Checkpoint Blockade Treatment May Sensitize Hodgkin Lymphoma to Subsequent Therapy.
Checkpoint blockade
Hodgkin lymphoma
Immunotherapy
Relapsed
Sensitization
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
27
02
2020
accepted:
16
07
2020
pubmed:
29
7
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
29
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Targeted therapies and checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) have shown efficacy for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the relapsed and refractory (R/R) setting, but once discontinued owing to progression or side effects, it is unclear how successful further therapies will be. Moreover, there are no data on optimal sequencing of these treatments with standard therapies and other novel agents. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis, we investigated whether exposure to CBT could sensitize HL to subsequent therapy. Seventeen centers across the U.S. and Canada retrospectively queried medical records for eligible patients. The primary aim was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) to post-CBT treatment using the Lugano criteria. Secondary aims included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and overall survival (OS). Eighty-one patients were included. Seventy-two percent had stage III-IV disease, and the population was heavily pretreated with a median of four therapies before CBT. Most patients (65%) discontinued CBT owing to progression. The ORR to post-CBT therapy was 62%, with a median PFS of 6.3 months and median OS of 21 months. Post-CBT treatment regimens consisted of chemotherapy (44%), targeted agents (19%), immunotherapy (15%), transplant conditioning (14%), chemotherapy/targeted combination (7%), and clinical trials (1%). No significant difference in OS was found when stratified by post-CBT regimen. In a heavily pretreated R/R HL population, CBT may sensitize patients to subsequent treatment, even after progression on CBT. Post-CBT regimen category did not impact OS. This may be a novel treatment strategy, which warrants further investigation in prospective clinical trials. Novel, life-prolonging treatment strategies in relapsed and refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are greatly desired. The results of this multicenter analysis concur with a smaller, earlier report that checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) use in R/R HL may sensitize patients to their subsequent treatment. This approach may potentially enhance therapeutic options or to bridge patients to transplant. Prospective data are warranted prior to practice implementation. As more work is done in this area, we may also be able to optimize sequencing of CBT and novel agents in the treatment paradigm to minimize treatment-related toxicity and thus improve patient quality of life.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Targeted therapies and checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) have shown efficacy for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the relapsed and refractory (R/R) setting, but once discontinued owing to progression or side effects, it is unclear how successful further therapies will be. Moreover, there are no data on optimal sequencing of these treatments with standard therapies and other novel agents. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis, we investigated whether exposure to CBT could sensitize HL to subsequent therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Seventeen centers across the U.S. and Canada retrospectively queried medical records for eligible patients. The primary aim was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) to post-CBT treatment using the Lugano criteria. Secondary aims included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Eighty-one patients were included. Seventy-two percent had stage III-IV disease, and the population was heavily pretreated with a median of four therapies before CBT. Most patients (65%) discontinued CBT owing to progression. The ORR to post-CBT therapy was 62%, with a median PFS of 6.3 months and median OS of 21 months. Post-CBT treatment regimens consisted of chemotherapy (44%), targeted agents (19%), immunotherapy (15%), transplant conditioning (14%), chemotherapy/targeted combination (7%), and clinical trials (1%). No significant difference in OS was found when stratified by post-CBT regimen.
CONCLUSION
In a heavily pretreated R/R HL population, CBT may sensitize patients to subsequent treatment, even after progression on CBT. Post-CBT regimen category did not impact OS. This may be a novel treatment strategy, which warrants further investigation in prospective clinical trials.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Novel, life-prolonging treatment strategies in relapsed and refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are greatly desired. The results of this multicenter analysis concur with a smaller, earlier report that checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) use in R/R HL may sensitize patients to their subsequent treatment. This approach may potentially enhance therapeutic options or to bridge patients to transplant. Prospective data are warranted prior to practice implementation. As more work is done in this area, we may also be able to optimize sequencing of CBT and novel agents in the treatment paradigm to minimize treatment-related toxicity and thus improve patient quality of life.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32720734
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0167
pmc: PMC7543382
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
878-885Informations de copyright
© 2020 AlphaMed Press.
Références
Hematol Oncol. 2019 Jun;37 Suppl 1:87-91
pubmed: 31187532
Ann Hematol. 2018 Jul;97(7):1229-1240
pubmed: 29484455
N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 21;380(12):1116-1127
pubmed: 30779529
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018 Apr 06;10:1758835918762094
pubmed: 29662546
Br J Haematol. 2020 Oct;191(1):13-14
pubmed: 32557549
Blood Adv. 2020 Jan 14;4(1):47-54
pubmed: 31899797
Br J Haematol. 2020 Oct;191(1):44-51
pubmed: 32430944
Oncology (Williston Park). 2016 Oct 15;30(10):914-20
pubmed: 27753058
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Apr 10;34(11):1175-81
pubmed: 26712220
Blood Res. 2017 Dec;52(4):243-253
pubmed: 29333400
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv119-iv142
pubmed: 28881921
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2013 Mar;62(3):405-10
pubmed: 23423351
Haematologica. 2017 Jan;102(1):30-42
pubmed: 27884973
Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2019 Dec 6;2019(1):243-248
pubmed: 31808827
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020 Jan;55(1):117-125
pubmed: 31435033
Blood. 2018 Apr 12;131(15):1689-1697
pubmed: 29500170
Mol Cancer Ther. 2018 Apr;17(4):869-882
pubmed: 29483207
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3059-68
pubmed: 25113753
Lifetime Data Anal. 1999;5(1):67-79
pubmed: 10214003
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Jan;13(1):106-111
pubmed: 29101058
J Immunol. 2018 Oct 15;201(8):2273-2286
pubmed: 30209192
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jun 20;30(18):2183-9
pubmed: 22454421
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 23;374(25):2419-29
pubmed: 27332902
Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2014 Sep;9(3):284-93
pubmed: 24942298
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013 Dec;19(12):1740-4
pubmed: 24096096
Am J Hematol. 2018 Jun 8;:
pubmed: 29884994
Nat Genet. 2019 Feb;51(2):202-206
pubmed: 30643254