RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The BV-AVD (Brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) combination for first-line treatment of advanced stage Hodgkin's lymphoma has been approved by regulatory authorities and included in international guidelines. However, several factors influence its incorporation as standard of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of experts from different institutions was identified and, using the Delphi method, an analysis of the results of the ECHELON 1 trial for the indication of BV-AVD over ABVD (doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, dacarbazine) in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma Stages III and IV in Argentina was done. The clinical and academic experience of the authors and the context of the Argentine healthcare system were considered. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Seven statements on general aspects of the management of Hodgkin's lymphoma and nine on specific aspects related to the use of BV-AVD over ABVD reached a consensus of agreement. There was a strong expert consensus in favor of indicating BV-AVD in the presence of extranodal disease or pulmonary disease. Moderate to severe neuropathy, pregnancy and drug allergy were considered absolute contraindications to prescribe BV. CONCLUSIONS: The authors agreed that BV-AVD could be considered a new treatment option in high-risk patients. However health system-dependent factors (such as high cost, lack of availability, reimbursement difficulties, irregular delivery, and issues with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor availability) could pose limitations for this prescription. While awaiting new data from clinical trials and real-world studies, these recommendations can represent a useful tool for hematologists in different parts of the world.
RESUMO
The role of Ann Arbor staging in determining treatment intensity after achieving a negative positron emission tomography (PET) has not been established in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Patients with stage I-IV cHL, received three cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) and an interim PET scan (PET3). PET3-negative patients received no further therapy. PET3-positive patients received three additional cycles of ABVD plus involved-field radiation therapy or salvage chemotherapy, if refractory to ABVD, and were re-evaluated by PET scan (PET6). Study endpoints were 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates. Two hundred and thirty-nine patients with early-stage and 138 with advanced-stage were evaluable. Overall, 260 patients (70%) were PET3-negative and had higher 3-year PFS (90% vs. 65%; P < 0·0001) and OS (98% vs. 92%; P = 0·007) rates than PET3-positive patients. All PET3-negative patients, regardless of disease stage at diagnosis, achieved similarly good PFS (90-91%; P = 0·76) and OS (97-99%). The only independent prognostic factor for PFS was PET3-negativity (Hazard ratio 3·8; 95% confidence interval 2·4-6·3; P < 0·0001). This study suggests that cHL patients who achieve a negative PET3 following ABVD have an excellent outcome, regardless of stage at diagnosis. An appropriately powered, phase III trial will be necessary to confirm these findings.