TY - JOUR
T1 - Long-Term Follow-Up of the Response-Adapted Intergroup EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 Trial for Localized Hodgkin Lymphoma
AU - Federico, Massimo
AU - Fortpied, Catherine
AU - Stepanishyna, Yana
AU - Gotti, Manuel
AU - van der Maazen, Richard
AU - Cristinelli, Caterina
AU - Re, Alessandro
AU - Plattel, Wouter
AU - Lazarovici, Julien
AU - Merli, Francesco
AU - Specht, Lena
AU - Schiano de Colella, Jean-Marc
AU - Hutchings, Martin
AU - Versari, Annibale
AU - Edeline, Véronique
AU - Stamatoulas, Aspasia
AU - Girinsky, Theodore
AU - Ricardi, Umberto
AU - Aleman, Berthe
AU - Meulemans, Bart
AU - Tonino, Sanne
AU - Raemaekers, John
AU - André, Marc
PY - 2024/1/1
Y1 - 2024/1/1
N2 - Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The primary analysis of the Early positron emission tomography (ePET) Response-Adapted Treatment in localized Hodgkin Lymphoma H10 Trial demonstrated that in ePET-negative patients, the risk of relapse increased when involved-node radiotherapy (INRT) was omitted and that in ePET-positive patients, switching from doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) to bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPPesc) significantly improved 5-year progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report the final results of a preplanned analysis at a 10-year follow-up. In the favorable (F) ePET-negative group, the 10-year PFS rates were 98.8% versus 85.4% (hazard ratio [HR], 13.2; 95% CI, 3.1 to 55.8; P value for noninferiority = .9735; difference test P < .0001) in favor of ABVD + INRT; in the unfavorable (U) ePET-negative group, the 10-year PFS rates were 91.4% and 86.5% (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.84 to 2.75; P value for noninferiority = .8577; difference test P = .1628). In ePET-positive patients, the difference in terms of PFS between standard ABVD and intensified BEACOPPesc was no longer statistically significant (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.20; P = .1777). In conclusion, the present long-term analysis confirms that in ePET-negative patients, the omission of INRT is associated with lower 10-year PFS. Instead, in ePET-positive patients, no significant difference between standard and experimental arms emerged although intensification with BEACOPPesc was safe, with no increase in late adverse events, namely, second malignancies.
AB - Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The primary analysis of the Early positron emission tomography (ePET) Response-Adapted Treatment in localized Hodgkin Lymphoma H10 Trial demonstrated that in ePET-negative patients, the risk of relapse increased when involved-node radiotherapy (INRT) was omitted and that in ePET-positive patients, switching from doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) to bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPPesc) significantly improved 5-year progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report the final results of a preplanned analysis at a 10-year follow-up. In the favorable (F) ePET-negative group, the 10-year PFS rates were 98.8% versus 85.4% (hazard ratio [HR], 13.2; 95% CI, 3.1 to 55.8; P value for noninferiority = .9735; difference test P < .0001) in favor of ABVD + INRT; in the unfavorable (U) ePET-negative group, the 10-year PFS rates were 91.4% and 86.5% (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.84 to 2.75; P value for noninferiority = .8577; difference test P = .1628). In ePET-positive patients, the difference in terms of PFS between standard ABVD and intensified BEACOPPesc was no longer statistically significant (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.20; P = .1777). In conclusion, the present long-term analysis confirms that in ePET-negative patients, the omission of INRT is associated with lower 10-year PFS. Instead, in ePET-positive patients, no significant difference between standard and experimental arms emerged although intensification with BEACOPPesc was safe, with no increase in late adverse events, namely, second malignancies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85180608203&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.23.01745
DO - 10.1200/JCO.23.01745
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 37967311
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 42
SP - 19
EP - 25
JO - Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
IS - 1
ER -