strategy in a per-protocol analysis of the primary endpoint of progression-free survival. We defined non-inferiority as an absolute difference of 8% in the 5-year progression-free survival estimates between the two groups. Safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01356680., Findings: Between Jan 13, 2012, and March 21, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 1100 patients to the standard combined-modality treatment group (n=548) or to the PET4-guided treatment group (n=552); two patients in each group were found ineligible after randomisation. At a median follow-up of 46·2 months (IQR 32·7-61·2), 5-year progression-free survival was 97·3% (95% CI 94·5-98·7) in the standard combined-modality treatment group and 95·1% (92·0-97·0) in the PET4-guided treatment group (hazard ratio 0·523 [95% CI 0·226-1·211]). The between-group difference was 2·2% (95% CI -0·9 to 5·3) and excluded the non-inferiority margin of 8%. The most common grade 3 or 4 acute haematological adverse events were leucopenia (436 [83%] of 528 patients in the standard combined-modality treatment group vs 443 [84%] of 529 patients in the PET4-guided treatment group) and thrombocytopenia (139 [26%] vs 176 [33%]), and the most frequent acute non-haematological toxic effects were infection (32 [6%] vs 40 [8%]) and nausea or vomiting (38 [7%] vs 29 [6%]). The most common acute radiotherapy-associated adverse events were dysphagia (26 [6%] in the standard combined-modality treatment group vs three [2%] in the PET4-guided treatment group) and mucositis (nine [2%] vs none). 229 serious adverse events were reported by 161 (29%) of 546 patients in the combined-modality treatment group, and 235 serious adverse events were reported by 164 (30%) of 550 patients in the PET4-guided treatment group. One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction (infection) leading to death was reported in the PET4-guided treatment group., Interpretation: PET4-negativity after treatment with 2 + 2 chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma allows omission of consolidation radiotherapy without a clinically relevant loss of efficacy. PET4-guided therapy could thereby reduce the proportion of patients at risk of the late effects of radiotherapy., Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A primary analysis of the ongoing NIVAHL trial demonstrated unexpectedly high interim complete response rates to nivolumab-based first-line treatment in early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma. However, biomarkers such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) or total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and their change under treatment (ΔMTV and ΔTLG), measured on PET, might provide additional relevant information for response assessment in this setting. Hence, the current analysis aimed to investigate early response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy beyond conventional criteria., Patients and Methods: NIVAHL is a prospective, randomized phase II trial that recruited between April 2017 and October 2018. Patients in arms A and B were assessed for early treatment response after two courses of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine with two concomitant nivolumab infusions per cycle (2 × N-AVD) and 4 × nivolumab, respectively. In the current analysis, we included all 59 individuals with PET images available to the central review panel for quantitative analysis before April 30, 2019., Results: At interim restaging, we determined a mean ΔMTV and ΔTLG of -99.8% each in arm A after 2 × N-AVD, compared with -91.4% and -91.9%, respectively, for treatment group B undergoing 4 × nivolumab. This high decrease in MTV and TLG was observed regardless of the initial lymphoma burden., Conclusions: Our study showed that nivolumab-based first-line treatment leads to rapid, near-complete reduction of tumor metabolism in early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin lymphoma. Thus, PET-derived biomarkers might allow reduction or even omission of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Furthermore, MTV and TLG could be also used to optimize immune checkpoint-targeting treatments in other cancers., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: We evaluated disease and treatment characteristics of patients with relapse after risk-adapted first-line treatment of early-stage, favorable, classic Hodgkin lymphoma (ES-HL). We compared second-line therapy with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or conventional chemotherapy (CTx)., Methods: We analyzed patients with relapse after ES-HL treated within the German Hodgkin Study Group HD10+HD13 trials. We compared, by Cox proportional hazards regression, progression-free survival (PFS) after relapse (second PFS) treated with either ASCT or CTx and performed sensitivity analyses with overall survival (OS) from relapse and Kaplan-Meier statistics., Results: A total of 174 patients' disease relapsed after treatment in the HD10 (n = 53) and HD13 (n = 121) trials. Relapse mostly occurred > 12 months after first diagnosis, predominantly with stage I-II disease. Of 172 patients with known second-line therapy, 85 received CTx (49%); 70, ASCT (41%); 11, radiotherapy only (6%); and 4, palliative single agent therapies (2%). CTx was predominantly bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP [68%]), followed by the combination regimen of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (19%), or other regimens (13%). Patients aged > 60 years at relapse had shorter second PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 3.0; P = .0029) and were mostly treated with CTx (n = 33 of 49; 67%) and rarely with ASCT (n = 8; 16%). After adjustment for age and a disadvantage of ASCT after the more historic HD10 trial, we did not observe a significant difference in the efficacy of CTx versus ASCT for second PFS (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.6; P = .39). In patients in the HD13 trial who were aged ≤ 60 years, the 2-year, second PFS rate was 94.0% with CTx (95% CI, 85.7% to 100%) versus 83.3% with ASCT (95% CI, 71.8% to 94.8%). Additional sensitivity analyses including OS confirmed these observations., Conclusion: After contemporary treatment of ES-HL, relapse mostly occurred > 12 months after first diagnosis. Polychemotherapy regimens such as BEACOPP are frequently administered and may constitute a reasonable treatment option for selected patients with relapse after ES-HL.

