A Continuing Medical Education Series

Free Access

Hodgkin lymphoma: 2014 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management

Corresponding Author

Stephen M. Ansell

Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

Correspondence to: Dr. Stephen M. Ansell; 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Stephen M. Ansell,

Corresponding Author

Stephen M. Ansell

Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

Correspondence to: Dr. Stephen M. Ansell; 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

First published: 21 June 2014

https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.23750

Citations: 26

Conflict of interest: Nothing to report.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Disease overview: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is an uncommon B-cell lymphoid malignancy affecting 9,200 new patients annually and representing approximately 11.5% of all lymphomas in the United States.

Diagnosis: HL is composed of two distinct disease entities; the more commonly diagnosed classical HL and the rare nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL. Nodular sclerosis, mixed cellularity, lymphocyte depletion, and lymphocyte-rich HL are subgroups under the designation of classical HL.

Risk stratification: An accurate assessment of the stage of disease in patients with HL is critical for the selection of the appropriate therapy. Prognostic models that identify patients at low or high risk for recurrence, as well as the response to therapy as determined by positron emission tomography scan, are used to optimize therapy.

Risk-adapted therapy: Initial therapy for HL patients is based on the histology of the disease, the anatomical stage, and the presence of poor prognostic features. Patients with early stage disease are treated with combined modality strategies using abbreviated courses of combination chemotherapy followed by involved-field radiation therapy, while those with advanced stage disease receive a longer course of chemotherapy often without radiation therapy.

Management of relapsed/refractory disease: High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is the standard of care for most patients who relapse following initial therapy. For patients who fail HDCT with ASCT, brentuximab vedotin, palliative chemotherapy, nonmyeloablative allogeneic transplant, or participation in a clinical trial should be considered. Am. J. Hematol. 89:772–779, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Disease Overview

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) affects approximately 9,200 new patients in the United States each year 1. The disease has a bimodal distribution with an increased incidence in young adults as well as in patients 55 years and older 2. There are no clearly defined risk factors for the development of this disease and the cause of HL remains unknown. Factors shown to be associated with HL include familial factors, viral exposures, and immune suppression 2. Same sex siblings of patients with HL have a 10-fold higher risk for developing the disease 3, 4, and a monozygotic twin of a patient with HL has a significantly increased risk of developing HL when compared to a dizygotic twin sibling of a patient with HL 5, 6. Although familial factors may suggest a genetic cause for this disease, research also suggests that an abnormal immune response to infection may play a role in the pathogenesis of HL. Epidemiologic and serologic studies have implicated Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in the etiology of HL and the EBV genome was been detected in tumor specimens from patients with HL 7. Other childhood infectious illnesses including chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis, however, are negatively associated with the risk of HL and are possibly protective 8. There is also an association with human immunodeficiency (HIV) infection in that HIV-infected patients have a significantly increased risk of HL when compared to the general population 9. Overall, HL in immunosuppressed patients, including those who are HIV positive, is associated with advanced stage of disease at presentation, unusual sites of disease, and a poorer outcome after initial therapy 10, 11.

Over the last 4 decades, advances in radiation therapy and the addition of combination chemotherapy have significantly increased the cure rate of patients with HL. Currently, more than 80% of all newly diagnosed patients younger than 60 years are likely to be cured of their disease.

Diagnosis

At the time of diagnosis, the majority of patients with HL present with supradiaphragmatic lymphadenopathy. Patients commonly present with cervical, anterior mediastinal, supraclavicular, and axillary lymph node involvement, while the inguinal areas are less frequently involved. Approximately one-third of patients present with systemic symptoms that include fever, night sweats, and weight loss; and many patients also present with chronic pruritis. Although the disease most commonly involves contiguous lymph node groups, HL may also affect extranodal tissues by direct invasion or by hematogenous spread. The most commonly involved extranodal sites are the spleen, lungs, liver, and bone marrow.

The initial diagnosis of HL can only be made by a biopsy. Fine needle aspiration or core needle biopsies are inadequate because the architecture of the lymph node is extremely important for an accurate diagnosis. HL is a unique malignancy in that the tumor cells constitute the minority of the cellular population and an inadequate biopsy may fail to include malignant cells in the specimen 12. To confirm the diagnosis, it is necessary to identify the malignant Reed–Sternberg cell, which is of follicular center B-cell origin 13, 14, within the appropriate cellular environment of normal reactive lymphocytes, eosinophils, and histiocytes.

HL is composed of two distinct disease entities; the more commonly diagnosed classical HL and the rare nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL 15. Nodular sclerosis, mixed cellularity, lymphocyte depletion, and lymphocyte-rich HL are subgroups under the designation of classical HL.

Classical HL

The presence of malignant multinucleated giant Reed–Sternberg cells within the characteristic reactive cellular background is the pathologic hallmark of classical HL. Painless lymphadenopathy is the most common clinical manifestation of classical HL, although each histological subtype has its own unique clinical features 16. Nodular sclerosis, the most common subtype, tends to effect adolescent and young adults more commonly and usually presents with localized disease involving cervical supracavicular and mediastinal regions. Mixed cellularity HL is more prevalent in the pediatric as well as older age groups and is commonly associated with a more advanced stage of disease and a poorer prognosis. The incidence of lymphocyte depletion HL appears much lower than previously reported with many of these cases reclassified as a non-HL. This subtype occurs mainly in older age patients and in patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. These patients typically present with symptomatic extensive disease without peripheral lymphadenopathy. Lymphocyte-rich classical HL represents a subtype similar to nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL (see later) on morphologic grounds; however, the Reed–Sternberg cells have a more classical immunophenotype consistent with classical HL.

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL constitutes a unique clinical pathologic entity that is significantly different to classical HL. Pathologically, lymphocyte-predominant HL lacks the typical Reed–Sternberg cells, and instead is characterized by a neoplastic population of larger cells with folded lobulated nuclei known as lymphocytic and histiocytic (L&H) cells. Unlike classical HL, these cells are CD20+ and commonly negative for CD30 17. Lymphocyte-predominant HL is more frequently seen in men and constitutional symptoms at presentation as well as extranodal disease are rare. Patients usually present with limited nodal disease that classically affects the neck region and spares the mediastinum. The natural history of lymphocyte-predominant HL differs from classical HL in that it has an indolent course with a tendency for late recurrences 18.

Risk Stratification

An accurate assessment of the stage of disease in patients with HL is critical for the selection of the appropriate therapy. The staging system for patients with HL is based on whether the involved lymph nodes are on one or both sides of the diaphragm, the number of involved sites, whether the sites of involvement are bulky, whether there is contiguous extranodal involvement or disseminated extranodal disease, and whether typical systemic symptoms (B symptoms) are present. Fluorodeoxyglucose positive emission tomography (FDG-PET) scanning has emerged as an important tool in the staging of patients with HL in that it significantly adds to the staging information obtained using other standard radiographic methods 19.

