Intensive chemo upfront means DHL patients can skip HSCT

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study suggests that patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) in first remission only benefit from an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) if they received standard frontline chemotherapy.

Researchers looked at long-term outcomes for DHL patients who achieved remission and, overall, found that auto-HSCT did not significantly prolong remission or survival.

However, patients who received standard chemotherapy as frontline treatment did appear to benefit from auto-HSCT, as these patients had worse outcomes than patients who received intensive frontline chemotherapy.

This finding led the researchers to recommend that DHL patients receive intensive chemotherapy upfront and forgo subsequent auto-HSCT.

Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and his colleagues made these recommendations in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“A major dilemma for oncologists who treat [DHL] was whether or not to recommend the potentially harmful therapy of auto-[H]SCT to patients with this disease as a strategy to help keep them in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.

To gain some insight into the issue, Dr Landsburg and his colleagues looked at data on 159 patients from 19 academic medical centers across the US.

Patients were diagnosed with DHL between 2006 and 2015, and all achieved remission following frontline chemotherapy.

Thirty-five patients received standard frontline therapy—R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).

The remaining patients received intensive frontline chemotherapy:

• 81 received DA-EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophos­phamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab)
• 32 received R-hyperCVAD (rituximab, cyclophos­phamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, methotrexate, and cytarabine)
• 11 received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, high-dose cytarabine).

Sixty-two patients underwent auto-HSCT, and 97 patients did not. There were no significant differences between these 2 patient groups at baseline.

“Our result is not explained by differences in patients’ overall health or disease features,” Dr Landsburg said. “The transplant and non-transplant arms of this study were very well-matched.”

Relapse and survival

For the entire patient cohort, the 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was 80%, and the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 87%.

There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between patients who underwent auto-HSCT and those who did not.

The RFS rate was 89% in patients who underwent auto-HSCT and 75% in patients who did not (P=0.12). The OS rate was 91% and 85%, respectively (P=0.74).

“Once these patients achieve remission, the data show they are likely to stay in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.

“In the absence of a large, randomized, controlled trial, which would be very challenging to carry out in this case, this is the best evidence we have, and it shows there’s no clear benefit to these patients undergoing auto-[H]SCT.”

Impact of frontline therapy

Patients who received R-CHOP upfront had worse RFS and OS than those who received intensive chemotherapy, although the OS difference was not significant.

RFS rates were 56% in patients who received R-CHOP, 88% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 87% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 91% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (P=0.003).

OS rates were 77% in patients who received R-CHOP, 87% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 90% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 100% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC, respectively (P=0.36).

When the 3 intensive regimens were combined, the RFS rate was 88% (vs 56% for R-CHOP, P=0.002), and the OS rate was 90% (vs 77% for R-CHOP, P=0.13).

Frontline therapy and HSCT

Patients who received R-CHOP upfront benefited from auto-HSCT, but patients who received intensive chemotherapy did not.

The RFS was 51% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.

The OS was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 83% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.

The RFS was 86% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 91% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.

The OS was 89% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 92% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.

An intergroup comparison showed a significant difference in RFS (P=0.003), which was driven by a significantly lower rate of RFS for patients who received R-CHOP without auto-HSCT, compared with patients who received intensive chemotherapy without auto-HSCT (P=0.003) or intensive chemotherapy with auto-HSCT (P=0.001).

“[I]f patients do go into remission with R-CHOP, it appears to be less durable, so, in these cases, going forward with auto-[H]SCT may still make sense,” Dr Landsburg said.

On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to OS (P=0.50).

Dr Landsburg said the next step for this research will be to study features of patients who don’t go into remission in order to understand why their disease is resistant to therapy and if that can be overcome with different treatment strategies. He also said it’s important to try to find more effective therapies for DHL patients who relapse. 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study suggests that patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) in first remission only benefit from an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) if they received standard frontline chemotherapy.

Researchers looked at long-term outcomes for DHL patients who achieved remission and, overall, found that auto-HSCT did not significantly prolong remission or survival.

However, patients who received standard chemotherapy as frontline treatment did appear to benefit from auto-HSCT, as these patients had worse outcomes than patients who received intensive frontline chemotherapy.

This finding led the researchers to recommend that DHL patients receive intensive chemotherapy upfront and forgo subsequent auto-HSCT.

Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and his colleagues made these recommendations in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“A major dilemma for oncologists who treat [DHL] was whether or not to recommend the potentially harmful therapy of auto-[H]SCT to patients with this disease as a strategy to help keep them in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.

To gain some insight into the issue, Dr Landsburg and his colleagues looked at data on 159 patients from 19 academic medical centers across the US.

Patients were diagnosed with DHL between 2006 and 2015, and all achieved remission following frontline chemotherapy.

Thirty-five patients received standard frontline therapy—R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).

The remaining patients received intensive frontline chemotherapy:

• 81 received DA-EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophos­phamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab)
• 32 received R-hyperCVAD (rituximab, cyclophos­phamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, methotrexate, and cytarabine)
• 11 received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, high-dose cytarabine).

Sixty-two patients underwent auto-HSCT, and 97 patients did not. There were no significant differences between these 2 patient groups at baseline.

“Our result is not explained by differences in patients’ overall health or disease features,” Dr Landsburg said. “The transplant and non-transplant arms of this study were very well-matched.”

Relapse and survival

For the entire patient cohort, the 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was 80%, and the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 87%.

There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between patients who underwent auto-HSCT and those who did not.

The RFS rate was 89% in patients who underwent auto-HSCT and 75% in patients who did not (P=0.12). The OS rate was 91% and 85%, respectively (P=0.74).

