All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a healthcare professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the Lymphoma Coalition.
The Lymphoma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Lymphoma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Lymphoma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Lymphoma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Roche, AbbVie, BeOne, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Thermo Fisher, Nurix Therapeutics and Caribou Biosciences and supported through independent educational grants from Incyte, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out more
Create an account to access:
Bookmark & personalize site content
Receive alerts for new content in your areas of interest
View lymphoma & CLL content recommended for you
The results of a retrospective, multi-center, European cohort study into the prognostic and predictive value of key biomarkers following interim FDG-PET (PET-2) followed by CART analysis were published in The Lancet Haematology, October 2016. The authors recruited 208 classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) pts in the initial training set, followed by 102 pts in the validation cohort where the inclusion criteria included, but was not limited to, treatment with ABVD with or without radiotherapy, presence of a representative, paraffin embedded and formalin-fixed histological section taken at diagnosis, and baseline staging and restaging after two rounds of ABVD with FDG-PET.
In conclusion, the joint first authors, C. Agostinelli, A. Gallamini, L. Stracqualursi and P. Agati stated that the described combination of PET-2 with affordable and readily available biomarker assessment can successfully classify high-risk cHL patients better than with PET-2 alone. This method has the potential to lead to greater risk-adapted treatment for cHL such that high-risk PET-2 negative patients could receive more aggressive treatment, whereas low-risk PET-2 negative patients could be treated with standard ABVD. However, the authors also stated that prospective studies and trials will be required to further validate this practice.
Background: Early-interim fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET scan after two ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) chemotherapy courses (PET-2) represents the most effective predictor of treatment outcome in classical Hodgkin's lymphoma. We aimed to assess the predictive value of PET-2 combined with tissue biomarkers in neoplastic and microenvironmental cells for this disease.
Methods: We enrolled 208 patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma and treated with ABVD (training set), from Jan 1, 2002, to Dec 31, 2009, and validated the results in a fully matched independent cohort of 102 patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma (validation set), enrolled from Jan 1, 2008, to Dec 31, 2012. The inclusion criteria for both the training and validation sets were: the availability of a representative formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sample collected at diagnosis; treatment with ABVD with or without radiotherapy; baseline staging and interim restaging after two ABVD courses with FDG-PET; no treatment change based solely on interim PET result; and HIV-negative status. We used Cox multivariate analysis classification and regression tree (CART) to compare the predictive values of these markers with that of PET-2 and to assess the biomarkers' ability to correctly classify patients whose outcome was incorrectly predicted by PET-2.
Findings: In multivariate analysis, PET-2 was the only factor able to predict both progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 33·3 [95% CI 13·6–83·3]; p<0·0001) and overall survival (HR 31·3 [95% CI 3·7–58·9]; p=0·002). In the training set, no factor had a stronger adverse predictive value than a positive PET-2 scan and none was able to correctly reclassify PET-2 positive patients. In PET-2 negative patients, expression of CD68 (≥25%) and PD1 (diffuse or rosetting pattern) in microenvironmental cells, and STAT1 negativity in Hodgkin Reed Sternberg cells identified a subset of PET-2 negative patients with a 3 year progression-free survival significantly lower than that of the remaining PET-2 negative population (21 [64%] of 33 [95% CI 45·2–79·0] vs 130 [95%] of 137 [95% CI 89·4–97·7]; p<0·0001). These findings were reproduced in the validation set.
Interpretation: The CART algorithm correctly predicted the response to treatment in more than a half of patients who had a relapse or disease progression despite a negative PET-2 scan, thus increasing the negative predictive value of PET-2. In keeping with preliminary results from interim PET response adapted clinical trials of patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma, there might be a non-negligible proportion of treatment failures in the interim PET negative group treated with standard ABVD.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content
This content is accurate as of the date of publication and is not updated retrospectively. Please refer to the latest available evidence, guidelines, and relevant regulatory information when making clinical decisions.
Your opinion matters
When selecting the next therapy for patients with R/R MCL after BTKi progression, what is your most important consideration?