1
|
Outcomes of Patients with Positive Interim Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Continuing ABVD in the Clinical Setting. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15061760. [PMID: 36980646 PMCID: PMC10046293 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061760] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2023] [Revised: 02/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/04/2023] [Indexed: 03/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Recent prospective clinical trial data suggest that patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma who continue treatment with ABVD, despite failing to attain a complete metabolic response on interim PET (PET2+), may fare better than previously published. We describe the outcomes of PET2+ patients who continued ABVD and compare the performance of a quantitative measure based on the lesion-to-liver SUV ratio (LLS qPET2+) to that of the subjective Deauville criteria (dvPET2+). We analyzed all patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with frontline ABVD at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2008 and 2017. Eligibility was set to correspond with the RATHL inclusion criteria. Images were reviewed by two nuclear medicine physicians and discordant cases were resolved with a third expert in consensus. qPET2+ was defined as LLS ≥ 1.3. We identified 227 patients of whom 25% (57) were qPET2+, but only 14% (31) were dvPET2+. Forty-eight patients (84%) continued ABVD with a 3-year PFS of 70% for qPET2+ and 64% for dvPET2+. In conclusion, interim PET interpretation in clinical practice may be associated with a higher rate of scans deemed positive. Irrespective of the criteria for PET2 positivity, a subset of patients may continue ABVD without a dismal outcome.
Collapse
|
2
|
Interim Positron Emission Tomography During Frontline Chemoimmunotherapy for Follicular Lymphoma. Hemasphere 2023; 7:e826. [PMID: 36713355 PMCID: PMC9875968 DOI: 10.1097/hs9.0000000000000826] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2022] [Accepted: 12/05/2022] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
While most patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) have excellent outcomes with frontline chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), a subset of patients will experience early progression, which is associated with poor subsequent outcomes. Novel biomarkers are needed to identify high-risk patients earlier. We hypothesized that interim positron emission tomography (PET) would predict progression-free survival (PFS) in this population. We retrospectively identified 128 patients with grade 1-3A FL who had an interim PET after 2-4 cycles of frontline CIT at 2 academic centers. PET scans were analyzed using Deauville score (DS) and change in maximum standardized uptake value (ΔSUVmax). Interim PET DS was a significant predictor of PFS (P < 0.003). Patients with a DS of 3 had outcomes similar to those of patients with a DS of 4, so were categorized as PET-positive for additional analyses. Interim PET remained a strong predictor of PFS (DS 3-5, hazard ratio [HR] 2.4, P = 0.006) in a multivariable analysis and was also an early predictor of both a positive end-of-treatment PET (P < 0.001) and progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) (P = 0.006). An optimal ΔSUVmax cutoff of 75% was selected using the bootstrap method. ΔSUVmax <75% was also a significant predictor of PFS on univariable and multivariable analyses (HR 2.8, P < 0.003). In a separate cohort of 50 patients with high-grade FL, interim PET interpreted using either DS (P < 0.001) or ΔSUVmax75% (P = 0.034) was also a significant predictor of inferior PFS. In conclusion, interim PET is an independent predictor of PFS and may be useful as a tool for response-adapted treatment strategies in FL.
Collapse
|
3
|
Cochrane T, Campbell BA, Gangatharan SA, Latimer M, Khor R, Christie DRH, Gilbertson M, Ratnasingam S, Palfreyman E, Lee HP, Trotman J, Hertzberg M, Dickinson M. Assessment and management of newly diagnosed classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a consensus practice statement from the Australasian Lymphoma Alliance. Intern Med J 2021; 51:2119-2128. [PMID: 34505342 DOI: 10.1111/imj.15503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2021] [Revised: 08/25/2021] [Accepted: 08/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
The management of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has undergone significant changes in recent years. Due to the predilection of HL to affect younger patients, balancing cure and treatment-related morbidity is a constant source of concern for physicians and patients alike. Positron emission tomography adapted therapy has been developed for both early and advanced stage HL to try and improve the outcome of treatment, while minimising toxicities. The aim of this review is to digest the plethora of studies recently conducted and provide some clear, evidence-based practice statements to simplify the management of HL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tara Cochrane
- Department of Haematology, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.,School of Medicine, Griffiths University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
| | - Belinda A Campbell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Clinical Pathology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Shane A Gangatharan
- Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.,University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Maya Latimer
- ACT Pathology and Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
| | | | - David R H Christie
- Genesiscare, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.,Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
| | - Michael Gilbertson
- Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Haematology and Oncology, Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sumita Ratnasingam
- Andrew Love Cancer Centre, University Hospital Geelong, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
| | - Emma Palfreyman
- Royal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
| | - Hui-Peng Lee
- Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Judith Trotman
- Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Mark Hertzberg
- Department of Haematology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,University of NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael Dickinson
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Fidan AK, Uçmak G, Demirel BB, Efetürk H, Öztürk İ, Demirtaş Şenlik S, Esen Akkaş B, Ergürhan İlhan İ. The relation between staging fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomog- raphy/computed tomography metabolic parameters and tumor necrosis rate in pediatric osteosarcoma patients. Turk J Med Sci 2021; 51:1115-1122. [PMID: 33387988 PMCID: PMC8283484 DOI: 10.3906/sag-2004-358] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2020] [Accepted: 01/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background/aim The aim of this study was to investigate the contribution of fluorine-18 (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging in staging of pediatric osteosarcoma patients and also to evaluate the ability of metabolic parameters from the primary tumor to predict tumor necrosis rate (TNR). Material and methods F-18 FDG-PET/CT imaging was performed in staging 37 pediatric osteosarcoma patients. The metabolic parameters SUVmax (maximum standardised uptake value), MTV (metabolic tumour volume), and TLG (total lesion glycolysis) were measured from the primary tumor. TNR level of the primary tumor was histopathologically measured after standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. The contribution of F-18 FDG-PET/CT to staging of pediatric osteosarcoma patients and the accuracy of metabolic parameters of the primary tumor to predict TNR were analized by regression analysis. Results MTV and TLG of the primary tumor were found to efficiently predict histopathologic TNR, whereas SUVmax was not (P = 0.012, P = 0.027, P = 0.25, respectively). Also 5 of 12 patients (41.6%) who were initially defined as localised osteosarcoma were upstaged in consequence of staging F-18 FDG-PET/CT findings. Conclusion F-18 FDG-PET/CT staging in pediatric osteosarcoma patients can effectively distinguish metastatic-localised disease. MTV and TLG values are important parameters, which can efficiently be used to predict TNR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aykut Kürşat Fidan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hitit University Çorum Erol Olçok Education and Training Hospital, Çorum, Turkey
| | - Gülin Uçmak
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Health Sciences Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Education and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Bedriye Büşra Demirel
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Health Sciences Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Education and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Hülya Efetürk
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Health Sciences Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Education and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - İpek Öztürk
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Mehmet Akif İnan Research and Training Hospital, Şanlıurfa, Turkey
| | - Semra Demirtaş Şenlik
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Health Sciences Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Education and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Burcu Esen Akkaş
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Health Sciences Sultan Abdulhamid Han Education and Training Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - İnci Ergürhan İlhan
- Department of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Education and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Romano A, Pavoni C, Di Raimondo F, Tarella C, Viviani S, Rossi A, Patti C, Picardi M, Cantonetti M, La Nasa G, Trentin L, Bolis S, Zoli V, Gavarotti P, Corradini P, Cimminiello M, Schiavotto C, Parvis G, Zanotti R, Gini G, Ferreri AJM, Viero P, Chauvie S, Biggi A, Massimo Gianni A, Gallamini A, Rambaldi A. The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the presence of large nodal mass are independent predictors of early response: A subanalysis of the prospective phase II PET-2-adapted HD0607 trial. Cancer Med 2020; 9:8735-8746. [PMID: 33155754 PMCID: PMC7724487 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3396] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2020] [Revised: 07/06/2020] [Accepted: 07/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) can reflect both the myeloid dysfunction and T-cell immune suppression and have prognostic significance. METHODS In 771 newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) patients we evaluated the baseline values of NLR and LMR as predictors of clinical outcome. According to the multicenter prospective phase II GITIL-HD0607 trial, all patients received two ABVD courses and if PET-2 negative received four additional ABVD cycles while if PET-2-positive patients were randomized to either BEACOPP escalated (Be) plus BEACOPP baseline (Bb) (4 + 4 courses) or Be + Bb (4 + 4) and Rituximab. PET scans were centrally reviewed by an expert panel by Blinded Independent Central Review. RESULTS Higher NLR and lower LMR were associated with a PET-2 positivity and failure to achieve long-term disease control, respectively. By univariate and multivariate analysis, large nodal mass (>7 cm), IPS ≥ 3, NLR > 6 were strong independent predictors of early PET-2 response after ABVD. Only NLR > 6 and IPS ≥ 3 were strong independent predictors of outcome at diagnosis; however, when PET-2 status was added, only PET-2-positive status and IPS ≥ 3 were independent predictors of PFS. Focusing on PET-2-negative patients, those with NLR > 6 had an inferior 3-year PFS compared to patients with NLR ≤ 6 (84% vs 89% months, P = .03). CONCLUSION In advanced-stage HL patients treated with a PET-2-driven strategy, IPS ≥ 3 and NLR > 6 are independent predictors of outcome at diagnosis while the presence of large nodal mass, IPS ≥ 3, and NLR > 6 at diagnosis are independent predictors of early ABVD response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandra Romano
- Dipartimento di Specialità medico-Chirurgiche, CHIRMED, Sezione di Ematologia, Università degli studi di Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - Chiara Pavoni
- Ematologia, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Francesco Di Raimondo
- Dipartimento di Specialità medico-Chirurgiche, CHIRMED, Sezione di Ematologia, Università degli studi di Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - Corrado Tarella
- Onco-Hematology Unit, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy.,Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