Many patients with HL can be cured with standard treatment and are, therefore, at risk for potential long-term complications. Factors that identify patients at low or high risk for recurrence would, therefore, be most useful in optimizing therapy based on the patient's expected clinical outcome to avoid overtreatment of some and undertreatment of others. Prognostic factors for early stage HL have been identified and include the presence of a large mediastinal mass, an elevated sedimentation rate, involvement of multiple nodal sites, extranodal involvement, age ≥ 50 years, or massive splenic disease 20, 21. In contrast, in patients with advanced HL, disease bulk and other traditional prognostic variables have been found to be less predictive of outcome. A different prognostic scoring system was, therefore, developed for these patients by the International Prognostic Factor Project on advanced HL 22. This study identified seven variables (age ≥ 45 years, presence of stage IV disease, male sex, white blood count count ≥ 15,000 cells/µL, lymphocyte count < 600 cells/µL, albumin < 4.0 g/dL, hemoglobin < 10.5 g/dL) that predicted patient outcome in a multivariate analysis. Patients with five or more factors were found to have a 5-year freedom from progression of 42% while patients with no negative prognostic factors had an 84% likelihood of being free from progression at 5 years.

Risk-Adapted Initial Therapy

The predominant factors that determine the initial choice of therapy for HL patients are the histology of the disease (classical HL or nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL), the anatomical stage of disease (limited or advanced disease), the presence of poor prognostic features, the presence of constitutional symptoms, and the presence of bulky disease defined as a single site of disease >10 cm in diameter. During the course of treatment, FDG-PET scanning now plays a role in decisions to complete therapy as planned, or to add or omit components of treatment. A positive interim FDG-PET scan after two cycles of treatment may result in intensification of therapy and a positive PET scan at the end of treatment may result in the addition of consolidation radiotherapy to the positive sites. A positive PET scan at any point may result in a repeat biopsy to confirm or exclude persistent disease. The use of PET scans in this fashion is based on studies showing that patients with a positive FDG-PET scan at the completion of treatment have a significantly higher recurrence rate regardless of the findings on CT scan 23, 24. Also, a FDG-PET done early in the course of treatment (after two cycles) predicted progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HL and was a better predictor of outcome than stage, extranodal disease, or other prognostic factors 25, 26.

Initial therapy

The current standard of care for institutions that treat patients with HL is to have different treatment strategies for HL patients with early stage disease with favorable prognostic features, those with early stage disease but who have poor prognostic features, or those with advanced disease. As a general rule, patients with early stage disease are treated with combined modality strategies utilizing abbreviated courses of combination chemotherapy followed by involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT), whereas those with advanced stage disease receive a longer course of chemotherapy without radiation therapy.

Early stage favorable HL

Treatment strategies for early stage HL (Stages I–IIA) have changed significantly in the last few decades. Previously, extended field radiation was considered the standard therapy. However, due to the recognition of high relapse rates with significant long-term complications, extended field radiation therapy to involve adjacent lymph node areas is no longer used 27. A randomized comparison of patients treated with subtotal nodal radiation therapy with or without ABVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) and those who received ABVD alone found that patients who received subtotal nodal radiation therapy had a poorer OS and a higher rate of death from causes other than HL 28. Therefore, for favorable early stage disease, short duration chemotherapy for control of occult lesions combined with IFRT restricted only to involved lymph node areas is currently standard practice. Most groups will give two to four cycles of combination chemotherapy followed by IFRT to a dose of approximately 20–35 Gy 29. A four arm study of 1,370 patients performed by the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) randomized early stage HL with favorable prognostic factors between two and four cycles of ABVD chemotherapy and 20 and 30Gy IFRT. There was no difference between the four groups as regards response to therapy, PFS, and OS. ABVD for two cycles followed by 20Gy IFRT is therefore currently the standard treatment for early stage favorable prognosis HL 30.

Early stage unfavorable HL

It is generally accepted that patients with Stage I and II disease who present with adverse risk factors should be treated with chemotherapy in combination with radiation therapy. However, the optimal number of chemotherapy cycles as well as the optimal chemotherapy regimen; and the dose of radiation as well as the field sizes, are the subject of ongoing studies and debate. This group of patients usually consists of those with bulky mediastinal masses or those with extranodal disease. In these patients, the use of four cycles of combination chemotherapy with IFRT is generally accepted as the treatment of choice 31, 32. In a clinical trial of 1,395 patients with stage I/IIA HL disease with unfavorable features including large mediastinal masses, extranodal disease, high erythrocyte sedimentation rate or ≥3 nodal sites, patients were randomized to ABVD for four cycles or baseline doses of BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) for four cycles plus either 20Gy or 30Gy IFRT. Freedom from treatment failure was worse if 20Gy rather than 30Gy was used with ABVD; however, similar outcomes were seen between 20Gy and 30Gy when used with BEACOPP. The conclusion was that ABVD for four cycles plus 30Gy IFRT is the standard for these patients 32. A subsequent study looked at intensifying the chemotherapy used in this patient group. In this trial, 1,528 qualified patients with early stage unfavorable HL received ABVD for four cycles or escalated doses of BEACOPP for 2 plus ABVD for two cycles. All patients got 30Gy IFRT. The freedom from treatment failure favored the aggressive chemotherapy arm—with a difference of 7.2% at 5 years—but there was no difference in OS and increased toxicity was seen in the aggressive chemotherapy arm 33. There were no differences in treatment-related mortality or secondary malignancies. Subsequent studies have, therefore, been developed to determine the optimal amount of therapy needed to maintain efficacy but to decrease potential toxicities in these patients.

Response-adapted treatment

To determine the optimal amount of treatment needed, there has been significant interest in using functional imaging to provide an early indication of chemosensitivity in HL. FDG-PET has predominantly been used as an interim readout of efficacy and its utility has been enhanced by the development of a highly reproducible 5-point scale for reporting results (Table 1) 34. This approach allows for the detection of residual active lymphoma when compared to conventional computed tomography 25. However, results from prospective randomized studies using PET scans to guide therapy suggest that the data are not sufficiently mature for firm conclusions because there remains a small false-negative rate for FDG-PET. Results from two recently reported studies illustrate this point. The United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute RAPID study randomized patients with nonbulky early stage disease who had a negative interim PET (score of 1 or 2) after three cycles of ABVD to either 30Gy IFRT or no further therapy, and found that the 3-PFS and OS were not significantly different between the two arms 35. There was, however, a trend toward inferior disease control in patients who did not receive radiotherapy, and the difference became statistically significant when patients who did not receive treatment as per protocol were excluded (97% vs. 90.7%). Similarly, the EORTC H10 study compared standard treatment with ABVD and IFRT, to a nonradiotherapy approach using further chemotherapy, for patients with negative FDG-PET scans after two cycles of ABVD 36. The results suggested inferior disease control in patients who received chemotherapy only, although much longer follow up will be required to determine whether there is a detrimental effect on OS.

