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

Table 2 Conventional and investigational salvage regimens in relapsed cHL

Treatment	Phase	N	ORR%[CR%]	Median follow up	PFS	Publication or NCT#
Conventional Salvage regimens
ICE	2	65	88 [30]	43 months	58% at 43 months	(28)
GVD	2	91	70 [19]	3.6 years	52% in transplant naïve, 10% in s/p prior transplant	(29)
DHAP	2	102	89 [21]	18 months	NR^a	(30)
IGEV	2	91	54 [27]	26 months	53% at 3 years	(31)
BEGEV	2	59	83 [75]	5 years	59% at 5 yeas	(32)
Investigational Salvage regimens
BV + ICE	1/2	42	95 [69]	NR	69% at 1 year	(35)
BV + DHAP	1/2	55	90 [81]	27 months	74% at 2 years	(36)
BV + ESHAP	1/2	66	91 [70]	27 months	71% at 30 months	(37)
BV + bendamustine	1/2	55	92.5 [74]	20.9 months	62.6% at 2 years	(38)
Nivo + ICE	2	39	78 [70]^b 100 [86]^c	10.5 months	79% at 1 year	(39)
Pembro + ICE	2	42	97 [86.5]	27 months	88.2% at 27 months	(40)
Pembro + GVD	2	39	100 [95]	13.5 months^d	100% at 13.5 months^d	(41)
BV + nivo	1/2	91	85 [67]	34.3 months	77% at 3 years	(43)

ICE, ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide; GVD, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, doxil; DHAP, dexamethasone, high dose cytarabine, cisplatin; IGEV, ifosfamide, gemcitabine, vinorelbine; BEGEV, bendamustine, gemcitabine, vinorelbine; BV, brentuximab vedotin; ESHAP, etoposide, methylprednisolone, high dose cytarabine, cisplatin; Nivo, nivolumab; Pembro, pembrolizumab; CR, complete response; PFS, progression-free survival
^aNot reported
^bAfter 6 cycles nivo
^cAfter 6 cycles of nivo and 2 cycles of Nivo + ICE
^dPost-transplant follow up

ISSN: 2162-3619