| | - Simonetta Viviani
- Ematologia e onco-ematologia pediatrica, Fondazione IRCSS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Rossi
- Ematologia, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Caterina Patti
- Ematologia, Azienda Villa Sofia-Cervello, Palermo, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Livio Trentin
- Ematologia Dipartimento di Medicina, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
| | | | | | - Paolo Gavarotti
- Ematologia Universitaria, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Italy
| | - Paolo Corradini
- Dipartimento di oncologia-ematologia, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
| | | | | | - Guido Parvis
- Divisione Universitaria Medicina Interna, AO San Luigi, Orbassano, Italy
| | - Roberta Zanotti
- Divisione di Medicina, Unità di Ematologia, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy
| | - Guido Gini
- Divisione Universitaria di Ematologia, Nuovo Ospedale Torrette, Ancona, Italy
| | - Andrés J M Ferreri
- Unità di Ricerca Clinica Linfomi, IRCSS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Italy
| | - Piera Viero
- Ematologia, Ospedale dell'Angelo, Mestre, Italy
| | - Stephane Chauvie
- Medicina Nucleare Azienda Ospedaliera Santa Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy
| | - Alberto Biggi
- Medicina Nucleare Azienda Ospedaliera Santa Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy
| | - Alessandro Massimo Gianni
- Onco-Hematology Unit, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy.,Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
| | - Andrea Gallamini
- Department recherch e innovation et statistique, Centre A. Lacassagne, Nice, France
| | - Alessandro Rambaldi
- Ematologia, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.,Dipartimento di oncologia-ematologia, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
The efficacy-toxicity conundrum: breaking the mold. Blood 2020; 135:704-706. [DOI: 10.1182/blood.2019004464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
7
|
Aldin A, Umlauff L, Estcourt LJ, Collins G, Moons KG, Engert A, Kobe C, von Tresckow B, Haque M, Foroutan F, Kreuzberger N, Trivella M, Skoetz N. Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD012643. [PMID: 31930780 PMCID: PMC6984446 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012643.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is one of the most common haematological malignancies in young adults and, with cure rates of 90%, has become curable for the majority of individuals. Positron emission tomography (PET) is an imaging tool used to monitor a tumour's metabolic activity, stage and progression. Interim PET during chemotherapy has been posited as a prognostic factor in individuals with HL to distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis. This distinction is important to inform decision-making on the clinical pathway of individuals with HL. OBJECTIVES To determine whether in previously untreated adults with HL receiving first-line therapy, interim PET scan results can distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis, and thereby predict survival outcomes in each group. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and conference proceedings up until April 2019. We also searched one trial registry (ClinicalTrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA We included retrospective and prospective studies evaluating interim PET scans in a minimum of 10 individuals with HL (all stages) undergoing first-line therapy. Interim PET was defined as conducted during therapy (after one, two, three or four treatment cycles). The minimum follow-up period was at least 12 months. We excluded studies if the trial design allowed treatment modification based on the interim PET scan results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We developed a data extraction form according to the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Two teams of two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and PET-associated adverse events (AEs), assessed risk of bias (per outcome) according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). We contacted investigators to obtain missing information and data. MAIN RESULTS Our literature search yielded 11,277 results. In total, we included 23 studies (99 references) with 7335 newly-diagnosed individuals with classic HL (all stages). Participants in 16 studies underwent (interim) PET combined with computed tomography (PET-CT), compared to PET only in the remaining seven studies. The standard chemotherapy regimen included ABVD (16) studies, compared to BEACOPP or other regimens (seven studies). Most studies (N = 21) conducted interim PET scans after two cycles (PET2) of chemotherapy, although PET1, PET3 and PET4 were also reported in some studies. In the meta-analyses, we used PET2 data if available as we wanted to ensure homogeneity between studies. In most studies interim PET scan results were evaluated according to the Deauville 5-point scale (N = 12). Eight studies were not included in meta-analyses due to missing information and/or data; results were reported narratively. For the remaining studies, we pooled the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR). The timing of the outcome measurement was after two or three years (the median follow-up time ranged from 22 to 65 months) in the pooled studies. Eight studies explored the independent prognostic ability of interim PET by adjusting for other established prognostic factors (e.g. disease stage, B symptoms). We did not pool the results because the multivariable analyses adjusted for a different set of factors in each study. Overall survival Twelve (out of 23) studies reported OS. Six of these were assessed as low risk of bias in all of the first four domains of QUIPS (study participation, study attrition, prognostic factor measurement and outcome measurement). The other six studies were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of these four domains. Four studies were assessed as low risk, and eight studies as high risk of bias for the domain other prognostic factors (covariates). Nine studies were assessed as low risk, and three studies as high risk of bias for the domain 'statistical analysis and reporting'. We pooled nine studies with 1802 participants. Participants with HL who have a negative interim PET scan result probably have a large advantage in OS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result (unadjusted HR 5.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.64 to 9.81, I² = 44%, moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute values, this means that 900 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result will probably survive longer than three years compared to 585 (95% CI 356 to 757) out of 1000 participants with a positive result. Adjusted results from two studies also indicate an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (moderate-certainty evidence). Progression-free survival Twenty-one studies reported PFS. Eleven out of 21 were assessed as low risk of bias in the first four domains. The remaining were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of the four domains. Eleven studies were assessed as low risk, and ten studies as high risk of bias for the domain other prognostic factors (covariates). Eight studies were assessed as high risk, thirteen as low risk of bias for statistical analysis and reporting. We pooled 14 studies with 2079 participants. Participants who have a negative interim PET scan result may have an advantage in PFS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result, but the evidence is very uncertain (unadjusted HR 4.90, 95% CI 3.47 to 6.90, I² = 45%, very low-certainty evidence). This means that 850 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result may be progression-free longer than three years compared to 451 (95% CI 326 to 569) out of 1000 participants with a positive result. Adjusted results (not pooled) from eight studies also indicate that there may be an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (low-certainty evidence). PET-associated adverse events No study measured PET-associated AEs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review provides moderate-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict OS, and very low-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict progression-free survival in treated individuals with HL. This evidence is primarily based on unadjusted data. More studies are needed to test the adjusted prognostic ability of interim PET against established prognostic factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Aldin
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| | - Lisa Umlauff
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| | - Lise J Estcourt
- NHS Blood and Transplant, Haematology/Transfusion Medicine, Level 2, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK, OX3 9BQ
| | - Gary Collins
- University of Oxford, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Windmill Road, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LD
| | - Karel Gm Moons
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3508 GA
| | - Andreas Engert
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50924
| | - Carsten Kobe
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department for Nuclear Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Bastian von Tresckow
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50924
| | - Madhuri Haque
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| | - Farid Foroutan
- McMaster University, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L8
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| | - Marialena Trivella
- University of Oxford, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Windmill Road, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LD
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cochrane Cancer, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, Germany, 50937
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Stephens DM, Li H, Schöder H, Straus DJ, Moskowitz CH, LeBlanc M, Rimsza LM, Bartlett NL, Evens AM, LaCasce AS, Barr PM, Knopp MV, Hsi ED, Leonard JP, Kahl BS, Smith SM, Friedberg JW. Five-year follow-up of SWOG S0816: limitations and values of a PET-adapted approach with stage III/IV Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2019; 134:1238-1246. [PMID: 31331918 PMCID: PMC6788007 DOI: 10.1182/blood.2019000719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2019] [Accepted: 07/03/2019] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) demonstrated excellent 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) after receiving positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted therapy on SWOG S0816. Patients received 2 cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). Patients achieving complete response (CR) on PET scan following cycle 2 of ABVD (PET2) continued 4 additional cycles of ABVD. Patients not achieving CR on PET2 were switched to escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) for 6 cycles. After a median follow-up of 5.9 years, a subset of 331 eligible patients with central review of PET2 was analyzed. PET2 was negative in 82% and positive in 18%. For all patients, the estimated 5-year PFS and OS was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69%-79%) and 94% (95% CI, 91%-96%), respectively. For PET2- and PET2+ patients, the 5-year PFS was 76% (95% CI, 70%-81%) and 66% (95% CI, 52%-76%), respectively. Seven (14%) and 6 (2%) patients reported second cancers after treatment with eBEACOPP and ABVD, respectively (P = .001). Long-term OS of HL patients treated on S0816 remains high. Nearly 25% of PET2- patients experienced relapse events, demonstrating limitations ABVD therapy and of the negative predictive value of PET2. In PET2+ patients who received eBEACOPP, PFS was favorable, but was associated with a high rate of second malignancies compared with historical controls. Our results emphasize the importance of long-term follow-up, and the need for more efficacious and less toxic therapeutic approaches for advanced-stage HL patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00822120.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deborah M Stephens
- Division of Hematology and Hematologic Malignancies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Hongli Li
- SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Heiko Schöder
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | | | - Nancy L Bartlett
- Oncology Division, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
| | - Andrew M Evens
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ
| | | | - Paul M Barr
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Rochester, Rochester NY
| | - Michael V Knopp
- Division of Hematology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