Table 1. Five-point scale for interpretation of interim FDG-PET scanning

Score	PET/CT result
1	No uptake above background
2	Uptake ≤ mediastinum
3	Uptake > mediastinum but ≤liver
4	Uptake moderately increased compared to the liver at any site
5	Uptake markedly increased compared to the liver at any site
X	New areas of uptake unlikely to be related to lymphoma

The evidence therefore suggests that the use of combined modality treatment produces excellent disease control in patients with early stage HL, and that a high percentage of patients are cured with initial therapy. There is however a large proportion of patients, around 90%, who will be cured with chemotherapy alone. The number needed to treat with radiation to achieve one extra cure is, therefore, between 15 and 30 based on these studies. Given these excellent results and the potential late toxicity from radiotherapy, many patients may prefer the slightly higher risk of recurrent HL if radiotherapy is omitted, to the potential for long-term complications if radiotherapy is given. In general, however, the outcomes with both approaches are excellent, and the small reduction in disease control does not appear to have any detrimental effect on OS in either study.

Advanced disease

In patients with advanced disease (Stages IIB–IV), the challenge is to increase the number of patients with durable remissions while decreasing the likelihood of long-term side effects. Initially, the MOPP regimen (nitrogen mustard, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone) was developed for patients who progressed after radiation therapy, and the long-term results with the MOPP regimen showed this to be an effective therapy. This combination resulted in a freedom from progression rate of 54% and an OS of 48% at 20 years 37. Although the MOPP regimen significantly changed the outcome of patients who previously would have died of progressive disease, approximately one-third of patients subsequently relapsed. Since then, multiple other regimens have been developed in an attempt to improve on the efficacy of this regimen.

The ABVD chemotherapy regimen was then developed and also showed significant clinical activity with potentially less toxicity. This led to a randomized trial comparing alternating cycles of MOPP and ABVD chemotherapy to MOPP chemotherapy alone. The alternating regimen was found to be superior as regards the complete remission rate, freedom from progression, and OS 38. Several major randomized studies over the last 20 years have attempted to identify the regimen with the greatest activity and the most favorable side effect profile. Initially, MOPP, ABVD, and MOPP alternating with ABVD were compared 39. In this study, the complete response rate and freedom from progression was worse for patients receiving MOPP chemotherapy alone compared to those receiving ABVD or the alternating regimen. Two further studies compared the MOPP/ABVD hybrid regimen to MOPP alternating with ABVD and the regimens were found to be equivalent 40, 41. When the MOPP/ABV hybrid regimen was compared to ABVD, the ABVD arm showed superiority with less toxicity 42. The results of all of these trials led to ABVD chemotherapy being regarded as the treatment of choice for patients with advanced HL based on its efficacy, relative ease of administration, and acceptable side effect profile.

To further minimize toxicity, the Stanford V regimen was developed which incorporated the active agents from MOPP and ABVD into a brief dose intense regimen and combined this 12-week regimen with radiation therapy 43. The results initially obtained showed a 5-year freedom from progression in 142 patients of 89% and an OS of 96%. Similar results were obtained in a multi-institutional ECOG study 44. This regimen was tested against ABVD in a number of randomized trials. Initial studies suggested that ABVD might be superior to the Stanford V regimen. With long-term follow up, the 10-year failure-free survival was 75 and 49% for the ABVD and Stanford V regimens, respectively. The differences in outcome, however, may be explained by the fact that the administration of radiotherapy in the Stanford V arm differed from what was originally described 45. Two subsequent randomized trials comparing ABVD to Stanford V have found similar response rates, failure-free, and OS 46, 47. The frequency of adverse events were similar between the two regimens with patients receiving ABVD experiencing more pulmonary toxicity and patients receiving Stanford V having a greater number of other toxicities.

The GHSG has also developed new regimens for patients with advanced HL including standard and dose escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) 48. A large randomized trial comparing COPP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone) alternating with ABVD to dose escalated and standard BEACOPP showed better tumor control and OS for patients receiving dose escalated BEACOPP 49. The results were updated at 10 years and continued to show improved outcomes for patients treated with escalated BEACOPP 50. Although these results are encouraging, but it is important to note that acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome were more frequently seen in patients treated with escalated BEACOPP. A further study compared six cycles of ABVD to four cycles of escalated BEACOPP followed by two cycles of standard BEACOPP. This study also had a third arm in which patients received six cycles of a multidrug intensive regimen. When the results from the ABVD arm were compared the BEACOPP arm, there was an improved PFS with BEACOPP but the OS in both arms was similar. More toxicity was seen in the BEACOPP-treated patients but there was a benefit for BEACOPP in poor-risk patients 51. Further randomized studies have been done to determine the optimal number of cycles of BEACOPP needed to maintain the improved outcome and also decrease toxicity. The GHSG found that six cycles of escalated BEACOPP followed by radiotherapy administered only to PET positive masses measuring more than 2.5 cm was more effective in terms of freedom from treatment failure and less toxic than eight cycles of the same regimen 52.

More recently, a randomized comparison of ABVD and BEACOPP in advanced stage HL was reported 53. Three hundred and thirty one patients with poor-risk HL were enrolled and local radiotherapy was added to therapy as indicated. Patients with residual or progressive disease were subsequently treated with salvage therapy including stem cell transplantation. The authors analyzed the outcome after initial therapy and also after salvage therapy. The freedom from first progression favored patients receiving BEACOPP and was 85% in that group compared to 73% among patients treated with ABVD (P = 0.004). However, after completion of all planned therapy including salvage therapy for those with residual or progressive disease, the 7-year rate of freedom from second progression was 88% in the BEACOPP group and 82% in the ABVD group (P = 0.12) and the 7-year OS rate was 89 and 84%, respectively (P = 0.39). Severe adverse events were more frequent in the BEACOPP patients than in the ABVD patients. These results have led some to suggest that initial therapy may not need to be highly aggressive in all patients as those who relapse may be salvaged with subsequent intensive therapy 54. Others have pointed out that OS was a secondary endpoint in this study and that the study was small compared to other similar trials 55. Furthermore, a network meta-analysis of all comparative trials showed a survival benefit with escalated BEACOPP when compared to ABVD 56. Additional follow up will be needed to confirm whether patient outcomes are similar regardless of the approach.

