| Literature DB >> 28291393 |
Marc P E André1, Théodore Girinsky1, Massimo Federico1, Oumédaly Reman1, Catherine Fortpied1, Manuel Gotti1, Olivier Casasnovas1, Pauline Brice1, Richard van der Maazen1, Alessandro Re1, Véronique Edeline1, Christophe Fermé1, Gustaaf van Imhoff1, Francesco Merli1, Réda Bouabdallah1, Catherine Sebban1, Lena Specht1, Aspasia Stamatoullas1, Richard Delarue1, Valeria Fiaccadori1, Monica Bellei1, Tiana Raveloarivahy1, Annibale Versari1, Martin Hutchings1, Michel Meignan1, John Raemaekers1.
Abstract
Purpose Patients who receive combined modality treatment for stage I and II Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) have an excellent outcome. Early response evaluation with positron emission tomography (PET) scan may improve selection of patients who need reduced or more intensive treatments. Methods We performed a randomized trial to evaluate treatment adaptation on the basis of early PET (ePET) after two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in previously untreated-according to European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria favorable (F) and unfavorable (U)-stage I and II HL. The standard arm consisted of ABVD followed by involved-node radiotherapy (INRT), regardless of ePET result. In the experimental arm, ePET-negative patients received ABVD only (noninferiority design), whereas ePET-positive patients switched to two cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPPesc) and INRT (superiority design). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Of 1,950 randomly assigned patients, 1,925 received an ePET-361 patients (18.8%) were positive. In ePET-positive patients, 5-year PFS improved from 77.4% for standard ABVD + INRT to 90.6% for intensification to BEACOPPesc + INRT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.74; P = .002). In ePET-negative patients, 5-year PFS rates in the F group were 99.0% versus 87.1% (HR, 15.8; 95% CI, 3.8 to 66.1) in favor of ABVD + INRT; the U group, 92.1% versus 89.6% (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.5) in favor of ABVD + INRT. For both F and U groups, noninferiority of ABVD only compared with combined modality treatment could not be demonstrated. Conclusion In stage I and II HL, PET response after two cycles of ABVD allows for early treatment adaptation. When ePET is positive after two cycles of ABVD, switching to BEACOPPesc + INRT significantly improved 5-year PFS. In ePET-negative patients, noninferiority of ABVD only could not be demonstrated: risk of relapse is increased when INRT is omitted, especially in patients in the F group.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28291393 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.6394
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Oncol ISSN: 0732-183X Impact factor: 44.544