| | | | | | - Brad S Kahl
- Oncology Division, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
| | - Sonali M Smith
- Section of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Aldin A, Umlauff L, Estcourt LJ, Collins G, Moons KGM, Engert A, Kobe C, von Tresckow B, Haque M, Foroutan F, Kreuzberger N, Trivella M, Skoetz N. Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 9:CD012643. [PMID: 31525824 PMCID: PMC6746624 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012643.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is one of the most common haematological malignancies in young adults and, with cure rates of 90%, has become curable for the majority of individuals. Positron emission tomography (PET) is an imaging tool used to monitor a tumour's metabolic activity, stage and progression. Interim PET during chemotherapy has been posited as a prognostic factor in individuals with HL to distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis. This distinction is important to inform decision-making on the clinical pathway of individuals with HL. OBJECTIVES To determine whether in previously untreated adults with HL receiving first-line therapy, interim PET scan results can distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis, and thereby predict survival outcomes in each group. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and conference proceedings up until April 2019. We also searched one trial registry (ClinicalTrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA We included retrospective and prospective studies evaluating interim PET scans in a minimum of 10 individuals with HL (all stages) undergoing first-line therapy. Interim PET was defined as conducted during therapy (after one, two, three or four treatment cycles). The minimum follow-up period was at least 12 months. We excluded studies if the trial design allowed treatment modification based on the interim PET scan results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We developed a data extraction form according to the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Two teams of two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and PET-associated adverse events (AEs), assessed risk of bias (per outcome) according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). We contacted investigators to obtain missing information and data. MAIN RESULTS Our literature search yielded 11,277 results. In total, we included 23 studies (99 references) with 7335 newly-diagnosed individuals with classic HL (all stages).Participants in 16 studies underwent (interim) PET combined with computed tomography (PET-CT), compared to PET only in the remaining seven studies. The standard chemotherapy regimen included ABVD (16) studies, compared to BEACOPP or other regimens (seven studies). Most studies (N = 21) conducted interim PET scans after two cycles (PET2) of chemotherapy, although PET1, PET3 and PET4 were also reported in some studies. In the meta-analyses, we used PET2 data if available as we wanted to ensure homogeneity between studies. In most studies interim PET scan results were evaluated according to the Deauville 5-point scale (N = 12).Eight studies were not included in meta-analyses due to missing information and/or data; results were reported narratively. For the remaining studies, we pooled the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR). The timing of the outcome measurement was after two or three years (the median follow-up time ranged from 22 to 65 months) in the pooled studies.Eight studies explored the independent prognostic ability of interim PET by adjusting for other established prognostic factors (e.g. disease stage, B symptoms). We did not pool the results because the multivariable analyses adjusted for a different set of factors in each study.Overall survivalTwelve (out of 23) studies reported OS. Six of these were assessed as low risk of bias in all of the first four domains of QUIPS (study participation, study attrition, prognostic factor measurement and outcome measurement). The other six studies were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of these four domains. Nine studies were assessed as high risk, and three studies as moderate risk of bias for the domain study confounding. Eight studies were assessed as low risk, and four studies as high risk of bias for the domain statistical analysis and reporting.We pooled nine studies with 1802 participants. Participants with HL who have a negative interim PET scan result probably have a large advantage in OS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result (unadjusted HR 5.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.64 to 9.81, I² = 44%, moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute values, this means that 900 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result will probably survive longer than three years compared to 585 (95% CI 356 to 757) out of 1000 participants with a positive result.Adjusted results from two studies also indicate an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (moderate-certainty evidence).Progression-free survival Twenty-one studies reported PFS. Eleven out of 21 were assessed as low risk of bias in the first four domains. The remaining were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of the four domains. Eleven studies were assessed as high risk, nine studies as moderate risk and one study as low risk of bias for study confounding. Eight studies were assessed as high risk, three as moderate risk and nine as low risk of bias for statistical analysis and reporting.We pooled 14 studies with 2079 participants. Participants who have a negative interim PET scan result may have an advantage in PFS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result, but the evidence is very uncertain (unadjusted HR 4.90, 95% CI 3.47 to 6.90, I² = 45%, very low-certainty evidence). This means that 850 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result may be progression-free longer than three years compared to 451 (95% CI 326 to 569) out of 1000 participants with a positive result.Adjusted results (not pooled) from eight studies also indicate that there may be an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (low-certainty evidence).PET-associated adverse eventsNo study measured PET-associated AEs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review provides moderate-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict OS, and very low-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict progression-free survival in treated individuals with HL. This evidence is primarily based on unadjusted data. More studies are needed to test the adjusted prognostic ability of interim PET against established prognostic factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Aldin
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Haematological MalignanciesUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| | - Lisa Umlauff
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Haematological MalignanciesUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| | - Lise J Estcourt
- NHS Blood and TransplantHaematology/Transfusion MedicineLevel 2, John Radcliffe HospitalHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 9BQ
| | - Gary Collins
- University of OxfordCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesWindmill RoadOxfordUKOX3 7LD
| | - Karel GM Moons
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary CarePO Box 85500UtrechtNetherlands3508 GA
| | - Andreas Engert
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne DuesseldorfUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50924
| | - Carsten Kobe
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department for Nuclear MedicineUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
| | - Bastian von Tresckow
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne DuesseldorfUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50924
| | - Madhuri Haque
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Haematological MalignanciesUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| | - Farid Foroutan
- McMaster UniversityDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact1280 Main St WHamiltonCanadaL8S 4L8
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Haematological MalignanciesUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| | - Marialena Trivella
- University of OxfordCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesWindmill RoadOxfordUKOX3 7LD
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane CancerUniversity of CologneKerpener Str. 62CologneGermany50937
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jia T, Zhu HY, Wang L, Liang JH, Cao L, Xia Y, Wu JZ, Wu W, Fan L, Li JY, Xu W. [The prognostic significance of peripheral lymphocyte/monocyte ratio and PET-2 evaluation in adult Hodgkin's lymphoma]. ZHONGHUA XUE YE XUE ZA ZHI = ZHONGHUA XUEYEXUE ZAZHI 2019; 40:372-377. [PMID: 31207700 PMCID: PMC7342242 DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2019.05.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
目的 探讨淋巴细胞/单核细胞比值(LMR)及2个疗程后PET评价(PET-2)在成人霍奇金淋巴瘤(HL)中的预后价值。 方法 回顾性分析2007年1月至2016年3月南京医科大学第一附属医院133例初诊成人HL患者的临床资料。采用X-tile软件确定变量的最佳临界值,生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier法及Cox回归。 结果 133例HL患者中位年龄33(18~84)岁,男女比例1.9∶1。LMR最佳临界值为2.5,LMR<2.5组无进展生存(PFS)时间(P<0.001)和总生存(OS)时间(P<0.001)均较LMR ≥2.5组显著缩短。多因素生存分析显示LMR<2.5是HL患者PFS(HR=2.35,95%CI 1.36~4.07,P=0.002)和OS(HR=10.36,95%CI 2.35~45.66,P=0.002)的独立预后因素。56例患者的PET-2结果分析显示,PET-2阳性患者PFS明显差于PET-2阴性患者(P=0.022)。根据LMR和PET-2将患者分为PET-2阴性且LMR ≥2.5、PET-2阳性或LMR<2.5、PET-2阳性且LMR<2.5三组,三组间的PFS和OS差异均有统计学意义(P值分别为0.009和0.012)。 结论 LMR<2.5是成人HL患者的独立预后不良因素。PET-2与LMR结合的预后价值可能更好。
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Jia
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China; Department of Hematology, the First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, Lianyungang 222002, China
| | - H Y Zhu
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - L Wang
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - J H Liang
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - L Cao
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Y Xia
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - J Z Wu
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - W Wu
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - L Fan
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - J Y Li
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - W Xu
- Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Patterns of Failure and Survival Outcomes after Total Lymphoid Irradiation and High-Dose Chemotherapy with Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104:436-446. [PMID: 30763660 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2018] [Revised: 12/30/2018] [Accepted: 02/03/2019] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The patterns of failure and long-term outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma treated with total lymphoid irradiation (TLI) and high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (aSCT) are reported. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with biopsy-proven primary refractory or relapsed classical Hodgkin lymphoma who received salvage chemotherapy and accelerated hyperfractionated TLI before high-dose chemotherapy and aSCT were included. Patterns of failure were delineated after fusing pretransplant planning computed tomography to the scan reporting the first failure. Survival rates were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis using proportional hazards regression was done to determine prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Between 1993 and 2016, 89 patients underwent salvage treatments. Twenty patients failed at a median of 6.1 months after aSCT. Posttreatment scans were available for 16 patients who failed in a combined 43 different sites, 11 of which were extranodal. Patients failed at multiple sites, mostly within radiation fields. The 5-, 10-, and 15-year OS rates were 72.8%, 68.0%, and 58.3%; PFS rates were 73.3%, 68.5%, and 58.7%; event-free survival rates were 72.3%, 67.5%, and 57.8% respectively. The 5- and 10- year actuarial local control rates were both 77.6%. Complete response (CR) to salvage chemotherapy was associated with statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS. Eight patients developed secondary malignancies; 5 were hematologic and 3 were solid tumors. CONCLUSIONS Most failures were within the irradiated volume, which reflects the treatment-resistant disease biology. As part of a conditioning regimen, TLI yields good survival outcomes, particularly in patients achieving CR before transplant. However, need for RT in this setting should be assessed and new strategies should be developed to combat the treatment-resistant biology, especially in patients with less than CR after salvage chemotherapy.
