| Literature DB >> 35468225 |
Eleonora Calabretta1,2, Anna Guidetti3,4, Francesca Ricci2, Martina Di Trani1, Chiara Monfrini3, Massimo Magagnoli2, Stefania Bramanti2, Davide Maspero5,6, Lucia Morello2, Michele Merli7, Alice Di Rocco8, Alex Graudenzi6,9, Enrico Derenzini10,11, Marco Antoniotti5,9, Davide Rossi12,13,14, Paolo Corradini3,4, Armando Santoro1,2, Carmelo Carlo-Stella1,2.
Abstract
Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are routinely employed in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Nonetheless, persistent long-term responses are uncommon, and one-third of patients are refractory. Several reports have suggested that treatment with CPIs may re-sensitize patients to chemotherapy, however there is no consensus on the optimal chemotherapy regimen and subsequent consolidation strategy. In this retrospective study we analysed the response to rechallenge with chemotherapy after CPI failure. Furthermore, we exploratively characterized the clonal evolution profile of a small sample of patients (n = 5) by employing the CALDER approach. Among the 28 patients included in the study, 17 (71%) were primary refractory and 26 (92%) were refractory to the last chemotherapy prior to CPIs. Following rechallenge with chemotherapy, response was recorded in 23 (82%) patients experiencing complete remission and 3 (11%) patients experiencing partial remission. The tumour evolution of the patients inferred by CALDER seemingly occurred prior to the first cycle of therapy and was characterized either by linear or branching evolution patterns. Twenty-five patients proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplantation. At a median follow-up of 21 months, median PFS and OS were not reached. In conclusion, patients who fail CPIs can be effectively rescued by salvage chemotherapy and bridged to allo-SCT/auto-SCT.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35468225 PMCID: PMC9321573 DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Haematol ISSN: 0007-1048 Impact factor: 8.615
Main patients' characteristics
|
All
| |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 21 (75%) |
| Female | 7 (25%) |
| Median age (range) | 29 (19–71) |
| Stage prior to anti‐PD1 therapy | |
| I–II | 6 (21%) |
| III–IV | 22 (79%) |
| Extranodal disease prior to anti‐PD1 therapy | 21 (75%) |
| B symptoms prior to anti‐PD1 therapy | 10 (36%) |
| Bulky disease prior to anti‐PD1 therapy | 6 (21%) |
| Response to anti PD‐1 therapy | |
| Refractory | 10 (36%) |
| Responsive | 18 (64%) |
| Median number of anti PD‐1 cycles (range) | 13 (3–72) |
| Median duration of anti PD‐1 therapy (mos) | 6 (2–34) |
| Median number of prior therapies (range) | 4 (2–11) |
| Prior BV | 28 (100%) |
| Prior ASCT | 18 (64%) |
| Prior RT | 14 (50%) |
| Response to last chemotherapy prior to anti‐PD1 therapy | |
| Refractory | 26 (92%) |
| Responsive | 2 (8%) |
FIGURE 3Longitudinal cancer evolution model returned by CALDER from the VAF profiles of 5 consecutive R/R cHL patients failing CPIs and subsequently addressed to BeGEV chemotherapy. Arrows represent BeGEV cycles, while dots indicate plasma collection for ctDNA profiling. Of note, patients C, D and E (0008, 0024 and 0113) do not have a plasma sample at end of treatment (EOT)
FIGURE 1Response to BEGEV: (A) pre‐Nivolumab: persistence of pathological uptake at the left latero‐cervical level, at the hepatic hilum, and in proximity of right iliac vessels. New lesions at the left superior paratracheal level, at the splenic hilum, para‐cavally. Two new bone lesions in two dorsal vertebral bodies; persistence of bone lesions in the left pelvis. Deauville score (DS) 5; (B) post‐Nivolumab. Complete regression of previous areas of uptake. DS3
FIGURE 2Response to BEGEV: (A) pre‐Nivolumab: appearance of new small adenopathies in the right latero‐cervical area and the left axillary area. DS5; (B) post‐Nivolumab: complete regression of the lesions previously present in the bilateral laterocervical area, subclavicular, mediastinal and pulmonary hilar areas. Complete response to treatment. DS3
