The choice of a preferred first-line treatment requires balancing the desire for optimal disease control with the occurrence of early and late treatment-related effects. To fully assess this balance, the treatment decision process should ideally take into account the outcome following a consistent second-line therapy, in particular when tolerated, widely applicable and highly effective salvage regimens exist, like in Hodgkin lymphoma failing initial chemotherapy.
During the last two decades ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) has been considered as the standard of care for advanced HL, however 20-30% of the patients fail to achieve a durable complete remission and need a salvage treatment. After a state-of-the art-salvage program including high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support (ASCT) at least half of these patients achieve a durable disease control. Recently the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) has developed a new regimen, BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone), administered with or without dose escalation. In an interim analysis after 23 months follow-up, BEACOPP demonstrated a higher activity compared to COPP/ABVD with a superior freedom from treatment failure (84% versus 75%, P=.034). Despite the improved efficacy a substantial proportion of patients receiving escalated BEACOPP experienced severe acute hematologic toxicity (grade 3-4 leucopoenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia occurred in 78% , 36% and 27% of the cycles administered, respectively) and 1.8% fatal acute toxicities were reported. Moreover of greater concern is the incidence of almost fatal secondary acute leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome (3 cases in 323 patients). The choice of first-line treatment requires balancing the desire for optimal disease control with the occurrence of early and late treatment-related toxicities. Long-term outcome following an optimal salvage treatment, consisting in high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT should also be taken into consideration. In the present study we plan to compare the efficacy and toxicity of two therapeutic strategies consisting in two different first-line treatments followed by a pre-planned salvage program, when indicated
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
331
10 mg/m2 IV day 8 during cycles 1 to 8
200 mg/m2 iv on days 1 to 3 during cycles 1 to 4; 100 mg/m2 iv on days 1 to 3 during cycles 5 to 8
35 mg/2 iv on day 1 during cycles 1 to 4; 25 mg/m2 iv on day 1 during cycles 5 to 8
Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale di Tumori di Milano
Milan, Italy
Freedom from first progression at 5 years
Time frame: After a median of 5 years from start of the study
Freedom from second progression at 5 years
Time frame: After a median of 5 years from start of protocol
Overall survival at 5 years
Time frame: After a median of 5 years from start of the protocol
Number of participants with acute adverse events at initial therapy and at salvage therapy as a measure of safety and tolerability
Time frame: After 3 months from last intervention
Number of participants long term sequelae
Number of participants who developed leukemia Number of participants who developed solid tumors Number of participants who developed cardiovascular disease
Time frame: After a median of 10 years
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
1250 mg/m2 iv on day 1 during cycles 1 to 4; 650 mg/m2 iv on day 1 during cycles 5 to 8
1.4 mg/m2 iv (max 2 mg) on day 8 during cycles 1 to 8
100 mg/m2 po from day 1 to 7 during cycles 1 to 8
40 mg/m2 po from day 1 to 14 during cycles 1 to 8
25 mg/m2 iv on days 1 and 15 in each cycle
10 mg/m2 iv on days 1 and 15 in each cycle
6 mg/m2 iv on days 1 and 15 in each cycle
375 mg/m2 iv on days 1 and 15 in each cycle