Collapse
|
12
|
Lopci E, Mascarin M, Piccardo A, Castello A, Elia C, Guerra L, Borsatti E, Sala A, Todesco A, Zucchetta P, Farruggia P, Cistaro A, Buffardi S, Bertolini P, Bianchi M, Moleti ML, Bunkheila F, Indolfi P, Fagioli F, Garaventa A, Burnelli R. FDG PET in response evaluation of bulky masses in paediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) patients enrolled in the Italian AIEOP-LH2004 trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 46:97-106. [PMID: 30219963 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-018-4155-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2018] [Accepted: 09/04/2018] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We present the results of an investigation of the role of FDG PET in response evaluation of bulky masses in paediatric patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) enrolled in the Italian AIEOP-LH2004 trial. METHODS We analysed data derived from 703 patients (388 male, 315 female; mean age 13 years) with HL and enrolled in 41 different Italian centres from March 2004 to September 2012, all treated with the AIEOP-LH2004 protocol. The cohort comprised 309 patients with a bulky mass, of whom 263 were evaluated with FDG PET at baseline and after four cycles of chemotherapy. Responses were determined according to combined functional and morphological criteria. Patients were followed up for a mean period of 43 months and for each child we calculated time-to-progression (TTP) and relapse rates considering clinical monitoring, and instrumental and histological data as the reference standard. Statistical analyses were performed for FDG PET and morphological responses with respect to TTP. Multivariate analysis was used to define independent predictive factors. RESULTS Overall, response evaluation revealed 238 PET-negative patients (90.5%) and 25 PET-positive patients (9.5%), with a significant difference in TTP between these groups (mean TTP: 32.67 months for negative scans, 23.8 months for positive scans; p < 0.0001, log-rank test). In the same cohort, computed tomography showed a complete response (CR) in 85 patients (32.3%), progressive disease (PD) in 6 patients (2.3%), and a partial response (PR) in 165 patients (62.7%), with a significant difference in TTP between patients with CR and patients with PD (31.1 months and 7.9 months, respectively; p < 0.001, log-rank test). Similarly, there was a significant difference in relapse rates between PET-positive and PET-negative patients (p = 0000). In patients with PR, there was also a significant difference in TTP between PET-positive and PET-negative patients (24.6 months and 34.9 months, respectively; p < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis with correction for multiple testing, only the PET result was an independent predictive factor in both the entire cohort of patients and the subgroup showing PR on CT (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION After four cycles of chemotherapy, FDG PET response assessment in paediatric HL patients with a bulky mass is a good predictor of TTP and disease outcome. Moreover, in patients with a PR on CT, PET was able to differentiate those with a longer TTP. In paediatric HL patients with a bulky mass and in patients with a PR on CT, response on FDG PET was an independent predictive factor.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Egesta Lopci
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy.
| | - Maurizio Mascarin
- AYA and Pediatric Radiotherapy, IRCCS Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Aviano, PN, Italy
| | | | - Angelo Castello
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Caterina Elia
- AYA and Pediatric Radiotherapy, IRCCS Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Aviano, PN, Italy
| | - Luca Guerra
- Nuclear Medicine, Hospital San Gerardo, Monza, Italy
| | - Eugenio Borsatti
- Nuclear Medicine, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Aviano, Pordenone, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | - Angelina Cistaro
- Positron Emission Tomography Centre IRMET S.p.A. Affidea, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Maria Luisa Moleti
- Pediatric Oncohematology, Hospital Umberto I, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Paolo Indolfi
- Department of Pediatrics, II University Hospital, Naples, Italy
| | - Franca Fagioli
- Oncohematology, Regina Margherita Hospital, Torino, Italy
| | | | - Roberta Burnelli
- Pediatric Onco-hematologic Unit, University Hospital S. Anna, Ferrara, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Biggi A, Bergesio F, Chauvie S. Monitoring response in lymphomas: qualitative, quantitative, or what else? Leuk Lymphoma 2018; 60:302-308. [DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2018.1480773] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Alberto Biggi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital , Cuneo, Italy
| | - Fabrizio Bergesio
- Department of Medical Physics, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy
| | - Stephane Chauvie
- Department of Medical Physics, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Utility of PET-CT for Evaluation of Patients With Peripheral T-cell Lymphoma. CLINICAL LYMPHOMA MYELOMA & LEUKEMIA 2018; 18:687-691. [PMID: 30017596 DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.06.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2018] [Accepted: 06/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) avidity varies in peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). We evaluated FDG avidity of pretreatment positron emission tomography/computed tomography (P-PET/CT), to appraise the prognostic significance of interim PET/CT (I-PET/CT) and end of treatment PET/CT (E-PET/CT) in PTCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed PTCL who had received any chemotherapy regimen from 2008 to 2015 in a tertiary center. P-PET/CT, I-PET/CT, and E-PET/CT studies were centrally reviewed. The primary outcomes were the prognostic role of I-PET/CT and E-PET/CT on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary outcomes were P-PET/CT avidity, the prognostic role of other baseline characteristics, and the correlation between the PET/CT and bone marrow biopsy findings. RESULTS We included 40 patients in the present analysis. The median OS and PFS for the whole cohort was 39 and 16 months, respectively. Of the 40 patients, 36 had positive P-PET/CT findings. A total of 23 patients underwent I-PET/CT, with positive findings for 10. Of the 40 patients, 34 underwent E-PET/CT, 26 of which had positive findings. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of P-PET/CT for bone marrow involvement was 40%, 83%, and 89%, respectively. The factors significantly associated with PFS and OS on univariate analysis included elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and low lymphocyte, hemoglobin, and albumin levels. On multivariate analysis, only lymphopenia remained prognostic for PFS and OS. The E-PET/CT and I-PET/CT results were not prognostic for PFS or OS. CONCLUSION Our study has shown that 90% of PTCL cases will be FDG avid. However, PET/CT was not predictive for PFS or OS at any point. The only predictive factor was the presence of lymphopenia.