To potentially further improve the outcome of advanced HL patients with poor prognostic features, the role of high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been evaluated as part of initial therapy for these patients. Patients with advanced unfavorable HL achieving a complete or partial remission after four courses of doxorubicin-containing regimens were found to have a favorable outcome with conventional chemotherapy and no benefit from an early intensification with HDCT and ASCT was shown 57.

The strategies discussed earlier have largely focused on intensification of therapy to improve the outcome of patients with advanced stage HL. A more recent approach has been to add novel agents to standard chemotherapy regimens. Novel agents currently being used in combination with chemotherapy in the frontline setting include brentuximab vedotin, rituximab, and lenalidomide. Brentuximab vedotin was initially combined with ABVD, and subsequently substituted for bleomycin, in a phase I study 58. In this combination study, complete responses after the conclusion of front-line therapy were achieved in 95% of the 22 patients receiving ABVD plus brentuximab and in 96% of the 25 receiving AVD plus brentuximab. However, significant pulmonary toxicity was seen when brentuximab vedotin was administered in combination with bleomycin resulting in the concurrent use of bleomycin and brentuximab vedotin being contraindicated. Based on the very high response rate, and the fact that brentuximab vedotin was well tolerated when given with AVD chemotherapy, a randomized phase III trial comparing ABVD and AVD plus brentuximab vedotin has been initiated.

The GHSG is also exploring the use of brentuximab in combination with BEACOPP-like regimens, namely a more conservative variant BrECAPP (brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, procarbazine, prednisone) and a more aggressive variant BrECADD (brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, dexamethasone). The interim results of a randomized phase II trial suggest that use of these combinations, which incorporate an anti-CD30 targeted approach, is feasible without compromising the efficacy associated with escalated BEACOPP 59.

Two clinical trials have added rituximab to ABVD chemotherapy to deplete intratumoral B-cells that may support the growth and survival of the malignant cells. Both studies demonstrated high complete response rates and the event free survival in both studies suggested promising activity of this combination. Furthermore, Rituximab-ABVD was also effective in patients with high IPS scores. The efficacy of this combination, however, will need to be confirmed in a randomized trial 60, 61.

The addition of lenalidomide to moderate-dose chemotherapy is a further novel approach to treating newly diagnosed advanced stage HL patients. In a phase I/II study conducted by the GHSG, the efficacy and safety of four to eight cycles of AVD chemotherapy plus lenalidomide at doses of 5–35 mg/day, followed by radiotherapy, was tested in elderly patients 62. The regimen was well tolerated with an encouraging response rate suggesting that adding new drugs to modified chemotherapy regimens holds significant promise for the future.

In summary, ABVD chemotherapy remains the most widely used treatment in the United States for patients with advanced stage HL. However, dose intense regimens such as escalated BEACOPP should be considered in patients with advanced disease and multiple poor prognostic factors. In the future, the addition of novel agents to established combinations may result in improved outcomes for HL patients.

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL

An exception to the management approach outlined above is early stage patients with nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL. Patients with favorable stage IA disease, with no significant risk factors, can commonly be managed with lymph node excision followed by a “watch and wait” approach or with IFRT to a dose of approximately 20–30 Gy. More advanced stage patients with nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL are commonly treated with ABVD, often in combination with rituximab because the malignant cells express CD20. Clinical trials are in progress to define the optimal therapy for this disease.

Management of Relapsed/Refractory Disease

Despite the high cure rate with initial therapy, approximately 5–10% of HL patients are refractory to initial treatment and 10–30% of patients will relapse after achieving an initial complete remission 63, 64. HDCT followed by an ASCT is the standard of care for many patients who relapse following a response to initial chemotherapy.

Primary refractory disease

Patients with primary refractory disease, defined as progression or nonresponse during induction treatment or within 90 days of completing treatment, generally have a dismal clinical course. Second-line chemotherapy for these patients produces low response rates, with long-term disease-free survival in only 5–10% of patients 65, 66. Therefore, in these patients, HDCT with ASCT is currently considered to be the treatment of choice. A number of retrospective analyses have suggested that patients treated with ASCT have a superior long-term outcome when compared to patients treated with chemotherapy 67, 68. An analysis of treatment outcome in primary progressive patients showed that the 5-year freedom from failure and OS for all patients were 17 and 26%, respectively, compared to 31 and 43% for those treated with HDCT and an ASCT 68. Other studies have further confirmed that patients receiving HDCT followed by ASCT have a better outcome than patients treated with chemotherapy 69-71. However, a majority of these patients still relapse following HDCT and ASCT.

Relapsed disease

Between 10 and 30% of patients will relapse following an initial chemotherapy regimen. In the past, it was standard practice for HL patients with late relapses after an initial complete response (>1 year) to be treated with the same chemotherapeutic regimen that they had received as the first-line treatment. More than 80% of patients with a late relapse achieve a second complete response, with a median survival of about 4 years 65. In contrast, for patients with a relapse within 12 months, different salvage chemotherapeutic regimens were tested incorporating drugs not used in the initial combination 71-74. However, no randomized trials have been done comparing the effectiveness of different conventional salvage chemotherapeutic regimens, and no standard salvage regimen has been identified. Despite the responses to these therapeutic approaches, however, patients relapse and subsequently die of disease progression or complications of treatment. Most eligible patients with relapsed disease are now treated with an ASCT.

Initial phase II studies suggested that HDCT followed by ASCT may produce a better long-term disease-free survival than expected with conventional chemotherapy in 30–65% of patients 75, 76. Two subsequent randomized studies confirmed an improved outcome in patients with relapsed HL treated with HDCT followed by ASCT as compared with conventional salvage chemotherapeutic regimens 77, 78. In both studies, the event-free survival after 3 years of patients treated with HDCT was over 50%.

Not all patients are eligible for, or may benefit from, an ASCT. Elderly patients treated with an ASCT have increased treatment-related mortality and commonly have an inferior event free survival when compared to younger patients 79. Some patients have relentlessly progressive disease and have been treated with tandem autologous stem cell transplantation 80 or allogeneic transplantation 81. Preliminary results have suggested that these therapies are feasible, but toxicity and relapses have been common.