“Once these patients achieve remission, the data show they are likely to stay in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.

“In the absence of a large, randomized, controlled trial, which would be very challenging to carry out in this case, this is the best evidence we have, and it shows there’s no clear benefit to these patients undergoing auto-[H]SCT.”

Impact of frontline therapy

Patients who received R-CHOP upfront had worse RFS and OS than those who received intensive chemotherapy, although the OS difference was not significant.

RFS rates were 56% in patients who received R-CHOP, 88% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 87% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 91% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (P=0.003).

OS rates were 77% in patients who received R-CHOP, 87% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 90% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 100% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC, respectively (P=0.36).

When the 3 intensive regimens were combined, the RFS rate was 88% (vs 56% for R-CHOP, P=0.002), and the OS rate was 90% (vs 77% for R-CHOP, P=0.13).

Frontline therapy and HSCT

Patients who received R-CHOP upfront benefited from auto-HSCT, but patients who received intensive chemotherapy did not.

The RFS was 51% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.

The OS was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 83% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.

The RFS was 86% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 91% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.

The OS was 89% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 92% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.

An intergroup comparison showed a significant difference in RFS (P=0.003), which was driven by a significantly lower rate of RFS for patients who received R-CHOP without auto-HSCT, compared with patients who received intensive chemotherapy without auto-HSCT (P=0.003) or intensive chemotherapy with auto-HSCT (P=0.001).

“[I]f patients do go into remission with R-CHOP, it appears to be less durable, so, in these cases, going forward with auto-[H]SCT may still make sense,” Dr Landsburg said.

On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to OS (P=0.50).

Dr Landsburg said the next step for this research will be to study features of patients who don’t go into remission in order to understand why their disease is resistant to therapy and if that can be overcome with different treatment strategies. He also said it’s important to try to find more effective therapies for DHL patients who relapse. 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study suggests that patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) in first remission only benefit from an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) if they received standard frontline chemotherapy.

Researchers looked at long-term outcomes for DHL patients who achieved remission and, overall, found that auto-HSCT did not significantly prolong remission or survival.

However, patients who received standard chemotherapy as frontline treatment did appear to benefit from auto-HSCT, as these patients had worse outcomes than patients who received intensive frontline chemotherapy.

This finding led the researchers to recommend that DHL patients receive intensive chemotherapy upfront and forgo subsequent auto-HSCT.

Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and his colleagues made these recommendations in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“A major dilemma for oncologists who treat [DHL] was whether or not to recommend the potentially harmful therapy of auto-[H]SCT to patients with this disease as a strategy to help keep them in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.

To gain some insight into the issue, Dr Landsburg and his colleagues looked at data on 159 patients from 19 academic medical centers across the US.

Patients were diagnosed with DHL between 2006 and 2015, and all achieved remission following frontline chemotherapy.

Thirty-five patients received standard frontline therapy—R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).

The remaining patients received intensive frontline chemotherapy:

• 81 received DA-EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophos­phamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab)
• 32 received R-hyperCVAD (rituximab, cyclophos­phamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, methotrexate, and cytarabine)
• 11 received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, high-dose cytarabine).

Sixty-two patients underwent auto-HSCT, and 97 patients did not. There were no significant differences between these 2 patient groups at baseline.

“Our result is not explained by differences in patients’ overall health or disease features,” Dr Landsburg said. “The transplant and non-transplant arms of this study were very well-matched.”

Relapse and survival

For the entire patient cohort, the 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was 80%, and the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 87%.

There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between patients who underwent auto-HSCT and those who did not.

The RFS rate was 89% in patients who underwent auto-HSCT and 75% in patients who did not (P=0.12). The OS rate was 91% and 85%, respectively (P=0.74).

“Once these patients achieve remission, the data show they are likely to stay in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.

“In the absence of a large, randomized, controlled trial, which would be very challenging to carry out in this case, this is the best evidence we have, and it shows there’s no clear benefit to these patients undergoing auto-[H]SCT.”

Impact of frontline therapy

Patients who received R-CHOP upfront had worse RFS and OS than those who received intensive chemotherapy, although the OS difference was not significant.

RFS rates were 56% in patients who received R-CHOP, 88% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 87% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 91% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (P=0.003).

OS rates were 77% in patients who received R-CHOP, 87% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 90% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 100% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC, respectively (P=0.36).

When the 3 intensive regimens were combined, the RFS rate was 88% (vs 56% for R-CHOP, P=0.002), and the OS rate was 90% (vs 77% for R-CHOP, P=0.13).

Frontline therapy and HSCT

Patients who received R-CHOP upfront benefited from auto-HSCT, but patients who received intensive chemotherapy did not.

The RFS was 51% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.

The OS was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 83% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.

The RFS was 86% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 91% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.

The OS was 89% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 92% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.

An intergroup comparison showed a significant difference in RFS (P=0.003), which was driven by a significantly lower rate of RFS for patients who received R-CHOP without auto-HSCT, compared with patients who received intensive chemotherapy without auto-HSCT (P=0.003) or intensive chemotherapy with auto-HSCT (P=0.001).

“[I]f patients do go into remission with R-CHOP, it appears to be less durable, so, in these cases, going forward with auto-[H]SCT may still make sense,” Dr Landsburg said.

On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to OS (P=0.50).

Dr Landsburg said the next step for this research will be to study features of patients who don’t go into remission in order to understand why their disease is resistant to therapy and if that can be overcome with different treatment strategies. He also said it’s important to try to find more effective therapies for DHL patients who relapse.