Collapse
|
15
|
Amitai I, Gurion R, Vidal L, Dann EJ, Raanani P, Gafter-Gvili A. PET-adapted therapy for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma - systematic review. Acta Oncol 2018; 57:765-772. [PMID: 29345517 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2018.1426877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) performed after two chemotherapy cycles (PET-2) has become an accepted prognostic tool in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). We evaluated the effect of PET-adapted strategy on outcome in advanced stage HL. METHODS In August 2017, we searched electronic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trials. We included all studies in which treatment modification for advanced HL was performed based on the results of the interim PET scan. The primary analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS We identified 13 studies (4 RCTs, 7 phase II and 2 retrospective studies), conducted between 1999 and 2014, including 6856 patients. Of the four RCTS: one used therapy escalation, one did de-escalation and two trials performed both. Outcomes were assessed at different time point between 2 and 5 years. Three RCTs for de-escalating therapy, obtained similar outcomes despite reducing therapy, with a 2-year PFS of 88-92% (6 escalated BEACOPP (EB) vs. 4 ABVD cycles), a 5-year PFS of 91-92% (6/8 EB vs. 4 EB cycles) and a 5-year PFS of 80-82% (6 ABVD vs. omitting bleomycin after two successful ABVD cycles). Two RCTs implemented escalation. The randomization was between adding rituximab or not. In both trials, it did not affect outcome, with a 4-year PFS of 68-69% (addition of rituximab to BEACOPP after 2 ABVD cycles) and 5-year PFS of 88-90% (addition of rituximab to EB after 2 EB cycles). Performing true randomization between PET-adapted and a standard ABVD control arm was not feasible, given historical data. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review of PET-adapted therapy, mainly based on RCTs, suggests that a change to the treatment paradigm is appropriate in advanced HL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irina Amitai
- Institute of Hematology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Ronit Gurion
- Institute of Hematology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Liat Vidal
- Institute of Hematology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Eldad J. Dann
- Department of Hematology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel
- Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Technion, Israel Technical Institute, Haifa, Israel
| | - Pia Raanani
- Institute of Hematology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Anat Gafter-Gvili
- Institute of Hematology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv, Israel
- Internal Medicine A, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Hiniker SM, Hoppe RT. Post-treatment surveillance imaging in lymphoma. Semin Oncol 2018; 44:310-322. [PMID: 29580433 DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2018.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2017] [Revised: 01/31/2018] [Accepted: 01/31/2018] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
Appropriate post-treatment management of patients with lymphoma has been controversial, with imaging frequently performed as post-treatment surveillance. The goal of post-treatment imaging is to identify relapse prior to clinical symptoms, when the burden of disease is lower and the possibility of effective salvage therapy and cure are greater. However, little data exist to support the performance of surveillance imaging after completion of treatment, with the vast majority of studies suggesting there is no clinical benefit to surveillance imaging in asymptomatic patients. Ongoing efforts seek to identify a subset of patients with a higher risk of relapse that might benefit from surveillance imaging, though financial and other costs associated with imaging are non-negligible and must be considered. Here we summarize the current data regarding post-treatment surveillance imaging in lymphoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan M Hiniker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
| | - Richard T Hoppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
The prognostic value of the myeloid-mediated immunosuppression marker Arginase-1 in classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Oncotarget 2018; 7:67333-67346. [PMID: 27637084 PMCID: PMC5341879 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.12024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2016] [Accepted: 09/05/2016] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Neutrophilia is hallmark of classic Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL), but its precise characterization remains elusive. We aimed at investigating the immunosuppressive role of high-density neutrophils in HL. Experimental design First, N-HL function was evaluated in vitro, showing increased arginase (Arg-1) expression and activity compared to healthy subjects. Second, we measured serum level of Arg-1 (s-Arg-1) by ELISA in two independent, training (N = 40) and validation (N = 78) sets. Results s-Arg-1 was higher in patients with advanced stage (p = 0.045), B-symptoms (p = 0.0048) and a positive FDG-PET scan after two cycles of chemotherapy (PET-2, p = 0.012). Baseline levels of s-Arg-1 > 200 ng/mL resulted in 92% sensitivity and 56% specificity to predict a positive PET-2. Patients showing s-Arg-1 levels > 200 ng/mL had a shorter progression free survival (PFS). In multivariate analysis, PET-2 and s-Arg-1 at diagnosis were the only statistically significant prognostic variables related to PFS (respectively p = 0.0004 and p = 0.012). Moving from PET-2 status and s-Arg-1 level we constructed a prognostic score to predict long-term treatment outcome: low s-Arg-1 and negative PET-2 scan (score 0, N = 63), with a 3-Y PFS of 89.5%; either positive PET-2 or high s-Arg-1 (score 1, N = 46) with 3-Y PFS of 67.6%, and both positive markers (score 2, N = 9) with a 3-Y PFS of 37% (p = 0.0004). Conclusions We conclude that N-HL are immunosuppressive through increased Arg-1 expression, a novel potential biomarker for HL prognosis.
Collapse
|
18
|
Prognostic meaning of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and lymphocyte to monocyte ration (LMR) in newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated upfront with a PET-2 based strategy. Ann Hematol 2018; 97:1009-1018. [PMID: 29442162 DOI: 10.1007/s00277-018-3276-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2017] [Accepted: 02/04/2018] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
Recent reports identify NLR (the ratio between absolute neutrophils counts, ANC, and absolute lymphocyte count, ALC), as predictor of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in cancer patients. We retrospectively tested NLR and LMR (the ratio between absolute lymphocyte and monocyte counts) in newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients treated upfront with a PET-2 risk-adapted strategy. NLR and LMR were calculated using records obtained from the complete blood count (CBC) from 180 newly diagnosed HL patients. PFS was evaluated accordingly to Kaplan-Meier method. Higher NLR was associated to advanced stage, increased absolute counts of neutrophils and reduced count of lymphocytes, and markers of systemic inflammation. After a median follow-up of 68 months, PFS at 60 months was 86.6% versus 70.1%, respectively, in patients with NLR ≥ 6 or NLR < 6. Predictors of PFS at 60 months were PET-2 scan (p < 0.0001), NLR ≥ 6.0 (p = 0.02), LMR < 2 (p = 0.048), and ANC (p = 0.0059) in univariate analysis, but only PET-2 was an independent predictor of PFS in multivariate analysis. Advanced-stage patients (N = 119) were treated according to a PET-2 risk-adapted protocol, with an early switch to BEACOPP regimen in case of PET-2 positivity. Despite this strategy, patients with positive PET-2 still had an inferior outcome, with PFS at 60 months of 84.7% versus 40.1% (negative and positive PET-2 patients, respectively, p < 0.0001). Independent predictors of PFS by multivariate analysis were PET-2 status and to a lesser extend NLR in advanced stage, while LMR maintained its significance in early stage. By focusing on PET-2 negative patients, we found that patients with NLR ≥ 6.0 or LMR < 2 had an inferior outcome compared to patients with both ratios above the cutoff (78.7 versus 91.9 months, p = 0.01). We confirm NLR as predictor of PFS in HL patients independently from stage at diagnosis. Integration of PET-2 scan, NLR and LMR can result in a meaningful prognostic system that needs to be further validated in prospective series including patients treated upfront with PET-2 adapted-risk therapy.
Collapse
|
19
|
Brentuximab vedotin for advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18:1566-1568. [PMID: 29133015 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30845-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2017] [Accepted: 09/29/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
20
|
Milgrom SA, Pinnix CC, Chuang H, Oki Y, Akhtari M, Mawlawi O, Garg N, Gunther JR, Reddy JP, Smith GL, Rohren E, Hagemeister FB, Lee HJ, Fayad LE, Dong W, Osborne EM, Abou Yehia Z, Fanale M, Dabaja BS. Early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma outcomes after combined modality therapy according to the post-chemotherapy 5-point score: can residual pet-positive disease be cured with radiotherapy alone? Br J Haematol 2017; 179:488-496. [PMID: 28832956 DOI: 10.1111/bjh.14902] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2017] [Accepted: 07/18/2017] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
Early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients are evaluated by an end-of-chemotherapy positron emission tomography-computed tomography (eoc-PET-CT) after doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) and before radiation therapy (RT). We determined freedom from progression (FFP) in patients treated with ABVD and RT according to the eoc-PET-CT 5-point score (5PS). Secondarily, we assessed whether patients with a positive eoc-PET-CT (5PS of 4-5) can be cured with RT alone. The cohort comprised 174 patients treated for stage I-II HL with ABVD and RT alone. ABVD was given with a median of four cycles and RT with a median dose of 30·6 Gy. Five-year FFP was 97%. Five-year FFP was 100% (0 relapses/98 patients) for patients with a 5PS of 1-2, 97% (2/65) for a 5PS of 3, 83% (1/8) for a 5PS of 4, and 67% (1/3) for a 5PS of 5 (P < 0·001). Patients with positive eoc-PET-CT scans who were selected for salvage RT alone had experienced a very good partial response to ABVD. Risk factors for recurrence in this subgroup included a small reduction in tumour size and a 'bounce' in ≥1 PET-CT parameter (reduction then rise from interim to final scan). Thus, a positive eoc-PET-CT is associated with inferior FFP; however, appropriately selected patients can be cured with RT alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah A Milgrom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chelsea C Pinnix
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hubert Chuang
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yasuhiro Oki
- Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mani Akhtari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Osama Mawlawi
- Department of Imaging Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Naveen Garg
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jillian R Gunther
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jay P Reddy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eric Rohren
- Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Hun J Lee
- Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Luis E Fayad
- Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Wenli Dong
- Department of Biostatistics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Eleanor M Osborne
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zeinab Abou Yehia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michelle Fanale
- Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bouthaina S Dabaja
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Hindié E, Mesguich C, Zanotti-Fregonara P. On the Role of Interim Fluorine-18-Labeled Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Early-Stage Favorable Hodgkin Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:2851-2852. [PMID: 28682690 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.73.8369] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Elif Hindié
- Elif Hindié and Charles Mesguich, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France; and Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX
| | - Charles Mesguich
- Elif Hindié and Charles Mesguich, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France; and Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX
| | - Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara