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is the cancer type most susceptible to antibodies targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) and is characterized by scarce Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells (HRSCs), perpetuating a unique tumor microenvironment (TME). Although anti-PD1 effects appear to be largely mediated by cytotoxic CD8+ T cells in solid tumors, HRSCs frequently lack major histocompatibility complex expression, and the mechanism of anti-PD1 efficacy in cHL is unclear. Rapid clinical responses and high interim complete response rates to anti-PD1 based first-line treatment were recently reported for patients with early-stage unfavorable cHL treated in the German Hodgkin Study Group phase 2 NIVAHL trial. To investigate the mechanisms underlying this very early response to anti-PD1 treatment, we analyzed paired biopsies and blood samples obtained from NIVAHL patients before and during the first days of nivolumab first-line cHL therapy. Mirroring the rapid clinical response, HRSCs had disappeared from the tissue within days after the first nivolumab application. The TME already shows a reduction in type 1 regulatory T cells and PD-L1+ tumor-associated macrophages at this early time point of treatment. Interestingly, a cytotoxic immune response and a clonal T-cell expansion were not observed in the tumors or peripheral blood. These early changes in the TME were distinct from alterations found in a separate set of cHL biopsies at relapse during anti-PD1 therapy. We identify a unique very early histologic response pattern to anti-PD1 therapy in cHL that is suggestive of withdrawal of prosurvival factors, rather than induction of an adaptive antitumor immune response, as the main mechanism of action., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

The DNA double-strand break (DSB) is the most cytotoxic lesion and compromises genome stability. In an attempt to efficiently repair DSBs, cells activate ATM kinase, which orchestrates the DNA damage response (DDR) by activating cell cycle checkpoints and initiating DSB repair pathways. In physiological B cell development, however, programmed DSBs are generated as intermediates for effective immune responses and the maintenance of genomic integrity. Disturbances of these pathways are at the heart of B cell lymphomagenesis. Here, we review the role of DNA repair and cell cycle control on B cell development and lymphomagenesis. In addition, we highlight the intricate relationship between the DDR and the tumor microenvironment (TME). Lastly, we provide a clinical perspective by highlighting treatment possibilities of defective DDR signaling and the TME in mantle cell lymphoma, which serves as a blueprint for B cell lymphomas.

Importance: In early-stage unfavorable classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), conventional therapy induces high cure rates but also relevant acute and long-term toxic effects. Nivolumab is well tolerated and highly effective in relapsed/refractory cHL but has not been adequately studied in first-line treatment of early-stage cHL. The NIVAHL trial evaluated nivolumab in this setting with the aim to develop a highly effective yet tolerable systemic therapy to ultimately mitigate morbidity in patients who survive cHL., Objective: To evaluate efficacy of 2 experimental nivolumab-based first-line treatment strategies in patients with early-stage unfavorable cHL., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was an open-label, multicenter, phase 2 randomized clinical trial, open between April 2017 and October 2018. The trial took place at 35 trial centers across Germany, ranging from academic centers to private offices. Eligibility was defined by age 18 to 60 years, cHL confirmed by expert pathology review, early-stage unfavorable disease by German Hodgkin Study Group criteria (stage I to II with risk factor[s]), and absence of serious concomitant disease or organ dysfunction. Among 110 enrolled patients, 109 were eligible., Interventions: Systemic therapy, per random assignment (1:1) to either concomitant treatment with 4 cycles of nivolumab and doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (N-AVD) or sequential treatment with 4 doses of nivolumab, 2 cycles of N-AVD, and 2 cycles of AVD at standard doses, followed by 30-Gy involved-site radiotherapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Complete remission (CR) rate after study treatment, aiming at excluding a CR rate of 80% or lower via a 2-sided 95% CI for each treatment group., Results: Of 109 patients included in this study, 65 (59.6%) were women, and the median (range) age was 27 (18-60) years. At interim staging after 2 cycles of N-AVD or 4 doses of nivolumab monotherapy, 54 of 54 (100%) and 49 of 51 (96%) response-eligible patients, respectively, achieved an objective response, with CR in 47 (87%) and 26 (51%) patients, respectively. Among 101 patients eligible for primary end point analysis, 46 of 51 (90%; 95% CI, 79%-97%) patients receiving concomitant therapy and 47 of 50 (94%; 95% CI, 84%-99%) patients receiving sequential therapy achieved CR after study treatment. With a median follow-up of 13 months, 12-month progression-free survival was 100% for patients receiving concomitant treatment and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%) for patients receiving sequential therapy., Conclusions and Relevance: Both strategies combining nivolumab and AVD are feasible and resulted in high remission rates. Despite narrowly missing the efficacy benchmark in the concomitant group, the excellent 12-month progression-free survival and the unexpectedly high CR rate after 4 doses of nivolumab monotherapy warrant further evaluation of this approach in the first-line treatment of patients with early-stage cHL., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03004833.