Therapeutic options following relapse after HDCT and ASCT

Patients with progression of disease after ASCT uniformly have a poor outcome. In a study of HL patients who failed ASCT, the median time to progression after the next therapy was only 3.8 months and the median survival after ASCT failure was 26 months 82. For patients who fail HDCT with ASCT, few good treatment options exist. Among cytotoxic drugs, only vinorelbine 83 and gemcitabine 84 have shown promising activity in heavily pretreated HL patients, including some cases who relapsed after HDCT. The duration of many of the responses, however, was short and the treatment was commonly associated with significant hematological toxicity. For HL patients treated with a reduced intensity allogeneic transplant, the treatment related mortality at 1 year was approximately 20% and the 2-year OS was 50% 85. The treatment related mortality and OS was significantly worse for older patients. In patients with relapsed or refractory nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL and other multiple relapsed CD20-positive cases of HL, studies of rituximab have shown high response rates but unfortunately these have been of short duration 86, 87.

Recent studies have evaluated the efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates targeting CD30 in relapsed and refractory HL. CD30 is expressed on the Reed–Sternberg cell and antibodies targeting this molecule have shown activity in vitro. Phase I and II clinical trials of brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35), an antibody to CD30 conjugated to an antitubulin agent auristatin, showed significant clinical activity 88, 89. In the phase II trial of 102 patients with HL that had failed an ASCT, an overall response rate (ORR) of 75% was seen with a complete response (CR) rate of 34%. The median duration of response was 47 weeks and the agent was relatively well tolerated 89. The median duration of response for those in CR was 20.5 months.

Other agents with promising activity in this patient population include histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents (see Table 2). Panobinostat (LBH 589), an HDAC inhibitor, was tested in patients who failed a prior ASCT. In a study of 129 patients, an ORR of 27% (35 patients) was seen including 30 partial responses (PR) and 5 CRs. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and the median PFS was 6.1 months 90. Mocetinostat (MGCD0103) is an oral nonhydroxamate HDAC inhibitor that preferentially inhibits Class I and IV HDACs 94, 95. In a phase II study of 51 patients with relapsed or refractory HL, 60% of patients had a reduction in their tumor measurements, with 24% achieving partial remissions. Toxicities with this agent included thrombocytopenia, fatigue, pneumonia, anemia, and pericardial effusion 91.

Table 2. Promising new agents in the treatment of relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma

Agent	Class of agent	Number of patients treated	Previous stem cell transplantation (%)	Overall response rate (%)	References
Brentuximab vedotin	Antibody-drug conjugate	102	100	75	89
Panobinostat	HDAC inhibitor	129	100	27	90
Mocetinostat	HDAC inhibitor	51	84	27	91
Lenalidomide	IMiDs	38	87	19	92
Everolimus	mTOR inhibitor	57	58	42	93

HDAC, histone deacetylase; IMiDs, Immunomodulatory agents; mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin.

The phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) signaling pathway regulates a wide variety of cellular functions, and is activated in many malignancies including HL 96-98. Idelalisib (GS-1101 or CAL101) is an oral PI3K-δ-selective inhibitor that has demonstrated clinical activity in a variety of B-cell malignancies, including patients with relapsed HL 99. Furthermore, targeting mTOR kinase, which is downstream in the pathway, has also demonstrated promising clinical activity in patients with relapsed HL. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus was tested in 57 relapsed HL patients and demonstared an ORR of 42% with 19 patients achieving a PR and 5 patients achieving a CR. The median PFS was 9 months 93.

Summary

Optimal management of patients with HL requires an accurate diagnosis and careful staging of the disease. Identification of poor prognostic features then allows for risk-adapted therapy to potentially increase the likelihood of cure and minimize toxicity. Future directions to further improve the outcome of patients with HL will include incorporating into frontline therapy those agents that are effective in the relapsed setting.