- Elif Hindié and Charles Mesguich, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France; and Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Kluge R, Kurch L, Georgi T, Metzger M. Current Role of FDG-PET in Pediatric Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med 2017; 47:242-257. [PMID: 28417854 DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2017.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Hodgkin's lymphoma is one of the most curable pediatric cancers with long-term survival rates exceeding 90% following intensive treatment. Collaborative group studies worldwide aim on reduction or elimination of radiotherapy to avoid potentially life-limiting late effects especially second cancers and cardiovascular diseases. Large prospective trials have integrated early response FDG-PET scans to identify adequate responders to chemotherapy in whom radiotherapy may safely be omitted. The criteria for interpretation of early response PET have changed during the past years and will be further refined based on trial results. FDG-PET is also systematically used to assess initial disease involvement of pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma and could replace bone marrow biopsy. This article summarizes the role of FDG-PET in staging and response assessment focusing on large pediatric trials, the criteria for PET interpretation and pitfalls.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Regine Kluge
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
| | - L Kurch
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Thomas Georgi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Monika Metzger
- Department of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Danilov AV, Li H, Press OW, Shapira I, Swinnen LJ, Noy A, Reid E, Smith SM, Friedberg JW. Feasibility of interim positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted therapy in HIV-positive patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): a sub-analysis of SWOG S0816 Phase 2 trial. Leuk Lymphoma 2017; 58:461-465. [PMID: 27386786 PMCID: PMC5130311 DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2016.1201573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2016] [Revised: 05/31/2016] [Accepted: 06/05/2016] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Hongli Li
- SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Ilan Shapira
- Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Ariela Noy
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York, NY
| | - Erin Reid
- University of California at San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Press OW, Friedberg JW. Reply to H.J.A. Adams et al and E.A. Hawkes et al. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:373. [PMID: 28095266 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.69.7979] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Oliver W Press
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, and Jonathan W. Friedberg, James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
| | - Jonathan W Friedberg
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, and Jonathan W. Friedberg, James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Mesguich C, Cazeau AL, Bouabdallah K, Hindié E. Hodgkin lymphoma: is there really a need for interim and end-of-treatment FDG-PET evaluations? - Response to Adams & Kwee. Br J Haematol 2017; 181:124-125. [PMID: 28106255 DOI: 10.1111/bjh.14494] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Charles Mesguich
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
| | - Anne-Laure Cazeau
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Bergonié Cancer Centre, Bordeaux, France
| | - Krimo Bouabdallah
- Department of Hematological Oncology, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
| | - Elif Hindié
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Wang Q, Qin Y, Kang SY, He XH, Liu P, Yang S, Zhou SY, Zhang CG, Gui L, Yang JL, Sun Y, Shi YK. Decreased Prognostic Value of International Prognostic Score in Chinese Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients Treated in the Contemporary Era. Chin Med J (Engl) 2016; 129:2780-2785. [PMID: 27900988 PMCID: PMC5146782 DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.194661] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: The International Prognostic Score (IPS) was developed based on the data of Western advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients treated before 1992. Only a few studies ever evaluated the application value of IPS in Chinese population or in patients treated in the contemporary era whose outcomes has improved significantly than before. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study involving 208 previously untreated Chinese advanced HL patients, who were admitted to Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 1, 1999 to April 30, 2015 and received uniform first-line treatment. The prognostic value of both IPS and the seven IPS factors for freedom-from progression (FFP) and overall survival (OS) was assessed in this population. The statistical methods included Kaplan-Meier methodology, log-rank testing, and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. Results: With a median follow-up time of 79 months (range, 15–210 months), the 5-year FFP and OS were 78.8% and 86.0% respectively, which improved obviously compared with the original IPS study. The IPS remained prognostic for both FFP (P = 0.041) and OS (P = 0.013), but the range narrowed obviously, with 5-year FFP ranging from 87.2% to 61.5%, 5-year OS ranging from 94.1% to 69.2%, and the separation of survival curves was not as good as before. Only two of the seven IPS factors showed a significant independent prognostic value in the multivariate analysis: Stage IV (for FFP, hazard ratio [HR] = 2.219, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.148–3.948, P = 0.016; for OS, HR = 2.491, 95% CI: 1.159–5.355, P = 0.019) and hemoglobin <105 g/L (for FFP, HR = 2.136, 95% CI: 1.123–4.060, P = 0.021; for OS, HR = 2.345, 95% CI: 1.099–5.042, P = 0.028). A simple prognostic score calculated by adding one point each for any of the two factors was prognostic both for FFP (P < 0.001) and OS (P < 0.001) with the survival curves separating very well, but the range still narrowed. Conclusions: The IPS has decreased the prognostic value in Chinese advanced HL patients treated in the contemporary era. More prognostic factors are needed to supplement this original scoring system so as to identify different risk populations more accurately.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qin Wang
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Yan Qin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Su-Yi Kang
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Xiao-Hui He
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Peng Liu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Sheng Yang
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Sheng-Yu Zhou
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Chang-Gong Zhang
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Lin Gui
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Jian-Liang Yang
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Yan Sun
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| | - Yuan-Kai Shi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Moghbel MC, Mittra E, Gallamini A, Niederkohr R, Chen DL, Zukotynski K, Nadel H, Kostakoglu L. Response Assessment Criteria and Their Applications in Lymphoma: Part 2. J Nucl Med 2016; 58:13-22. [DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.184242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2016] [Accepted: 11/19/2016] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
|
28
|
Bakhshi S, Bhethanabhotla S, Kumar R, Agarwal K, Sharma P, Thulkar S, Malhotra A, Dhawan D, Vishnubhatla S. Posttreatment PET/CT Rather Than Interim PET/CT Using Deauville Criteria Predicts Outcome in Pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Prospective Study Comparing PET/CT with Conventional Imaging. J Nucl Med 2016; 58:577-583. [PMID: 27754902 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.176511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2016] [Accepted: 09/08/2016] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Data about the significance of 18F-FDG PET at interim assessment and end of treatment in pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are limited. Methods: Patients (≤18 y) with HL were prospectively evaluated with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) and PET combined with low-dose CT (PET/CT) at baseline, after 2 cycles of chemotherapy, and after completion of treatment. Revised International Working Group (RIW) criteria and Deauville 5 point-scale for response assessment by PET/CT were used. All patients received doxorubicin (Adriamycin), bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine chemotherapy along with involved-field radiotherapy (25 Gy) for early stage (IA, IB, and IIA) and advanced stage (IIB-IV) with bulky disease. Results: Of the 57 enrolled patients, median follow-up was 81.6 mo (range, 11-97.5 mo). Treatment decisions were based on CECT. At baseline, PET/CT versus CECT identified 67 more disease sites; 23 patients (40.3%) were upstaged and of them in 9 patients (39%) upstaging would have affected treatment decision; notably none of these patients relapsed. The specificity of interim PET/CT based on RIW criteria (61.5%) and Deauville criteria (91.4%) for predicting relapse was higher than CECT (40.3%) (P = 0.03 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Event-free survival based on interim PET/CT (RIW) response was 93.3 ± 4.1 versus 89.6 ± 3.8 (positive vs. negative scan, respectively; P = 0.44). The specificity of posttreatment PET/CT (Deauville) was 95.7% versus 76.4% by CECT (P = 0.006). Posttreatment PET/CT (Deauville) showed significantly inferior overall survival in patients with positive scan versus negative scan results (66.4 ± 22.5 vs. 94.5 ± 2.0, P = 0.029). Conclusion: Interim PET/CT has better specificity, and use of Deauville criteria further improves it. Escalation of therapy based on interim PET in pediatric HL needs further conclusive evidence to justify its use. Posttreatment PET/CT (Deauville) predicts overall survival and has better specificity in comparison to conventional imaging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sameer Bakhshi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. B. R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Sainath Bhethanabhotla
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. B. R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Rakesh Kumar
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Krishankant Agarwal
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Punit Sharma
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Sanjay Thulkar
- Department of Radiology, Dr. B. R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India; and
| | - Arun Malhotra
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Deepa Dhawan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. B. R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Han EJ, O JH, Yoon H, Jung SE, Park G, Choi BO, Cho SG. FDG PET/CT response in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Reader variability and association with clinical outcome. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95:e4983. [PMID: 27684851 PMCID: PMC5265944 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000004983] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2016] [Revised: 08/04/2016] [Accepted: 09/04/2016] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
F-18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is essential for monitoring response to treatment in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and qualitative interpretation is commonly applied in clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate the interobserver agreements of qualitative PET/CT response in patients with DLBCL and the predictive value of PET/CT results for clinical outcome.PET/CT images were obtained for patients with DLBCL 3 times: at baseline, after 3 cycles of first-line chemotherapy (interim), and after completion of chemotherapy. Two nuclear medicine physicians (with 3 and 8 years of experience with PET/CT) retrospectively assessed response to chemotherapy blinded to the clinical outcome using International Harmonization Project (IHP) criteria and Deauville 5-point score. The associations between PET/CT results and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Cox regression analysis.A total of 112 PET/CT images were included from 59 patients with DLBCL (36 male, 23 female; mean age 53 ± 14 years). Using the IHP criteria, interobserver agreement was substantial (Cohen κ = 0.76) with absolute agreement consistency of 89%. Using the Deauville score, interobserver agreement was moderate (Cohen weighted κ = 0.54) and absolute consistency was 62%. The most common cause of disagreements was discordant interpretation of residual tumor uptake. With median follow-up period of 60 months, estimated 5-year PFS and OS were 81% and 92%, respectively. Neither interim nor posttreatment PET/CT results by both readers were significantly associated with PFS. Interim PET/CT result by the more experienced reader using Deauville score was a significant factor for OS (P = 0.019).Moderate-to-substantial interobserver agreement was observed for response assessments according to qualitative PET/CT criteria, and interim PET/CT result could predict OS in patients with DLBCL. Further studies are necessary to further standardize the PET/CT-based response criteria for more consistent interpretation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eun Ji Han