Summary of chemotherapy regimens administered before and after treatment with PD‐1 inhibitors
| Patient | Chemo‐refractory | Last chemo before anti‐PD1 | Disease response | PD‐1 inhibitors (no. of cycles) | Chemo post anti‐PD1 | No. of cycles | Disease response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NO | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 10 | BEACOPP | 2 | CR |
| 2 | YES | BENDAMUSTINE | PD | 24 | BEACOPP | 2 | CR |
| 3 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB+BENDA | PD | 32 | BEACOPP | 2 | PR |
| 4 | YES | FEAM + ASCT | PD | 10 | BEACOPP+RT | 4 | SD |
| 5 | YES | FEAM + ASCT | SD | 41 | BEGEV | 4 | CR |
| 6 | NO | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 53 | IGEV | 2 | CR |
| 7 | YES | FEAM + ASCT | SD | 55 | BEGEV | 4 | CR |
| 8 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 37 | BEGEV | 4 | CR |
| 9 | YES | RMACOBP | PD | 15 | BRENTUXIMAB | 5 | CR |
| 10 | YES | DHAP | PD | 23 | L‐PAM + ASCT | / | CR |
| 11 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 74 | BEGEV | 1 | CR |
| 12 | YES | BEGEV | PD | 12 | BEGEV | 2 | CR |
| 13 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 72 | BEGEV | 4 | CR |
| 14 | YES | BEGEV | PD | 12 | BEGEV | 1 | CR |
| 15 | YES | GEM + VNR | PD | 31 | BEGEV | 7 | CR |
| 16 | YES | GVD | PR | 8 | BEGEV | 4 | CR |
| 17 | NA | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 3 | GEM | 4 | PD |
| 18 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 17 | HD‐CTX + FEAM + ASCT | / | CR |
| 19 | YES | GDP | PD | 12 | FEAM + ASCT | / | CR |
| 20 | YES | FEAM + ASCT | PD | 12 | HD‐VP‐16 | / | PR |
| 21 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 10 | GEM | 2 | PR |
| 22 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 8 | L‐PAM+ ASCT | / | CR |
| 23 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 10 | L‐PAM+ ASCT | / | CR |
| 24 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB + BENDA | PD | 7 | L‐PAM+ ASCT+RT | / | CR |
| 25 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 10 | BENDA | 3 | CR |
| 26 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | SD | 29 | BEGEV | 2 | CR |
| 27 | YES | BRENTUXIMAB | PD | 13 | BEGEV | 3 | CR |
| 28 | YES | CTX | PD | 12 | OxDHA + RT | 1 | CR |
BENDA, bendamustine; ASCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; CTX, cyclophosphamide; RT, radiation therapy; HD, high‐dose.
Refractory to 1st line therapy.
FIGURE 4Kaplan‐Meier curves. OS (A) and PFS (B) for the whole population
Summary of studies assessing susceptibility to chemotherapy after checkpoint inhibition in r/r cHL
| Rossi et al. | Carreau et al. | Casadei et al. | Calabretta et al. (this paper) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N of patients | 19 | 81 | 25 | 28 |
| Median age, years | 44 | 39 | 32 | 29 |
| Median | 6 (2–14) | 4 (1–11) | 4 (1–10) | 4 (2–11) |
| Prior auto‐SCT ( | 10 (53%) | 34 (42%) | 11 (44%) | 18 (64%) |
| Number of cycles of anti‐PD1 therapy (median) | 10 | 8 | 14 | 13 |
| Disease status at end of anti‐PD1 therapy ( | ||||
| SD/PD | 17 (89%) | 55 (68%) | 17 (68%) | 28 (100%) |
| PR | 2 (11%) | – | 6 (16%) | – |
| CR | – | 1 (1%) | 2 (8%) | – |
| unknown | – | 25 (31%) | – | – |
| Type of chemotherapy ( | ||||
| Polychemotherapy | 8 (42%) | 30 (37%) | 10 (40%) | 23 (82%) |
| Single agent | 11 (58%) | 22 (27%) | 15 (60%) | 5 (18%) |
| Conditioning regimen | – | 11 (14%) | – | – |
| Non‐chemotherapy | – | 18 (22%) | – | – |
| Gemcitabine‐containing regimens ( | 4 (21%) | 17 (21%) | 4 (16%) | 13 (45%) |
| ORR (CR), % | 59 (41%) | 62 (42%) | 60 (32%) | 93 (82%) |
| Consolidation with allo‐SCT ( | 3 (16%) | 22 (27%) | 4 (16%) | 25 (89%) |
| Consolidation with auto‐SCT ( | – | 16 (20%) | 4 (16%) | 1 (4%) |
| Median followup (mo) | 12.1 | 18 | 32.4 | 21 |
| Median PFS, mo | 11 | 6.3 | 19.1 | Not reached |
| Median OS, mo | Not reached | 21 | Not reached | Not reached |
Prior to allogeneic stem cell transplantation.