References

1 Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014; 64: 9–29.
10.3322/caac.21208
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Glaser SL, Jarrett RF. The epidemiology of Hodgkin's disease. Baillieres Clin Haematol 1996; 9: 401–416.
10.1016/S0950-3536(96)80018-7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Grufferman S, Cole P, Smith PG, Lukes RJ. Hodgkin's disease in siblings. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 248–250.
10.1056/NEJM197702032960504
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Lynch HT, Marcus JN, Lynch JF. Genetics of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: A review. Cancer Invest 1992; 10: 247–256.
10.3109/07357909209032768
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Mack TM, Cozen W, Shibata DK, et al. Concordance for Hodgkin's disease in identical twins suggesting genetic susceptibility to the young-adult form of the disease. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 413–418.
10.1056/NEJM199502163320701
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Horwitz M, Wiernik PH. Pseudoautosomal linkage of Hodgkin disease. Am J Hum Genet 1999; 65: 1413–1422.
10.1086/302608
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Weiss LM, Strickler JG, Warnke RA, et al. Epstein-Barr viral DNA in tissues of Hodgkin's disease. Am J Pathol 1987; 129: 86–91.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Alexander FE, Jarrett RF, Lawrence D, et al. Risk factors for Hodgkin's disease by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) status: Prior infection by EBV and other agents. Br J Cancer 2000; 82: 1117–1121.
10.1054/bjoc.1999.1049
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Franceschi S, Dal Maso L, La Vecchia C. Advances in the epidemiology of HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other lymphoid neoplasms. Int J Cancer 1999; 83: 481–485.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19991112)83:4<481::AID-IJC8>3.0.CO;2-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Andrieu JM, Roithmann S, Tourani JM, et al. Hodgkin's disease during HIV1 infection: The French registry experience. French Registry of HIV-associated tumors. Ann Oncol 1993; 4: 635–641.
10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a058617
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Tirelli U, Errante D, Dolcetti R, et al. Hodgkin's disease and human immunodeficiency virus infection: Clinicopathologic and virologic features of 114 patients from the Italian Cooperative Group on AIDS and Tumors. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 1758–1767.
10.1200/JCO.1995.13.7.1758
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Stein H, Delsol G, Pileri SA. Hodgkin lymphoma. In ES Jaffe, NL Harris, H Stein, J Vardiman, editors. World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours: Pathology & Genetics; Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Lyon: IARC Press; 2001. pp 237–253.
Google Scholar
13 Marafioti T, Hummel M, Foss HD, et al. Hodgkin and reed-sternberg cells represent an expansion of a single clone originating from a germinal center B-cell with functional immunoglobulin gene rearrangements but defective immunoglobulin transcription. Blood 2000; 95: 1443–1450.
10.1182/blood.V95.4.1443.004k55_1443_1450
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Kanzler H, Kuppers R, Hansmann ML, et al. Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells in Hodgkin's disease represent the outgrowth of a dominant tumor clone derived from (crippled) germinal center B cells. J Exp Med 1996; 184: 1495–1505.
10.1084/jem.184.4.1495
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th ed. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2008.
Google Scholar
16 Ekstrand BC, Horning SJ: Hodgkin's disease. Blood Rev 2002; 16: 111–117.
10.1054/blre.2002.0190
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Pinkus GS, Said JW. Hodgkin's disease, lymphocyte predominance type, nodular–further evidence for a B cell derivation. L & H variants of Reed-Sternberg cells express L26, a pan B cell marker. Am J Pathol 1988; 133: 211–217.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Diehl V, Sextro M, Franklin J, et al. Clinical presentation, course, and prognostic factors in lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's disease and lymphocyte-rich classical Hodgkin's disease: Report from the European task force on lymphoma project on lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's disease. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 776–783.
10.1200/JCO.1999.17.3.776
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose compared to standard procedures for staging patients with Hodgkin's disease. Haematologica 2001; 86: 266–273.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Tubiana M, Henry-Amar M, Carde P, et al. Toward comprehensive management tailored to prognostic factors of patients with clinical stages I and II Hodgkin's disease. The EORTC Lymphoma Group controlled clinical trials: 1964–1987. Blood 1989; 73: 47–56.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Diehl V, Stein H, Hummel M, et al. Hodgkin's lymphoma: Biology and treatment strategies for primary, refractory, and relapsed disease. Hematology (Am Soc Hematol Educ Program) 2003; 225–247.
10.1182/asheducation-2003.1.225
PubMed Google Scholar
22 Hasenclever D, Diehl V, Armitage JO, et al. A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin's disease. International prognostic factors project on advanced Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1506–1514.
10.1056/NEJM199811193392104
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood 1999; 94: 429–433.
10.1182/blood.V94.2.429
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F, et al. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 1181–1184.
10.1023/A:1008327127033
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2006; 107: 52–59.
10.1182/blood-2005-06-2252
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: A report from a joint Italian-Danish study. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3746–3752.
10.1200/JCO.2007.11.6525
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Brusamolino E, Lazzarino M, Orlandi E, et al. Early-stage Hodgkin's disease: Long-term results with radiotherapy alone or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 1994; 5: 101–106.
10.1093/annonc/5.suppl_2.S101
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Meyer RM, Gospodarowicz MK, Connors JM, et al. ABVD alone versus radiation-based therapy in limited-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 399–408.
10.1056/NEJMoa1111961
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Bonadonna G, Bonfante V, Viviani S, et al. ABVD plus subtotal nodal versus involved-field radiotherapy in early-stage Hodgkin's disease: Long-term results. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2835–2841.
10.1200/JCO.2004.12.170
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Engert A, Plütschow A, Eich HT, et al. Reduced treatment intensity in patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 640–652.
10.1056/NEJMoa1000067
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Engert A, Schiller P, Josting A, et al. Involved-field radiotherapy is equally effective and less toxic compared with extended-field radiotherapy after four cycles of chemotherapy in patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: Results of the HD8 trial of the German Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3601–3608.
10.1200/JCO.2003.03.023
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Eich HT, Diehl V, Görgen H, et al. Intensified chemotherapy and dose-reduced involved-field radiotherapy in patients with early unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: Final analysis of the German Hodgkin Study Group HD11 trial. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4199–4206.
10.1200/JCO.2010.29.8018
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 von Tresckow B, Plütschow A, Fuchs M, et al. Dose-intensification in early unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: Final analysis of the German hodgkin study group HD14 trial. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 907–913.
10.1200/JCO.2011.38.5807
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34 Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ, et al. Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 1824–1833.
10.1007/s00259-010-1490-5
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35 Radford J, Barrington S, Counsell N, et al. Involved Field Radiotherapy Versus No Further Treatment in Patients with Clinical Stages IA and IIA Hodgkin Lymphoma and a ‘Negative’ PET Scan After 3 Cycles ABVD. Results of the UK NCRI RAPID Trial. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts. 2012; 120: a547.
Google Scholar
36 Andre M, Reman O, Federico M, et al. Interim Analysis of the Randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL Intergroup H10 Trial On Early PET-Scan Driven Treatment Adaptation in Stage I/II Hodgkin Lymphoma. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts. 2012; 120: a549.
Google Scholar
37 Longo DL, Young RC, Wesley M, et al. Twenty years of MOPP therapy for Hodgkin's disease. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1295–1306.
10.1200/JCO.1986.4.9.1295
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38 Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Santoro A. Alternating non-cross-resistant combination chemotherapy or MOPP in stage IV Hodgkin's disease. A report of 8-year results. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104: 739–746.
10.7326/0003-4819-104-6-739
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39 Canellos GP, Anderson JR, Propert KJ, et al. Chemotherapy of advanced Hodgkin's disease with MOPP, ABVD, or MOPP alternating with ABVD. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 1478–1484.
10.1056/NEJM199211193272102
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
40 Viviani S, Bonadonna G, Santoro A, et al. Alternating versus hybrid MOPP and ABVD combinations in advanced Hodgkin's disease: Ten-year results. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1421–1430.
10.1200/JCO.1996.14.5.1421
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
41 Connors JM, Klimo P, Adams G, et al. Treatment of advanced Hodgkin's disease with chemotherapy–Comparison of MOPP/ABV hybrid regimen with alternating courses of MOPP and ABVD: A report from the National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 1638–1645.
10.1200/JCO.1997.15.4.1638
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
42 Duggan DB, Petroni GR, Johnson JL, et al. Randomized comparison of ABVD and MOPP/ABV hybrid for the treatment of advanced Hodgkin's disease: Report of an intergroup trial. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 607–614.
10.1200/JCO.2003.12.086
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
43 Bartlett NL, Rosenberg SA, Hoppe RT, et al. Brief chemotherapy, Stanford V, and adjuvant radiotherapy for bulky or advanced-stage Hodgkin's disease: A preliminary report. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 1080–1088.
10.1200/JCO.1995.13.5.1080
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44 Horning SJ, Williams J, Bartlett NL, et al. Assessment of the stanford V regimen and consolidative radiotherapy for bulky and advanced Hodgkin's disease: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group pilot study E1492. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 972–980.
10.1200/JCO.2000.18.5.972
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
45 Chisesi T, Bellei M, Luminari S, et al. Long-term follow-up analysis of HD9601 trial comparing ABVD versus Stanford V versus MOPP/EBV/CAD in patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: A study from the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 4227–4233.
10.1200/JCO.2010.30.9799
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
46 Hoskin PJ, Lowry L, Horwich A, et al. Randomized comparison of the stanford V regimen and ABVD in the treatment of advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma: United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Lymphoma Group Study ISRCTN 64141244. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 5390–5396.
10.1200/JCO.2009.23.3239
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
47 Gordon LI, Hong F, Fisher RI, et al. A randomized phase III trial of ABVD vs. Stanford V +/- radiation therapy in locally extensive and advanced stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: An intergroup study coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (E2496). Blood 2010; 116:Abstract 415.
Google Scholar
48 Diehl V, Sieber M, Ruffer U, et al. BEACOPP: An intensified chemotherapy regimen in advanced Hodgkin's disease. The German Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 143–148.
10.1023/A:1008294312741
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
49 Diehl V, Franklin J, Pfreundschuh M, et al. Standard and increased-dose BEACOPP chemotherapy compared with COPP-ABVD for advanced Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2386–2395.
10.1056/NEJMoa022473
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
50 Engert A, Diehl V, Franklin J, et al. Escalated-dose BEACOPP in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: 10 years of follow-up of the GHSG HD9 study. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4548–4554.
10.1200/JCO.2008.19.8820
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
51 Federico M, Luminari S, Iannitto E, et al.; HD2000 Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Linfomi Trial. ABVD compared with BEACOPP compared with CEC for the initial treatment of patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma: Results from the HD2000 Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Linfomi Trial. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 805–811.
10.1200/JCO.2008.17.0910
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
52 Engert A, Haverkamp H, Kobe C, et al. Reduced-intensity chemotherapy and PET-guided radiotherapy in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HD15 trial): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 1791–1799.
10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61940-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
53 Viviani S, Zinzani PL, Rambaldi A, et al. ABVD versus BEACOPP for Hodgkin's lymphoma when high-dose salvage is planned. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 203–212.
10.1056/NEJMoa1100340
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
54 Connors JM. Hodgkin's lymphoma—The great teacher. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 264–265.
10.1056/NEJMe1104576
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
55 Tam CS, Herschtal A, Seymour JF. ABVD versus BEACOPP for Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1544–1545.
10.1056/NEJMc1109618
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
56 Skoetz N, Trelle S, Rancea M, et al. Effect of initial treatment strategy on survival of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 943–952.
10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70341-3
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
57 Federico M, Bellei M, Brice P, et al.; EBMT/GISL/ANZLG/SFGM/GELA Intergroup HD01 Trial. High-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation versus conventional therapy for patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma responding to front-line therapy. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2320–2325.
10.1200/JCO.2003.11.103
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
58 Younes A, Connors JM, Park SI, et al. Brentuximab vedotin combined with ABVD or AVD for patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin's lymphoma: A phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 1348–1356.
10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70501-1
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
59 Borchmann P, Eichenauer DA, Plütschow A, et al. Targeted beacopp variants in patients with newly diagnosed advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Interim results of a randomized phase II study. Blood 2013; 122:Abst# 4344.
Google Scholar
60 Kasamon YL, Jacene HA, Gocke CD, et al. Phase 2 study of rituximab-ABVD in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2012; 119: 4129–4132.
10.1182/blood-2012-01-402792
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
61 Younes A, Oki Y, McLaughlin P, et al. Phase 2 study of rituximab plus ABVD in patients with newly diagnosed classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2012; 119: 4123–4128.
10.1182/blood-2012-01-405456
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
62 Böll B, Plütschow A, Fuchs M, et al. German Hodgkin study group phase I trial of doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine, and lenalidomide (AVD-Rev) for older Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Blood 2013; 122:Abst# 3054.
Google Scholar
63 Horning S. Hodgkin's disease. In S Kaye, editor. Textbook of Medical Oncology, 2nd ed. London: Martin Dunitz Publishers; 2000. pp 461–474.
Google Scholar
64 Diehl V, Mauch PM, Harris NL. Hodgkin's disease. In VT Vita, S Hellman, SA Rosenberg, editors. Principles and Practice of Oncology, 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. pp 2339–2386.
Google Scholar
65 Longo DL, Duffey PL, Young RC, et al. Conventional-dose salvage combination chemotherapy in patients relapsing with Hodgkin's disease after combination chemotherapy: The low probability for cure. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 210–218.
10.1200/JCO.1992.10.2.210
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
66 Bonfante V, Santoro A, Viviani S, et al. Outcome of patients with Hodgkin's disease failing after primary MOPP-ABVD. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 528–534.
10.1200/JCO.1997.15.2.528
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
67 Ferme C, Mounier N, Divine M, et al. Intensive salvage therapy with high-dose chemotherapy for patients with advanced Hodgkin's disease in relapse or failure after initial chemotherapy: Results of the Groupe d'Etudes des Lymphomes de l'Adulte H89 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 467–475.
10.1200/JCO.20.2.467
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
68 Josting A, Rueffer U, Franklin J, et al. Prognostic factors and treatment outcome in primary progressive Hodgkin lymphoma: A report from the German Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group. Blood 2000; 96: 1280–1286.
10.1182/blood.V96.4.1280
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
69 Andre M, Henry-Amar M, Pico JL, et al. Comparison of high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation with conventional therapy for Hodgkin's disease induction failure: A case-control study. Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 222–229.
10.1200/JCO.1999.17.1.222
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
70 Reece DE, Barnett MJ, Shepherd JD, et al. High-dose cyclophosphamide, carmustine (BCNU), and etoposide (VP16–213) with or without cisplatin (CBV +/- P) and autologous transplantation for patients with Hodgkin's disease who fail to enter a complete remission after combination chemotherapy. Blood 1995; 86: 451–456.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
71 Lazarus HM, Rowlings PA, Zhang MJ, et al. Autotransplants for Hodgkin's disease in patients never achieving remission: A report from the Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 534–545.
10.1200/JCO.1999.17.2.534
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
72 Pfreundschuh MG, Rueffer U, Lathan B, et al. Dexa-BEAM in patients with Hodgkin's disease refractory to multidrug chemotherapy regimens: A trial of the German Hodgkin's Disease Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 580–586.
10.1200/JCO.1994.12.3.580
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
73 Ferme C, Bastion Y, Lepage E, et al. The MINE regimen as intensive salvage chemotherapy for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol 1995; 6: 543–549.
10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a059242
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
74 Rodriguez J, Rodriguez MA, Fayad L, et al. ASHAP: A regimen for cytoreduction of refractory or recurrent Hodgkin's disease. Blood 1999; 93: 3632–3636.
10.1182/blood.V93.11.3632
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
75 Josting A, Katay I, Rueffer U, et al. Favorable outcome of patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's disease treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue at the time of maximal response to conventional salvage therapy (Dex-BEAM). Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 289–295.
10.1023/A:1008283909959
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
76 Brice P, Bouabdallah R, Moreau P, et al. Prognostic factors for survival after high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with relapsing Hodgkin's disease: Analysis of 280 patients from the French registry. Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle. Bone Marrow Transplant 1997; 20: 21–26.
10.1038/sj.bmt.1700838
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
77 Linch DC, Winfield D, Goldstone AH, et al. Dose intensification with autologous bone-marrow transplantation in relapsed and resistant Hodgkin's disease: Results of a BNLI randomised trial. Lancet 1993; 341: 1051–1054.
10.1016/0140-6736(93)92411-L
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
78 Schmitz N, Pfistner B, Sextro M, et al. Aggressive conventional chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy with autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for relapsed chemosensitive Hodgkin's disease: A randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359: 2065–2071.
10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08938-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
79 Kusnierz-Glaz CR, Schlegel PG, Wong RM, et al. Influence of age on the outcome of 500 autologous bone marrow transplant procedures for hematologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 18–25.
10.1200/JCO.1997.15.1.18
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
80 Brice P, Divine M, Simon D, et al. Feasibility of tandem autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in induction failure or very unfavorable (UF) relapse from Hodgkin's disease (HD). SFGM/GELA Study Group. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 1485–1488.
10.1023/A:1008343823292
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
81 Schmitz N, Sureda A, Robinson S. Allogeneic transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells after nonmyeloablative conditioning for Hodgkin's disease: Indications and results. Semin Oncol 2004; 31: 27–32.
10.1053/j.seminoncol.2003.10.018
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
82 Kewalramani T, Nimer SD, Zelenetz AD, et al. Progressive disease following autologous transplantation in patients with chemosensitive relapsed or primary refractory Hodgkin's disease or aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2003; 32: 673–679.
10.1038/sj.bmt.1704214
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
83 Devizzi L, Santoro A, Bonfante V, et al. Vinorelbine: A new promising drug in Hodgkin's disease. Leuk Lymphoma 1996; 22: 409–414.
10.3109/10428199609054778
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
84 Santoro A, Bredenfeld H, Devizzi L, et al. Gemcitabine in the treatment of refractory Hodgkin's disease: Results of a multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2615–2619.
10.1200/JCO.2000.18.13.2615
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
85 Robinson SP, Goldstone AH, Mackinnon S, et al. Chemoresistant or aggressive lymphoma predicts for a poor outcome following reduced-intensity allogeneic progenitor cell transplantation: An analysis from the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation. Blood 2002; 100: 4310–4316.
10.1182/blood-2001-11-0107
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
86 Ekstrand BC, Lucas JB, Horwitz SM, et al. Rituximab in lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin disease: Results of a phase 2 trial. Blood 2003; 101: 4285–4289.
10.1182/blood-2002-08-2644
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
87 Rehwald U, Schulz H, Reiser M, et al. Treatment of relapsed CD20+ Hodgkin lymphoma with the monoclonal antibody rituximab is effective and well tolerated: results of a phase 2 trial of the German Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group. Blood 2003; 101: 420–424.
10.1182/blood.V101.2.420
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
88 Younes A, Bartlett NL, Leonard JP, et al. Brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35) for relapsed CD30-positive lymphomas. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1812–1821.
10.1056/NEJMoa1002965
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
89 Younes A, Gopal AK, Smith SE, et al. Results of a pivotal phase II study of brentuximab vedotin for patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2183–2189.
10.1200/JCO.2011.38.0410
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
90 Younes A, Sureda A, Ben-Yehuda D, et al. Panobinostat in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma after autologous stem-cell transplantation: Results of a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2197–2203.
10.1200/JCO.2011.38.1350
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
91 Younes A, Oki Y, Bociek RG, et al. Mocetinostat for relapsed classical Hodgkin's lymphoma: An open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 1222–1228.
10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70265-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
92 Fehniger TA, Larson S, Trinkaus K, et al. A phase 2 multicenter study of lenalidomide in relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2011; 118: 5119–5125.
10.1182/blood-2011-07-362475
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
93 Johnston PB, Pinter-Brown L, Rogerio J, et al. Everolimus for Relapsed/Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: Multicenter, Open-Label, Single-Arm, Phase 2 Study. 54th ASH Annual Meeting; Blood 2012; 20, abstract 2740
Google Scholar
94 Zhou N, Moradei O, Raeppel S, et al. Discovery of N-(2-aminophenyl)−4-[(4-pyridin-3-ylpyrimidin-2-ylamino)methyl]benzamide (MGCD0103), an orally active histone deacetylase inhibitor. J Med Chem 2008; 51: 4072–4075.
10.1021/jm800251w
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
95 Fournel M, Bonfils C, Hou Y, et al. MGCD0103, a novel isotype-selective histone deacetylase inhibitor, has broad spectrum antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo. Mol Cancer Ther 2008; 7: 759–768.
10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-2026
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
96 Engelman JA. Targeting PI3K signalling in cancer: Opportunities, challenges and limitations. Nat Rev Cancer 2009; 9: 550–562.
10.1038/nrc2664
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
97 Yuan TL, Cantley LC. PI3K pathway alterations in cancer: Variations on a theme. Oncogene 2008; 27: 5497–5510.
10.1038/onc.2008.245
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
98 Hennessy BT, Smith DL, Ram PT, et al. Exploiting the PI3K/AKT pathway for cancer drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005; 4: 988–1004.
10.1038/nrd1902
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
99 Meadows SA, Vega F, Kashishian A, et al. PI3Kdelta inhibitor, GS-1101 (CAL-101), attenuates pathway signaling, induces apoptosis, and overcomes signals from the microenvironment in cellular models of Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2012; 119: 1897–1900.
10.1182/blood-2011-10-386763
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume89, Issue7

July 2014

Pages 771-779

Hodgkin lymphoma: 2014 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management

Abstract

Disease Overview

Diagnosis

Classical HL

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL

Risk Stratification

Risk-Adapted Initial Therapy

Initial therapy

Early stage favorable HL

Early stage unfavorable HL

Response-adapted treatment

Advanced disease

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL

Management of Relapsed/Refractory Disease

Primary refractory disease

Relapsed disease

Therapeutic options following relapse after HDCT and ASCT

Summary

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Hodgkin lymphoma: 2014 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management

Abstract

Disease Overview

Diagnosis

Classical HL

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL

Risk Stratification

Risk-Adapted Initial Therapy

Initial therapy

Early stage favorable HL

Early stage unfavorable HL

Response-adapted treatment

Advanced disease

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL

Management of Relapsed/Refractory Disease

Primary refractory disease

Relapsed disease

Therapeutic options following relapse after HDCT and ASCT

Summary

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information