- Department of Radiology, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Seok-Goo Cho
- Department of Hematology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Abstract
There is now good evidence that the escalated BEACOPP regimen (bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone) is more effective in controlling advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) than the widely used ABVD regimen (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine), but the extra efficacy comes at the expense of both short- and long-term toxicity, and there is debate as to whether overall survival is affected. Baseline prognostic factors have proven of limited utility for determining which patients require more intensive therapy and recent studies have sought to use interim fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) evaluation as a means to guide the modulation of treatment, both upwards and downwards in intensity. These suggest that if treatment starts with ABVD then patients remaining PET-positive after 2 months can be salvaged with escalated BEACOPP in around 65% of cases, but those becoming PET-negative may still experience recurrences in 15%-20%, an event that is more common in those with more advanced disease at presentation. There are early data to suggest that starting with escalated BEACOPP may reduce the rate of recurrence after a negative interim PET to less than 10%. This may be an attractive approach for those with very high-risk features at presentation, but risks overtreating many patients if applied nonselectively. New regimens incorporating antibody-drug conjugates may shift the balance of efficacy and toxicity once again, and further studies are underway to evaluate this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Theodoros P Vassilakopoulos
- Department of Haematology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
| | - Peter W M Johnson
- Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, England
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Gan M, Yin X. Puerarin induced in mantle cell lymphoma apoptosis and its possible mechanisms involving multi-signaling pathway. Cell Biochem Biophys 2016; 71:367-73. [PMID: 25173778 DOI: 10.1007/s12013-014-0207-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
This research designed to explore the antitumor activity of puerarin against human mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Cell proliferation and apoptosis were assessed by MTS and flow cytometry. Caspase-3, -8, and -9 activities were assessed with the colorimetric caspase protease assay. Apoptotic proteins like PARP, cyclin D1, Bcl-2 family, XIAP, and cIAP I were researched by western blot. The PI3K inhibitor LY294002 was used to investigate the possible mechanism relating the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. Puerarin in vitro inhibited proliferation and induced apoptosis of Z138 cells. Expressions of PI3K and p-Akt were downregulated by puerarin. Puerarin negatively regulated NF-κB activity by inhibiting NF-κB phosphorylation with nuclear translocation inhibition. This kind of effects was correlated with the suppression of expression of cyclin D1, BAX, Bcl-2, XIAP etc. This function was modulated by the PI3K inhibitor. Our results demonstrated that puerarin can induce growth arrest and apoptosis in MCL cells and that the mechanism may involve the NF-κB signaling pathway. Puerarin may have therapeutic applications in the treatment of MCL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maozhou Gan
- Department of Hematology, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chengdu, China
| | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Press OW, Li H, Schöder H, Straus DJ, Moskowitz CH, LeBlanc M, Rimsza LM, Bartlett NL, Evens AM, Mittra ES, LaCasce AS, Sweetenham JW, Barr PM, Fanale MA, Knopp MV, Noy A, Hsi ED, Cook JR, Lechowicz MJ, Gascoyne RD, Leonard JP, Kahl BS, Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Friedberg JW. US Intergroup Trial of Response-Adapted Therapy for Stage III to IV Hodgkin Lymphoma Using Early Interim Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography Imaging: Southwest Oncology Group S0816. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:2020-7. [PMID: 27069074 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.63.1119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 191] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Four US National Clinical Trials Network components (Southwest Oncology Group, Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and the AIDS Malignancy Consortium) conducted a phase II Intergroup clinical trial that used early interim fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging to determine the utility of response-adapted therapy for stage III to IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Southwest Oncology Group S0816 (Fludeoxyglucose F 18-PET/CT Imaging and Combination Chemotherapy With or Without Additional Chemotherapy and G-CSF in Treating Patients With Stage III or Stage IV Hodgkin Lymphoma) trial enrolled 358 HIV-negative patients between July 1, 2009, and December 2, 2012. A PET scan was performed after two initial cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) and was labeled PET2. PET2-negative patients (Deauville score 1 to 3) received an additional four cycles of ABVD, whereas PET2-positive patients (Deauville score 4 to 5) were switched to escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) for six cycles. Among 336 eligible and evaluable patients, the median age was 32 years (range, 18 to 60 years), with 52% stage III, 48% stage IV, 49% International Prognostic Score 0 to 2, and 51% score 3 to 7. RESULTS Three hundred thirty-six of the enrolled patients were evaluable. Central review of the interim PET2 scan was performed in 331 evaluable patients, with 271 (82%) PET2-negative and 60 (18%) PET2-positive. Of 60 eligible PET2-positive patients, 49 switched to eBEACOPP as planned and 11 declined. With a median follow-up of 39.7 months, the Kaplan-Meier estimate for 2-year overall survival was 98% (95% CI, 95% to 99%), and the 2-year estimate for progression-free survival (PFS) was 79% (95% CI, 74% to 83%). The 2-year estimate for PFS in the subset of patients who were PET2-positive after two cycles of ABVD was 64% (95% CI, 50% to 75%). Both nonhematologic and hematologic toxicities were greater in the eBEACOPP arm than in the continued ABVD arm. CONCLUSION Response-adapted therapy based on interim PET imaging after two cycles of ABVD seems promising with a 2-year PFS of 64% for PET2-positive patients, which is much higher than the expected 2-year PFS of 15% to 30%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oliver W Press
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
| | - Hongli Li
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Heiko Schöder
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - David J Straus
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Craig H Moskowitz
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Michael LeBlanc
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Lisa M Rimsza
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Nancy L Bartlett
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Andrew M Evens
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Erik S Mittra
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Ann S LaCasce
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - John W Sweetenham
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Paul M Barr
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Michelle A Fanale
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Michael V Knopp
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Ariela Noy
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Eric D Hsi
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - James R Cook
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Mary Jo Lechowicz
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Randy D Gascoyne
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - John P Leonard
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Brad S Kahl
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Bruce D Cheson
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Richard I Fisher
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jonathan W Friedberg
- Oliver W. Press, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington; Hongli Li and Michael LeBlanc, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Heiko Schöder, David J. Straus, Craig H. Moskowitz, and Ariela Noy, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; John P. Leonard, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York City; Paul M. Barr and Jonathan W. Friedberg, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Lisa M. Rimsza, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Nancy L. Bartlett and Brad S. Kahl, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Andrew M. Evens, Tufts Medical Center; Ann S. LaCasce, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Erik S. Mittra, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; John W. Sweetenham, Huntsman Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT; Michelle A. Fanale, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Michael V. Knopp, The Ohio State University, Columbus; Eric D. Hsi, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; James R. Cook, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Mary Jo Lechowicz, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Randy D. Gascoyne, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC; Bruce D. Cheson, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington DC; and Richard I. Fisher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Barrington SF, Kirkwood AA, Franceschetto A, Fulham MJ, Roberts TH, Almquist H, Brun E, Hjorthaug K, Viney ZN, Pike LC, Federico M, Luminari S, Radford J, Trotman J, Fosså A, Berkahn L, Molin D, D'Amore F, Sinclair DA, Smith P, O'Doherty MJ, Stevens L, Johnson PW. PET-CT for staging and early response: results from the Response-Adapted Therapy in Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma study. Blood 2016; 127:1531-8. [PMID: 26747247 DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-11-679407] [Citation(s) in RCA: 106] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2015] [Accepted: 12/26/2015] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
International guidelines recommend that positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) should replace CT in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The aims of this study were to compare PET-CT with CT for staging and measure agreement between expert and local readers, using a 5-point scale (Deauville criteria), to adapt treatment in a clinical trial: Response-Adapted Therapy in Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma (RATHL). Patients were staged using clinical assessment, CT, and bone marrow biopsy (RATHL stage). PET-CT was performed at baseline (PET0) and after 2 chemotherapy cycles (PET2) in a response-adapted design. PET-CT was reported centrally by experts at 5 national core laboratories. Local readers optionally scored PET2 scans. The RATHL and PET-CT stages were compared. Agreement among experts and between expert and local readers was measured. RATHL and PET0 stage were concordant in 938 (80%) patients. PET-CT upstaged 159 (14%) and downstaged 74 (6%) patients. Upstaging by extranodal disease in bone marrow (92), lung (11), or multiple sites (12) on PET-CT accounted for most discrepancies. Follow-up of discrepant findings confirmed the PET characterization of lesions in the vast majority. Five patients were upstaged by marrow biopsy and 7 by contrast-enhanced CT in the bowel and/or liver or spleen. PET2 agreement among experts (140 scans) with a κ (95% confidence interval) of 0.84 (0.76-0.91) was very good and between experts and local readers (300 scans) at 0.77 (0.68-0.86) was good. These results confirm PET-CT as the modern standard for staging HL and that response assessment using Deauville criteria is robust, enabling translation of RATHL results into clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sally F Barrington
- PET Imaging Centre, Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, King's Health Partners, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Amy A Kirkwood
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Michael J Fulham
- Department of Molecular Imaging (PET-CT), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Thomas H Roberts
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Eva Brun
- Department of Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Karin Hjorthaug
- Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Zaid N Viney
- Department of Radiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lucy C Pike
- PET Imaging Centre, Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, King's Health Partners, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Massimo Federico
