Advanced Stage and Relapsed/Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

ADVANCED STAGE HODGKIN LYMPHOMA

FRONTLINE THERAPY

First-line Chemotherapy 

Chemotherapy plays an essential role in the treatment of advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma. In the 1960s, the MOPP regimen (nitrogen mustard, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone) was developed, with a 10-year OS of 50% and a progression-free survival (PFS) of 52% reported in advanced stage patients. The complete remission (CR) rate was 81%, and 36% of patients who achieved CR relapsed later.¹² This chemotherapy regimen is associated with a significant rate of myelosuppression and infertility as well as long-term risk of secondary myelodysplasia and acute leukemias.^13,14 This led to the development of newer regimens such as ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine).¹⁵ In a randomized trial, ABVD showed improved failure-free survival (FFS) over MOPP (61% versus 50% at 5 years) but similar OS (66%–73%).¹⁶ In light of these findings, and considering the lower rate of infertility and myelotoxicity, ABVD became the standard of care for advanced stage cHL in the United States.

The Stanford V regimen was developed in an attempt to further minimize toxicity.¹⁷ Stanford V is a condensed, 12-week chemotherapy regimen that includes mechlorethamine, doxorubicin, vinblastine, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, and bleomycin, followed by involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT). Subsequent trials compared the Stanford V and ABVD regimens and showed similar OS, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF), and response rates.^18,19 The ABVD regimen was noted to have higher pulmonary toxicity, while other toxicities such as lymphopenia and neuropathy were higher with the Stanford V regimen. In addition, Stanford V requires patients to receive radiation therapy (RT) to original sites of disease larger than 5 cm in size and contiguous sites. 

Another regimen which has been studied extensively for advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma, and is considered a standard of care in some parts of the world, is escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone). In the HD9 study (n = 1196), the GHSG evaluated BEACOPP, escalated BEACOPP, and COPP/ABVD in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma.²⁰ All arms of the study included 30 Gy RT to sites of bulky disease or residual disease. This study showed improved OS and FFTF with escalated BEACOPP, but at the cost of higher rates of toxicity. At 10 years, FFTF was 64%, 70%, and 82% with OS rates of 75%, 80%, and 86% for COPP/ABVD, baseline BEACOPP, and escalated BEACOPP, respectively (P < 0.001). The rate of secondary acute leukemia 10 years after treatment was 0.4% for COPP/ABVD, 1.5% for BEACOPP, and 3.0% for escalated BEACOPP. However, 3 subsequent randomized trials did not confirm a survival benefit with escalated BEACOPP relative to ABVD. In the HD 2000 trial (n = 295)²¹ and in a trial by Viviani and colleagues (n = 331),²² an improvement in OS was not demonstrated in favor of escalated BEACOPP. These studies also confirmed a higher rate of toxicities as well as secondary malignancies associated with the escalated BEACOPP regimen. In the EORTC20012 Intergroup trial (n = 549), 8 cycles of ABVD was compared with 4 cycles of escalated BEACOPP followed by 4 cycles of baseline BEACOPP, without radiation, in patients with clinical stage III or IV Hodgkin lymphoma with IPS score ≥ 3. Both regimens resulted in statistically similar FFS (63.7% in ABVD × 8 versus 69.3% in BEACOPP 4+4) and OS (86.7% in ABVD × 8 vs 90.3% in BEACOPP 4+4).²³

In the United States, ABVD (6–8 cycles) is commonly used, although escalated BEACOPP (particularly for patients with an IPS of 4 or higher) and Stanford V are considered appropriate as well.²⁴ In the North American Intergroup study comparing ABVD to Stanford V, and in the trial by Viviani et al, ABVD was associated with a 5- to 7-year FFS of 73% to 79% and OS of 84% to 92%.^19,22 Given these excellent results, as well as the potential to cure patients with second-line therapy consisting of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT), the general consensus among most U.S. hematologists and oncologists is that ABVD remains the treatment of choice, and that the improved FFS/PFS with escalated BEACOPP is not outweighed by the additional toxicity associated with the regimen. There may, however, be a role for escalated BEACOPP in select patients who have a suboptimal response to ABVD as defined by interim positron emission tomography (iPET) scan (see below).

Brentuximab vedotin is an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of an anti-CD30 antibody linked to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a potent antitubulin agent. CD30 is highly expressed on HRS cells and also in anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Upon binding to CD30, the ADC/CD30 complex is then internalized and directed to the lysosome, where the ADC is proteolytically cleaved, releasing MMAE from the antibody. MMAE then disrupts microtubule networks within the cell, leading to G2/M cycle arrest and apoptosis. CD30 is consistently expressed on HRS cells. In addition to being studied in the relapsed/refractory setting (described below), brentuximab has been studied in the first-line setting. In a phase 1 trial, brentuximab combined with ABVD was associated with increased pulmonary toxicity, while brentuximab + AVD had no significant pulmonary toxicity, with an excellent CR rate (96%), suggesting that substituting brentuximab for bleomycin may be an effective strategy. In addition to possibly being more efficacious, this strategy would also have the benefit of eliminating the risk of bleomycin pulmonary toxicity.²⁵ Based on this data, a large international phase 3 study (the ECHELON-1 trial) comparing ABVD versus brentuximab + AVD in advanced stage cHL patients was recently completed. This study enrolled 1334 patients, and preliminary results were recently announced. With a median follow-up of 24 months, the brentuximab + AVD arm had a 4.9% absolute improvement in PFS relative to the ABVD arm (82.1% versus 77.2%). The brentuximab + AVD arm had an increased incidence of febrile neutropenia, managed with growth factors and peripheral neuropathy requiring dose adjustments, whereas the ABVD arm had an increased rate and severity of pulmonary toxicity.²⁶ Further follow-up will be required to determine whether this will translate into a survival benefit. See Table 2 for a summary of recent large randomized prospective phase 3 trials in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma.