Sally F Barrington1, Elizabeth H Phillips2, Nicholas Counsell2, Barry Hancock3, Ruth Pettengell4, Peter Johnson5, William Townsend6, Dominic Culligan7, Bilyana Popova2, Laura Clifton-Hadley2, Andrew McMillan8, Peter Hoskin9,10, Michael J O'Doherty1, Tim Illidge10, John Radford10. 1. 1 King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' PET Centre, Kings College London, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom. 2. 2 Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 3. 3 University of Sheffield and Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom. 4. 4 St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom. 5. 5 Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. 6. 6 University College Hospital London, London, United Kingdom. 7. 7 Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, United Kingdom. 8. 8 Nottingham City Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 9. 9 Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, United Kingdom. 10. 10 Institute of Cancer Sciences and the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accurate stratification of patients is an important goal in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), but the role of pretreatment clinical risk stratification in the context of positron emission tomography (PET) -adapted treatment is unclear. We performed a subsidiary analysis of the RAPID trial to assess the prognostic value of pretreatment risk factors and PET score in determining outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IA to IIA HL and no mediastinal bulk underwent PET assessment after three cycles ofdoxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine; 143 PET-positive patients (PET score, 3 to 5) received a fourthdoxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine cycle and involved-field radiotherapy, and 419 patients in complete metabolic remission were randomly assigned to receive involved-field radiotherapy (n = 208) or no additional treatment (n = 211). Cox regression was used to investigate the association between PET score and pretreatment risk factors with HL-specific event-free survival (EFS). RESULTS:High PET score was associated with inferior EFS, before (P < .001) and after adjustment (P = .01) for baseline risk stratification. Only patients with a postchemotherapy PET score of 5 (uptake ≥ three times maximum liver uptake) had an increased risk of progression or HL-related death (hazard ratio, 9.4 v score of 3; 95% CI, 2.8 to 31.3 and hazard ratio, 6.7 v score of 4; 95% CI, 1.4 to 31.7). Patients with a PET score of 5 also had inferior progression-free and overall survival. There was no association between European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer or German Hodgkin Study Group risk group and EFS, before or after adjusting for PET score (all P > .4). CONCLUSION: In RAPID, a positive PET scan did not carry uniform prognostic weight; only a PET score of 5 was associated with inferior outcomes. This suggests that in future trials involving patients without B symptoms or mediastinal bulk, a score of 5 rather than a positive PET result should be used to guide treatment escalation in early-stage HL.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Accurate stratification of patients is an important goal in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), but the role of pretreatment clinical risk stratification in the context of positron emission tomography (PET) -adapted treatment is unclear. We performed a subsidiary analysis of the RAPID trial to assess the prognostic value of pretreatment risk factors and PET score in determining outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IA to IIA HL and no mediastinal bulk underwent PET assessment after three cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine; 143 PET-positive patients (PET score, 3 to 5) received a fourth doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine cycle and involved-field radiotherapy, and 419 patients in complete metabolic remission were randomly assigned to receive involved-field radiotherapy (n = 208) or no additional treatment (n = 211). Cox regression was used to investigate the association between PET score and pretreatment risk factors with HL-specific event-free survival (EFS). RESULTS: High PET score was associated with inferior EFS, before (P < .001) and after adjustment (P = .01) for baseline risk stratification. Only patients with a postchemotherapy PET score of 5 (uptake ≥ three times maximum liver uptake) had an increased risk of progression or HL-related death (hazard ratio, 9.4 v score of 3; 95% CI, 2.8 to 31.3 and hazard ratio, 6.7 v score of 4; 95% CI, 1.4 to 31.7). Patients with a PET score of 5 also had inferior progression-free and overall survival. There was no association between European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer or German Hodgkin Study Group risk group and EFS, before or after adjusting for PET score (all P > .4). CONCLUSION: In RAPID, a positive PET scan did not carry uniform prognostic weight; only a PET score of 5 was associated with inferior outcomes. This suggests that in future trials involving patients without B symptoms or mediastinal bulk, a score of 5 rather than a positive PET result should be used to guide treatment escalation in early-stage HL.