- Oncology Unit, Department of Diagnostic, Clinical and Public Health Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Stefano Luminari
- Oncology Unit, Department of Diagnostic, Clinical and Public Health Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - John Radford
- The University of Manchester and the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Judith Trotman
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Concord, Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Alexander Fosså
- Department of Oncology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Leanne Berkahn
- Haematology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Daniel Molin
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Experimental and Clinical Oncology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | | | - Donald A Sinclair
- PET Imaging Centre, Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, King's Health Partners, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Smith
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J O'Doherty
- PET Imaging Centre, Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, King's Health Partners, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lindsey Stevens
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Peter W Johnson
- Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Kluge R, Chavdarova L, Hoffmann M, Kobe C, Malkowski B, Montravers F, Kurch L, Georgi T, Dietlein M, Wallace WH, Karlen J, Fernández-Teijeiro A, Cepelova M, Wilson L, Bergstraesser E, Sabri O, Mauz-Körholz C, Körholz D, Hasenclever D. Inter-Reader Reliability of Early FDG-PET/CT Response Assessment Using the Deauville Scale after 2 Cycles of Intensive Chemotherapy (OEPA) in Hodgkin's Lymphoma. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0149072. [PMID: 26963909 PMCID: PMC4786307 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2015] [Accepted: 01/11/2016] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose The five point Deauville (D) scale is widely used to assess interim PET metabolic response to chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients. An International Validation Study reported good concordance among reviewers in ABVD treated advanced stage HL patients for the binary discrimination between score D1,2,3 and score D4,5. Inter-reader reliability of the whole scale is not well characterised. Methods Five international expert readers scored 100 interim PET/CT scans from paediatric HL patients. Scans were acquired in 51 European hospitals after two courses of OEPA chemotherapy (according to the EuroNet-PHL-C1 study). Images were interpreted in direct comparison with staging PET/CTs. Results The probability that two random readers concord on the five point D score of a random case is only 42% (global kappa = 0.24). Aggregating to a three point scale D1,2 vs. D3 vs. D4,5 improves concordance to 60% (kappa = 0.34). Concordance if one of two readers assigns a given score is 70% for score D1,2 only 36% for score D3 and 64% for D4,5. Concordance for the binary decisions D1,2 vs. D3,4,5 is 67% and 86% for D1,2,3 vs D4,5 (kappa = 0.36 resp. 0.56). If one reader assigns D1,2,3 concordance probability is 92%, but only 64% if D4,5 is called. Discrepancies occur mainly in mediastinum, neck and skeleton. Conclusion Inter-reader reliability of the five point D-scale is poor in this interobserver analysis of paediatric patients who underwent OEPA. Inter-reader variability is maximal in cases assigned to D2 or D3. The binary distinction D1,2,3 versus D4,5 is the most reliable criterion for clinical decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Regine Kluge
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
- * E-mail:
| | - Lidia Chavdarova
- Clinic of Nuclear Medicine, National Hospital for Active Treatment in Oncology, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Martha Hoffmann
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Carsten Kobe
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Bogdan Malkowski
- Dept. of PET and Molecular Imaging, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Collegium MedicumBydgoszcz, Poland
| | - Françoise Montravers
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hopital Tenon, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France
| | - Lars Kurch
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Thomas Georgi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Markus Dietlein
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - W. Hamish Wallace
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Jonas Karlen
- Karolinska University Hospital, Astrid Lindgrens Childrens Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ana Fernández-Teijeiro
- Pediatric Oncology Unit, Hospitales Universitarios Virgen Macarena y Virgen del Rocio, Sevilla, Spain
| | - Michaela Cepelova
- Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Motol and 2nd Medical Faculty of Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Lorrain Wilson
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Blackrock Clinic, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Eva Bergstraesser
- Department of Paediatric Oncology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Osama Sabri
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | | | - Dieter Körholz
- Department of Pediatric Oncology, University of Halle, Halle/Saale, Germany
| | - Dirk Hasenclever
- Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Over the past several decades, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has become a highly treatable lymphoid malignancy with excellent response rates and long-term disease-free survival. Late-toxicities, however, continue to be an area of significant concern. Recent studies have evaluated novel approaches to limit long-term toxicity without adversely impacting short-term survival. While early or interim PET scan has been correlated with PFS and OS in HL, the modification of therapy based on interim PET (response-adapted therapy) has been evaluated in retrospective and prospective cohorts. This paper will review evidence for the role of response-adapted therapy in HL. AREAS COVERED Data from completed and ongoing retrospective and prospective cohorts of HL patients were reviewed utilizing pubmed and clinicaltrials.org and pertinent studies culled to compile this review article. EXPERT OPINION While response-adapted therapy represents a promising area of research which may ultimately become standard-of-care, current data does not unequivocally endorse this approach, which should be used with caution outside of a clinical trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesse Keller
- a 1 Washington University, Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine , St Louis, MO 63110, USA.,b 2 Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine , 660 S. Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8056, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA +1 31 43 62 56 54 ; +1 31 44 54 79 41 ;
| | - Kenneth R Carson
- a 1 Washington University, Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine , St Louis, MO 63110, USA.,b 2 Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine , 660 S. Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8056, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA +1 31 43 62 56 54 ; +1 31 44 54 79 41 ; .,c 3 Research Service, St. Louis Veterans Affairs Medical Center , 501 N. Grand Blvd Suite 300, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Role of FDG-PET/CT in staging and first-line treatment of Hodgkin and aggressive B-cell lymphomas. MEMO-MAGAZINE OF EUROPEAN MEDICAL ONCOLOGY 2015. [DOI: 10.1007/s12254-015-0215-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
|
37
|
Pinto A, Corazzelli G. Feasibility and efficacy of dose-dense and dose-intense ABVD for high-risk patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma: reply to D'Arco et al. Br J Haematol 2015; 171:665-8. [PMID: 25892204 DOI: 10.1111/bjh.13430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Antonello Pinto
- Haematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation Unit, Department of Haematology, National Cancer Institute, Fondazione 'G. Pascale', IRCCS, Naples, Italy. ,
| | - Gaetano Corazzelli
- Haematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation Unit, Department of Haematology, National Cancer Institute, Fondazione 'G. Pascale', IRCCS, Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Abstract
Abstract
Treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with 2 major types of risk: that the treatment may fail to cure the disease or that the treatment will prove unacceptably toxic. Careful assessment of the amount of the lymphoma (tumor burden), its behavior (extent of invasion or specific organ compromise), and host related factors (age; coincident systemic infection; and organ dysfunction, especially hematopoietic, cardiac, or pulmonary) is essential to optimize outcome. Elaborately assembled prognostic scoring systems, such as the International Prognostic Factors Project score, have lost their accuracy and value as increasingly effective chemotherapy and supportive care have been developed. Identification of specific biomarkers derived from sophisticated exploration of Hodgkin lymphoma biology is bringing promise of further improvement in targeted therapy in which effectiveness is increased at the same time off-target toxicity is diminished. Parallel developments in functional imaging are providing additional potential to evaluate the efficacy of treatment while it is being delivered, allowing dynamic assessment of risk during chemotherapy and adaptation of the therapy in real time. Risk assessment in Hodgkin lymphoma is continuously evolving, promising ever greater precision and clinical relevance. This article explores the past usefulness and the emerging potential of risk assessment for this imminently curable malignancy.
Collapse
|
39
|
Gandikota N, Hartridge-Lambert S, Migliacci JC, Yahalom J, Portlock CS, Schöder H. Very low utility of surveillance imaging in early-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma treated with a combination of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine and radiation therapy. Cancer 2015; 121:1985-92. [PMID: 25739719 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29277] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2014] [Revised: 12/17/2014] [Accepted: 01/06/2015] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study evaluated the need for surveillance imaging in early-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) after planned combined-modality therapy (CMT). METHODS Primary early-stage cHL patients who underwent CMT were included. Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT), CT, or both were performed at the initial staging, during or after chemotherapy, and for at least 2 years during follow-up. Imaging studies and medical records were reviewed to determine if and when relapse had occurred. Radiation doses and costs were also calculated from follow-up imaging. RESULTS The study included 78 patients with a median follow-up of 46 months; 85% of the patients had stage II disease (32% with bulky disease). Four of 77 interim PET scans were positive; none of these patients relapsed during follow-up, which ranged from 24 to 80 months. After a total of 466 follow-up imaging studies (91% with CT and 9% with PET/CT), no cHL relapse was detected. Eleven abnormal findings were noted on surveillance imaging: 9 were false-positives, and 2 were second primary malignancies. The average cumulative dose per patient from follow-up imaging was 107 mSv, which translated into an estimated lifetime excess cancer risk of 0.5%; the estimated total costs were $296,817 according to Medicare reimbursements. CONCLUSIONS Surveillance imaging with either CT or PET/CT can be omitted safely for early-stage cHL treated with a combination of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine and radiation therapy because the risk of relapse is extremely low. This observation also applies to patients with bulky disease. The elimination of surveillance imaging will also reduce healthcare expenses and cumulative radiation doses in these predominantly young patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neetha Gandikota
- Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Sidonie Hartridge-Lambert
- Lymphoma Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Jocelyn C Migliacci
- Lymphoma Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Joachim Yahalom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Carol S Portlock
- Lymphoma Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Heiko Schöder
- Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Touati M, Delage-Corre M, Monteil J, Abraham J, Moreau S, Remenieras L, Gourin MP, Dmytruk N, Olivrie A, Turlure P, Girault S, Labrousse F, Preux PM, Jaccard A, Bordessoule D. CD68-positive tumor-associated macrophages predict unfavorable treatment outcomes in classical Hodgkin lymphoma in correlation with interim fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography assessment. Leuk Lymphoma 2014; 56:332-41. [DOI: 10.3109/10428194.2014.917636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
|