Management of classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a look at up to date evidence and current treatment approaches

Table 1 Recently completed and investigational trials in frontline cHL

Treatment^a	Early versus advanced	Phase	N^b	ORR% [CR%]	Median follow up (months)	PFS	Publication or NCT#
All fit patients
Pem X 3 -> AVD X 4–6	Early unfavorable	2	30	100 [100]	22.6	100% at 22 months	(13, 14)
Nivo + AVD X 4, Nivo X 2 -> Nivo + AVD X 2 -> AVD X 2	Early unfavorable	2	109 (54, 51)^c	100, 96 [90, 94]	14, 13	98%, 100% at 12 months	(22)
Deauville 1–3: BV + nivo X 3, ABVD X 2 -> nivo X 3, Deauville > 3: AVD + BV X 4 -> nivo X 3^d	Early	2	264	–	–	–	NCT03712202
Nivo X 2 -> Nivo + AVD X 3	Advanced	2	51	84 [67]	9.4	92% at 9 months	(21)
BV + AVD versus Nivo + AVD	Advanced	3	987	–	–	–	NCT03907488
Elderly specific trials
BV X 2 -> AVD X 6 -> BV X 4	Advanced	2	48	88 [83]	23	84% at 2 years	(25)
BV	Both	2	26	92 [NR]^e	59.4	Median PFS: 10.5 months	(23)
BV + dacarbazine	Both	2	19	100 [NR]	58.6	Median PFS: 46.8 months	(23)
BV + bendamustine	Both	2	20	100 [NR]	51.3	Median PFS: 40.3 months	(23)
BV + bendamustine	Advanced	1/2	59	NR [63]^f	20.6	54% at 2 years	(26)
BV + Nivo	Both	2	20	95 [NR]	19.4	Median PFS: Not reached	(23)
BV + Nivo	Both	2	46	61 [48]	21.2	Median PFS: 21.8 months	(24)

Pem, pembrolizumab; nivo, nivolumab; ABVD, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine; BV, brentuximab vedotin; ORR, overall response rate; CR, complete response
^aTreatment arms separated by commas
^bIntent to treat number, for trials still recruiting, the target enrollment number is listed
^cListed as concurrent, sequential
^dAll patient randomized after ABVD X 2 based on Deauville scores after 2nd cycle, patients starting with bulky disease achieving Deauville 1–3 will not be randomized to the BV + nivo arm
^eNot reported
^fComplete response rate reported at 20.6 months of mean follow

ISSN: 2162-3619