Introduction : Over the last decade targeted therapies have transformed the treatment landscape for hematologic malignancies with >70 new or extended approvals by the FDA since 2010. Since many of these drugs are registered for multiple entities and >1/3 were approved in the last two years, treatment options in hematology are rapidly expanding. Despite the justified excitement around the often previously unseen emerging therapeutic potential, distinct side-effect profiles require vigilance and adequate management by patients and caregivers. Areas covered : This review provides a summary of the unique toxicity profiles of therapies for hematologic malignancies during the last decade with a focus on clinical implications and applicability. Due to the already wide implementation in common practice or an immense potential thereof selected treatments such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, various monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapies are discussed in detail. Challenges and potential strategies to assess and manage real-world toxicity after drug approval are addressed. Expert opinion : The rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape of hematologic malignancies comes with a broad spectrum of side effects which are distinct from conventional hematotoxicity and require alertness.

History and Clinical Findings: A 53-year-old male presented with massive pruritus, whole-body exanthema, generalized muscle pain, and exercise dyspnoea NYHA II., Findings and Diagnosis: Further hematologic examination lead to diagnosis of myeloid and lymphoid neoplasia with eosinophilia (MLN-EO) with FIPL1L1-PDGFRA fusion gene. An echocardiographic examination revealed a thrombus in the right ventricle. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed an extensive intracavitary thrombus extending from the apex to the right ventricular outflow tract., Therapy and Course: Oral anticoagulation with phenprocoumon and a targeted therapy with imatinib were initiated. Follow-up at 11- and 23-months revealed diminishing of the thrombus. Further follow-up did not show any complications., Conclusions: In summary, Loeffler's endocarditis caused by a myeloid and lymphoid neoplasm associated with eosinophilia and abnormalities of FIP1L1-PDGFRA rearrangement could be treated successfully with oral anticoagulation therapy and the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib., Competing Interests: Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Purpose: Vitamin D deficiency is described as a modifiable risk factor for the incidence of and mortality in many common cancers; however, data in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are lacking., Patients and Methods: We thus performed a study measuring pretreatment vitamin D levels in prospectively treated patients with HL and correlated this with clinical outcomes. A total of 351 patients from the German Hodgkin Study Group clinical trials (HD7, HD8, and HD9) were included., Results: Fifty percent of patients were vitamin D deficient (< 30 nmol/L) before planned chemotherapy. Pretreatment vitamin D deficiency was more common in relapsed/refractory patients than matched relapse-free controls (median baseline vitamin D, 21.4 nmol/L v 35.5 nmol/L; proportion with vitamin D deficiency, 68% v 41%; P < .001). Vitamin D-deficient patients had impaired progression-free survival (10-year difference, 17.6%; 95% CI, 6.9% to 28.4%; hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.84 to 2.48; P < .001) and overall survival (10-year difference, 11.1%; 95% CI, 2.1% to 20.2%; hazard ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.53 to 2.15; P < .001), consistent across trials and treatment groups. We demonstrated that vitamin D status is an independent predictor of outcome and hypothesized that vitamin D status might be important for the chemosensitivity of HL. We subsequently performed experiments supplementing physiologic doses of vitamin D (calcitriol) to cultured HL cell lines and demonstrated increased antiproliferative effects in combination with chemotherapy. In an HL-xenograft animal model, we showed that supplemental vitamin D (dietary supplement, cholecalciferol) improves the chemosensitivity of tumors by reducing the rate of tumor growth compared with vitamin D or chemotherapy alone., Conclusion: On the basis of our clinical and preclinical findings, we encourage that vitamin D screening and replacement be incorporated into future randomized clinical trials to properly clarify the role of vitamin D replacement therapy in HL.