Authors: Ralph M Meyer; Mary K Gospodarowicz; Joseph M Connors; Robert G Pearcey; Woodrow A Wells; Jane N Winter; Sandra J Horning; A Rashid Dar; Chaim Shustik; Douglas A Stewart; Michael Crump; Marina S Djurfeldt; Bingshu E Chen; Lois E Shepherd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Luca Ceriani; Maurizio Martelli; Maria K Gospodarowicz; Umberto Ricardi; Andrés J M Ferreri; Annalisa Chiappella; Caterina Stelitano; Monica Balzarotti; Maria E Cabrera; David Cunningham; Attilio Guarini; Pier Luigi Zinzani; Luca Giovanella; Peter W M Johnson; Emanuele Zucca Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S F Barrington; J E MacKewn; P Schleyer; P K Marsden; N G Mikhaeel; W Qian; P Mouncey; P Patrick; B Popova; P Johnson; J Radford; M J O'Doherty Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Marc P E André; Théodore Girinsky; Massimo Federico; Oumédaly Reman; Catherine Fortpied; Manuel Gotti; Olivier Casasnovas; Pauline Brice; Richard van der Maazen; Alessandro Re; Véronique Edeline; Christophe Fermé; Gustaaf van Imhoff; Francesco Merli; Réda Bouabdallah; Catherine Sebban; Lena Specht; Aspasia Stamatoullas; Richard Delarue; Valeria Fiaccadori; Monica Bellei; Tiana Raveloarivahy; Annibale Versari; Martin Hutchings; Michel Meignan; John Raemaekers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karolin Behringer; Helen Goergen; Felicitas Hitz; Josée M Zijlstra; Richard Greil; Jana Markova; Stephanie Sasse; Michael Fuchs; Max S Topp; Martin Soekler; Stephan Mathas; Julia Meissner; Martin Wilhelm; Peter Koch; Hans-Walter Lindemann; Enrico Schalk; Robert Semrau; Jan Kriz; Tom Vieler; Martin Bentz; Elisabeth Lange; Rolf Mahlberg; Andre Hassler; Martin Vogelhuber; Dennis Hahn; Jörg Mezger; Stefan W Krause; Nicole Skoetz; Boris Böll; Bastian von Tresckow; Volker Diehl; Michael Hallek; Peter Borchmann; Harald Stein; Hans Eich; Andreas Engert Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrea Gallamini; Martin Hutchings; Luigi Rigacci; Lena Specht; Francesco Merli; Mads Hansen; Caterina Patti; Annika Loft; Francesco Di Raimondo; Francesco D'Amore; Alberto Biggi; Umberto Vitolo; Caterina Stelitano; Rosario Sancetta; Livio Trentin; Stefano Luminari; Emilio Iannitto; Simonetta Viviani; Ivana Pierri; Alessandro Levis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David J Straus; Sin-Ho Jung; Brandelyn Pitcher; Lale Kostakoglu; John C Grecula; Eric D Hsi; Heiko Schöder; Leslie L Popplewell; Julie E Chang; Craig H Moskowitz; Nina Wagner-Johnston; John P Leonard; Jonathan W Friedberg; Brad S Kahl; Bruce D Cheson; Nancy L Bartlett Journal: Blood Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Christopher Melani; Ranjana Advani; Mark Roschewski; Kelsey M Walters; Clara C Chen; Lucia Baratto; Mark A Ahlman; Milos D Miljkovic; Seth M Steinberg; Jessica Lam; Margaret Shovlin; Kieron Dunleavy; Stefania Pittaluga; Elaine S Jaffe; Wyndham H Wilson Journal: Haematologica Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Tim M Illidge; Elizabeth H Phillips; Nicholas Counsell; Ruth Pettengell; Peter W M Johnson; Dominic J Culligan; Bilyana Popova; Laura Clifton-Hadley; Andrew McMillan; Peter Hoskin; Sally F Barrington; John Radford Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-01-14
Authors: Sally F Barrington; Farheen Mir; Tarec Christoffer El-Galaly; Andrea Knapp; Tina G Nielsen; Denis Sahin; Michael Wenger; Lale Kostakoglu; Judith Trotman; Michel Meignan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Sally F Barrington; Jakoba J Eertink; Henrika C W de Vet; N George Mikhaeel; Otto S Hoekstra; Josee M Zijlstra Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: P Bonomo; A Merlotti; S Morbelli; V Berti; C Saieva; F Bergesio; A Bacigalupo; L Belgioia; C Franzese; E Lopci; A Casolo; E D'Angelo; D Alterio; L Travaini; L Berretta; V Pirro; S Ursino; D Volterrani; M Roncali; F Vigo; S Cicchetti; F Scalone; G Belli; S Cauda; I Desideri; E Russi; L Livi; A Bianchi Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-05-26