Maximum tumor diameter is associated with event-free survival in PET-negative patients with stage I/IIA Hodgkin lymphoma

Abstract

Introduction: the high cure rates achieved in early-stage (ES) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are one of the great successes of hemato-oncology, but late treatment-related toxicity undermines long-term survival. Improving overall survival and quality of life further will require maintaining disease control while potentially de-escalating chemotherapy and/or omitting radiotherapy to reduce late toxicity. Accurate stratification of patients is required to facilitate individualized treatment approaches. Response assessment using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) is a powerful predictor of outcome in HL,1,2 and has been used in multiple studies, including the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Randomised Phase III Trial to Determine the Role of FDG–PET Imaging in Clinical Stages IA/IIA Hodgkin’s Disease (UK NCRI RAPID) trial, to investigate whether patients achieving complete metabolic remission (CMR) can be treated with chemotherapy alone.3-5 These PET-adapted trials have demonstrated that omitting radiotherapy results in higher relapse rates, but without compromising overall survival.3-5 For the 75% of patients who achieved CMR in RAPID, neither baseline clinical risk stratification (favorable/unfavorable) nor PET (Deauville score 1/2) predicted disease relapse; additional biomarkers are needed.1 Tumor bulk has long been recognized as prognostic in HL,1,6 but there remains uncertainty about the significance and definition of bulk in the era of PET-adapted treatment.7 We performed a subsidiary analysis of RAPID to assess the prognostic value of baseline maximum tumor dimension (MTD) in patients achieving CMR. Methods: ee have previously reported the RAPID trial design, primary results, and outcomes according to pretreatment risk stratification and PET score.1,3 Patients were aged 16 to 75 years with untreated ES-HL and without B-symptoms or mediastinal bulk (mass > 1/3 internal mediastinal diameter at T5/6).6 Metabolic response after 3 cycles of ABVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) was centrally assessed using PET (N = 562). Patients with CMR (ie, Deauville score 1-2) were randomly assigned to receive involved field radiotherapy (IFRT; n = 208) or no further therapy (NFT; n = 211). PET-positive patients (score, 3-5; n = 143) received a fourth cycle of ABVD and IFRT. Baseline disease assessment was performed by computed tomography, and bidimensional target lesion measurements were reported by local radiologists in millimeters. The association of baseline MTD with HL-related event-free survival (EFS: progression or HL-related death) and progression-free survival (PFS) (progression or any-cause death) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Non-HL deaths were either related to primary treatment toxicity or occurred in HL remission.1 United Kingdom ethical approval for the RAPID trial was via the UK Multicentre Research ethics committee. Results and discussion: baseline patient characteristics have been previously described.1 Median age was 34 years (range, 16-75 years); 184 (37.4%) of 492 patients had unfavorable risk by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria, and 155 (32.3%) of 480 by German Hodgkin Study Groupcriteria. Median MTD for patients achieving CMR was 3.0 cm (interquartile range, 2.0-4.0 cm) and 3.0 cm (interquartile range, 1.8-4.5 cm) in the NFT and IFRT groups, respectively, whereas PET-positive patients had a median MTD of 3.9 cm (interquartile range, 2.8-5.1 cm). After a median follow-up of 61.6 m, 44 HL progression events occurred: 21 NFT, 9 IFRT and 14 PET-positive. No patient received salvage treatment without documented progression. Only 5 HL-related deaths occurred (1 IFRT, 4 PET-positive), and 12 non-HL deaths (4 NFT, 6 IFRT, 2 PET-positive).1 For patients with CMR (N = 419), there was a strong association between MTD and EFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.39; P = .02), adjusting for treatment group, with an approximate 19% increase in HL risk per centimeter increase in MTD. The association was similar in both treatment groups (NFT HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.99-1.44; P = .06]; IFRT HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.92-1.55; P = .19]). The observed effect sizes did not markedly change after adjusting for baseline clinical risk factors, and similar results were observed for PFS (supplemental Table 1). In contrast, for PET-positive patients, there was no association between MTD and EFS (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.11; P = .29) or PFS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.08; P = .21). In an exploratory analysis within the NFT group, MTD was dichotomized using increasing 1-cm intervals to investigate the relationship between MTD thresholds and EFS. The largest effect size was observed with an MTD threshold of ≥5 cm (Table 1). Similar results were observed for PFS; this threshold also performed best in time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. It was not possible to assess MTD thresholds in the IFRT group with only 9 events. Among all randomized patients, 79 (18.9%) had MTD of ≥5 cm, the majority with mediastinal (n = 43), supraclavicular (n = 17), or cervical (n = 16) locations. Five-year EFS for patients with MTD of ≥5 cm randomly assigned to NFT and IFRT was 79.3% (n = 39; 95% CI, 66.6%-92.0%) and 94.9% (n = 40; 95% CI, 88.0%-100%), respectively (P = .03; Figure 1).

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for Peter W M Johnson: orcid.org/0000-0003-2306-4974

Catalogue record

Export record

Altmetrics