Neutropenia and Neutropenic Complications in ABVD Chemotherapy for Hodgkin Lymphoma

Minimising the Toxicities of First Line Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment in the Modern Era

Striking advances in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma over the last 30 years have culminated in high rates of disease-free survival in younger patients with early and advanced stage disease. In this review we focus on strategies that have evolved over recent years to reduce short and long-term toxicities of treatment. These strategies include the selection of first-line chemotherapy, the stratification of patients based on initial response and subsequent adaptation of treatment, the addition of novel agents (e.g., brentuximab vedotin), the removal of specific drugs (e.g., bleomycin), the use of drug substitution, and the removal of consolidation radiotherapy based on interim and end of treatment PET assessment. While these strategies have successfully reduced toxicity of Hodgkin lymphoma therapy, the cornerstone of treatment continues to be combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy with significant short- and long-term side effects. To further reduce toxicity while maintaining or improving efficacy, we shall need to incorporate novel agents into our first-line treatment algorithms, and several such potentially practice-changing trials are underway.

First-line treatment of stage IIB to stage IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma in Italy, Israel, and Spain: Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes

Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is curable in 90% of cases, but advanced stage patients who do not respond well to first-line (1L) therapy have poorer outcomes. This retrospective study examines patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and safety management of 1L cHL therapies in common clinical practice in Italy (IT), Israel (IL), and Spain (SP). The overall sample (n = 256) included patients with stage IIb to IV cHL, of which 86.3% received ABVD as 1L therapy (n = 221). Clinical outcomes were similar for the overall population and ABVD subsample: complete response (CR) in 75% and 76.5%; 30-month (30-mo) survival (OS) of 92.5% and 93.6%; and 30-mo progression-free survival (PFS) of 70.7% and 72.6%. Thirty-month PFS was significantly lower for patients ≥ 60 years and/or with high (4-7) IPS. Treatment-induced pulmonary and cardiac toxicities, and febrile neutropenia occurred, respectively, in 10%, 2.3%, and 6.8% of ABVD-treated patients. Interim PET or PET-CT scans were performed after two cycles of 1L therapy (PET2) for 70.3% and 66.6% of the overall and ABVD cohorts, respectively. PET2 positive rates were nearly 30% (49/173), yet PET-adapted strategy of dose modification only occurred in a small fraction of patients.

Efficacy and safety of front-line treatments for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

To assess evidence on the safety and efficacy of ABVD (doxorubicin [Adriamycin®], bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine), BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone), and A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) for advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted on 29 July 2016 (updated 26 July 2018) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs assessing the treatment of newly-diagnosed advanced-stage HL with ABVD and BEACOPP (and their variants), and A+AVD.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 62 RCTs and 42 non-RCTs. Five-year overall survival rates for ABVD and BEACOPP were 60-97% and 84-99%, and 5-year progression-free survival rates were 58-81% and 83-96%, respectively. Both regimens were associated with tolerability issues and side effects. Discontinuation or dose reduction of bleomycin resulted in fewer adverse events, without significantly affecting efficacy. A head-to-head trial demonstrated improved efficacy for A+AVD vs ABVD, with an acceptable tolerability profile. No data from head-to-head trials comparing A+AVD with BEACOPP were available, and an indirect treatment comparison was not feasible.

CONCLUSION

New therapies, such as A+AVD, maintain the efficacy observed with current treatments, and may provide a more tolerable treatment option for patients with advanced-stage HL.

Is antimicrobial prophylaxis necessary for lymphoma patients? A single centre, real-life experience

Background

Prophylaxis is strongly recommended in patients with hematological malignancy who are usually at higher risk for infection and neutropenic fever. It is still unclear whether or not there is a definite need for antimicrobial prophylaxis in intermediate-risk hematology patients such as those with lymphoma.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was made of patients admitted from January 2009 to December 2017 to the Hematology Department of Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, a tertiary referral hospital in Ankara, Turkey. The study included patients who were diagnosed with any type of lymphoma and given chemotherapy. Routine antimicrobial prophylaxis was administered to 127 lymphoma patients, and not to 65 lymphoma patients. These two groups were compared in respect of the incidence of total infection episodes (IE), febrile neutropenia episodes, and nonneutropenic clinically documented infection episodes.

Results

For all patients with lymphoma and subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Hodgkin lymphoma, no significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the total incidence of IE, febrile neutropenia and nonneutropenic clinically documented infection both during the first-line chemotherapy and throughout the total follow-up period ( p > 0.05). Patients with prophylaxis had a higher incidence of IE, which was treated with parenteral antibiotics both during the first-line chemotherapy and throughout the total follow-up period ( p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Antimicrobial prophylaxis was seen to have no effect on the total incidence of infection episode and febrile neutropenia. Therefore, the routine use of antimicrobial prophylaxis should not be recommended for patients with lymphoma.