BROADCASTS.com

This JCO Podcast provides observations and commentary on the JCO article \u201cPET Score Has Greater Prognostic Significance Than Pre-Treatment Risk Stratification in Early-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma in the UK NCRI RAPID Study\u201d by Barrington et al. My name is Brue Cheson, and I am\xa0at Georgetown University Hospital, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. My Hematologic-oncologic specialty is\xa0Lymphoma.

\xa0

Hodgkin lymphoma is clearly one of the most dramatic success stories in modern oncology. More than 90% of patients with limited disease and about 85% with advanced disease are cured using conventional chemotherapy regimens.\xa0 As a consequence, current clinical trials are focusing on augmenting or modifying treatment for those at higher risk and decreasing the intensity or duration of therapy for those at a lower risk of treatment failure.

\xa0

One important question has been: how best to distinguish those disparate groups?\xa0 Over the years, various prognostic scoring systems have been devised.\xa0 The International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) differentiated patients into 6 groups using 7 clinical and laboratory factors.\xa0 However, only 7% of patients are in both the most and least favorable groups.\xa0 The German Hodgkin study Group (GHSG) and the EORTC each published criteria slightly different from each other for treatment selection.\xa0 Nevertheless, it is not clear that any of these schemas remains relevant in the context of current Hodgkin regimens.\xa0 More importantly, they do not reliably dictate how to treat patients, nor do they offer therapeutic targets.

\xa0

FDG-PET scanning has revolutionized our management of patients with lymphoma.\xa0 In 2005 we first demonstrated that integration of PET into standard response assessment improved the ability to distinguish between residual tumor and fibrosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leading to a revision of standardized response criteria. More recent studies have confirmed this observation in Hodgkin lymphoma and other histologies. Patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma can be distinguished into high and low risk groups based on PET scan results after 2 cycles of standard ABVD chemotherapy, regardless of their pretreatment IPSS score.\xa0 In a number of studies, reacting to the positive interim scan by intensifying therapy achieved outcomes markedly improved over expected.

\xa0

In the paper that accompanies this podcast, Sally Barrington and her colleagues performed a secondary analysis of the RAPID trial to evaluate the role of pre-treatment risk factors and PET results in predicting outcome of patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma.\xa0 This study accrued 602 patients who were treated with standard ABVD and underwent PET scanning after the third cycle.\xa0 Those with a negative scan (a Deauville score of 1-2) were randomized to no further treatment vs involved field radiotherapy.\xa0 Despite a failure to demonstrate non-inferiority of progression-free survival in this cohort, the overall survival was the same, thus sparing 90% of patients unnecessary radiotherapy.\xa0 Those with a positive scan (defined as a Deauville score of 3-5), the primary focus of the current manuscript, received an additional cycle of ABVD plus radiotherapy.\xa0 Only the 21 patients with a Deauville score of 5, defined as an SUV at least 3 times greater than that of the liver, had an inferior time to progression or greater risk of Hodgkin-related death.\xa0 Importantly, this finding was independent of pretreatment prognostic factors using either the GHSG or EORTC scores.\xa0 Whether this observation can be extrapolated to patients with features not eligible for the RAPID study, such as those with bulky mediastinal disease or B-symptoms, is presently unknown.\xa0 Nonetheless, these data support the role of metabolic imaging over standard clinical and laboratory risk factors.

\xa0

But we are clearly doing this all wrong.\xa0 Why do we treat all patients the same and then wait until the disease has demonstrated resistance before we alter therapy?\xa0 Several recent papers support the notion that anticipatory, biologically-based, risk-adapted approaches may be feasible. Pre-treatment total metabolic tumor volume (defined as the sum total of all metabolically active lesions) can predict outcome in Hodgkin lymphoma as well as follicular, diffuse large B-cell and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma.\xa0 High heterogeneity of intratumoral FDG uptake distribution on PET-CT may be a marker of chemoresistance in solid tumors as well as various lymphoma histologies. \xa0Unfortunately, those tests do not provide a target against which to direct a specific agent.\xa0 In contrast, a number of investigators have demonstrated a correlation between bcl-2, p53, FOXP3, CD68, STAT1, pattern of PD-1 expression, mutational patterns derived from next generation sequencing, and other factors in pre-treatment Hodgkin node biopsies and outcome. \xa0Thus, if we are able to predict outcome prior to treatment, why do we expose patients to drugs to which we know they will not benefit? The goal of treatment should be anticipatory, risk-adapted strategies whereby patients with a high likelihood of benefit may receive standard of care, unless there is another clinical question being addressed.\xa0 On the other hand, those unlikely to benefit as determined prior to therapy should be spared the waste of time and toxicity and treated with novel regimens directed at specific targets.\xa0 Both groups should be monitored during treatment for the emergence of mutations, with treatment altered accordingly.\xa0 Yes, we may be a long way from having the appropriate tools for such an approach.\xa0 But, to quote the geneticist, molecular engineer and chemist George M. Church, \u201cThe best way to predict the future is to change it\u201d.\xa0 Anticipatory, risk-adapted strategies could do just that.

\xa0

This concludes this JCO Podcast. Thank you for listening.