Journal article
PET-guided treatment in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HD18): final results of an open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial by the German Hodgkin Study Group.
- Borchmann P German Hodgkin Study Group, Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: peter.borchmann@uni-koeln.de.
- Goergen H German Hodgkin Study Group, Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- Kobe C Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- Lohri A Cantonal Hospital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland; Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern, Switzerland.
- Greil R IIIrd Medical Department, Paracelcus Medical University and Salzburg Cancer Research Institute, Salzburg, Austria; Salzburg Cancer Research Institute and AGMT (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Medikamentöse Tumortherapie), Salzburg, Austria.
- Eichenauer DA German Hodgkin Study Group, Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- Zijlstra JM VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- Markova J Department of Internal Medicine-Hematology, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
- Meissner J Department of Internal Medicine V, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
- Feuring-Buske M Department of Internal Medicine III, University Hospital of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
- Hüttmann A Department of Haematology, University Hospital, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
- Dierlamm J Department of Oncology and Haematology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
- Soekler M Department of Oncology and Haematology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
- Beck HJ Department of Oncology and Haematology, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
- Willenbacher W Salzburg Cancer Research Institute and AGMT (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Medikamentöse Tumortherapie), Salzburg, Austria; Medical University Innsbruck, Internal Medicine V: Hematology & Oncology, Innsbruck, Austria; Oncotyrol, Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria.
- Ludwig WD HELIOS Medical Center Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany.
- Pabst T Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Medical Oncology, Inselspital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Topp MS Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
- Hitz F Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern, Switzerland; Cantonal Hospital of St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland.
- Bentz M Department of Internal Medicine III, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
- Keller UB Department of Internal Medicine III, Klinikum "Rechts der Isar", Munich, Germany.
- Kühnhardt D Department of Hematology and Oncology, Charité University of Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
- Ostermann H Department of Hematology/Oncology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
- Schmitz N Department of Haematology, Asklepios Hospital St Georg, Hamburg, Germany.
- Hertenstein B Department of Internal Medicine I, Klinikum Bremen Mitte, Bremen, Germany.
- Aulitzky W Department of Haematology and Oncology, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
- Maschmeyer G Department of Haematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Ernst von Bergmann Hospital, Potsdam, Germany.
- Vieler T Karl Lennert-Cancer Center, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
- Eich H Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospital of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
- Baues C Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- Stein H Berlin Reference Center for Lymphoma and Haematopathology, Berlin, Germany.
- Fuchs M German Hodgkin Study Group, Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- Kuhnert G Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- Diehl V German Hodgkin Study Group, Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- Dietlein M Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- Engert A German Hodgkin Study Group, Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- 2017-10-25
Published in:
- Lancet (London, England). - 2018
Adolescent
Adult
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
Austria
Bleomycin
Cyclophosphamide
Czech Republic
Doxorubicin
Etoposide
Female
Germany
Hodgkin Disease
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Netherlands
Positron-Emission Tomography
Prednisone
Procarbazine
Rituximab
Switzerland
Treatment Outcome
Vincristine
Young Adult
English
BACKGROUND
The intensive polychemotherapy regimen eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone in escalated doses) is very active in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, albeit at the expense of severe toxicities. Individual patients might be cured with less burdensome therapy. We investigated whether metabolic response determined by PET after two cycles of standard regimen eBEACOPP (PET-2) would allow adaption of treatment intensity, increasing it for PET-2-positive patients and reducing it for PET-2-negative patients.
METHODS
In this open-label, randomised, parallel-group phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma in 301 hospitals and private practices in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic. After central review of PET-2, patients were assigned (1:1) to one of two parallel treatment groups on the basis of their PET-2 result. Patients with positive PET-2 were randomised to receive six additional cycles of either standard eBEACOPP (8 × eBEACOPP in total) or eBEACOPP with rituximab (8 × R-eBEACOPP). Those with negative PET-2 were randomised between standard treatment with six additional cycles of eBEACOPP (8 × eBEACOPP) or experimental treatment with two additional cycles (4 × eBEACOPP). A protocol amendment in June, 2011, introduced a reduction of standard therapy to 6 × eBEACOPP; after this point, patients with positive PET-2 were no longer randomised and were all assigned to receive 6 × eBEACOPP and patients with negative PET-2 were randomly assigned to 6 × eBEACOPP (standard) or 4 × eBEACOPP (experimental). Randomisation was done centrally using the minimisation method including a random component, stratified according to centre, age (<45 vs ≥45 years), stage (IIB, IIIA vs IIIB, IV), international prognostic score (0-2 vs 3-7), and sex. eBEACOPP was given as previously described; rituximab was given intravenously at a dose of 375 mg/m2 (maximum total dose 700 mg). The primary objectives were to show superiority of the experimental treatment in the PET-2-positive cohort, and to show non-inferiority of the experimental treatment in the PET-2-negative cohort in terms of the primary endpoint, progression-free survival. We defined non-inferiority as an absolute difference of 6% in the 5-year progression-free survival estimates. Primary analyses in the PET-2-negative cohort were per protocol; all other analyses were by intention to treat. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00515554.
FINDINGS
Between May 14, 2008, and July 18, 2014, we recruited 2101 patients, of whom 137 were found ineligible before randomisation and a further 19 were found ineligible after randomisation. Among 434 randomised patients (217 per arm) with positive PET-2, 5-year progression-free survival was 89·7% (95% CI 85·4-94·0) with eBEACOPP and 88·1% (83·5-92·7) with R-eBEACOPP (log-rank p=0·46). Patients with negative PET-2 randomly assigned to either 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP (n=504) or 4 × eBEACOPP (n=501) had 5-year progression-free survival of 90·8% (95% CI 87·9-93·7) and 92·2% (89·4-95·0), respectively (difference 1·4%, 95% CI -2·7 to 5·4). 4 × eBEACOPP was associated with fewer severe infections (40 [8%] of 498 vs 75 [15%] of 502) and organ toxicities (38 [8%] of 498 vs 91 [18%] of 502) than were 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP in PET-2-negative patients. Ten treatment-related deaths occurred: four in the PET-2-positive cohort (one [<1%] in the 8 × eBEACOPP group, three [1%] in the 8 × R-eBEACOPP group) and six in the PET-2-negative group (six [1%] in the 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP group).
INTERPRETATION
The favourable outcome of patients treated with eBEACOPP could not be improved by adding rituximab after positive PET-2. PET-2 negativity allows reduction to only four cycles of eBEACOPP without loss of tumour control. PET-2-guided eBEACOPP provides outstanding efficacy for all patients and increases overall survival by reducing treatment-related risks for patients with negative PET-2. We recommend this PET-2-guided treatment strategy for patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma.
FUNDING
Deutsche Krebshilfe, Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research, and Roche Pharma AG.
The intensive polychemotherapy regimen eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone in escalated doses) is very active in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, albeit at the expense of severe toxicities. Individual patients might be cured with less burdensome therapy. We investigated whether metabolic response determined by PET after two cycles of standard regimen eBEACOPP (PET-2) would allow adaption of treatment intensity, increasing it for PET-2-positive patients and reducing it for PET-2-negative patients.
METHODS
In this open-label, randomised, parallel-group phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma in 301 hospitals and private practices in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic. After central review of PET-2, patients were assigned (1:1) to one of two parallel treatment groups on the basis of their PET-2 result. Patients with positive PET-2 were randomised to receive six additional cycles of either standard eBEACOPP (8 × eBEACOPP in total) or eBEACOPP with rituximab (8 × R-eBEACOPP). Those with negative PET-2 were randomised between standard treatment with six additional cycles of eBEACOPP (8 × eBEACOPP) or experimental treatment with two additional cycles (4 × eBEACOPP). A protocol amendment in June, 2011, introduced a reduction of standard therapy to 6 × eBEACOPP; after this point, patients with positive PET-2 were no longer randomised and were all assigned to receive 6 × eBEACOPP and patients with negative PET-2 were randomly assigned to 6 × eBEACOPP (standard) or 4 × eBEACOPP (experimental). Randomisation was done centrally using the minimisation method including a random component, stratified according to centre, age (<45 vs ≥45 years), stage (IIB, IIIA vs IIIB, IV), international prognostic score (0-2 vs 3-7), and sex. eBEACOPP was given as previously described; rituximab was given intravenously at a dose of 375 mg/m2 (maximum total dose 700 mg). The primary objectives were to show superiority of the experimental treatment in the PET-2-positive cohort, and to show non-inferiority of the experimental treatment in the PET-2-negative cohort in terms of the primary endpoint, progression-free survival. We defined non-inferiority as an absolute difference of 6% in the 5-year progression-free survival estimates. Primary analyses in the PET-2-negative cohort were per protocol; all other analyses were by intention to treat. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00515554.
FINDINGS
Between May 14, 2008, and July 18, 2014, we recruited 2101 patients, of whom 137 were found ineligible before randomisation and a further 19 were found ineligible after randomisation. Among 434 randomised patients (217 per arm) with positive PET-2, 5-year progression-free survival was 89·7% (95% CI 85·4-94·0) with eBEACOPP and 88·1% (83·5-92·7) with R-eBEACOPP (log-rank p=0·46). Patients with negative PET-2 randomly assigned to either 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP (n=504) or 4 × eBEACOPP (n=501) had 5-year progression-free survival of 90·8% (95% CI 87·9-93·7) and 92·2% (89·4-95·0), respectively (difference 1·4%, 95% CI -2·7 to 5·4). 4 × eBEACOPP was associated with fewer severe infections (40 [8%] of 498 vs 75 [15%] of 502) and organ toxicities (38 [8%] of 498 vs 91 [18%] of 502) than were 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP in PET-2-negative patients. Ten treatment-related deaths occurred: four in the PET-2-positive cohort (one [<1%] in the 8 × eBEACOPP group, three [1%] in the 8 × R-eBEACOPP group) and six in the PET-2-negative group (six [1%] in the 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP group).
INTERPRETATION
The favourable outcome of patients treated with eBEACOPP could not be improved by adding rituximab after positive PET-2. PET-2 negativity allows reduction to only four cycles of eBEACOPP without loss of tumour control. PET-2-guided eBEACOPP provides outstanding efficacy for all patients and increases overall survival by reducing treatment-related risks for patients with negative PET-2. We recommend this PET-2-guided treatment strategy for patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma.
FUNDING
Deutsche Krebshilfe, Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research, and Roche Pharma AG.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32134-7
- PMID 29061295
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/178658
Statistics
Document views: 41
File downloads: