↓ Skip to main content

PET-guided treatment in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HD18): final results of an open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial by the German Hodgkin Study Group

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
289 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
PET-guided treatment in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HD18): final results of an open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial by the German Hodgkin Study Group
Published in
The Lancet, October 2017
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32134-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Borchmann, Helen Goergen, Carsten Kobe, Andreas Lohri, Richard Greil, Dennis A Eichenauer, Josée M Zijlstra, Jana Markova, Julia Meissner, Michaela Feuring-Buske, Andreas Hüttmann, Judith Dierlamm, Martin Soekler, Hans-Joachim Beck, Wolfgang Willenbacher, Wolf-Dieter Ludwig, Thomas Pabst, Max S Topp, Felicitas Hitz, Martin Bentz, Ulrich Bernd Keller, Dagmar Kühnhardt, Helmut Ostermann, Norbert Schmitz, Bernd Hertenstein, Walter Aulitzky, Georg Maschmeyer, Tom Vieler, Hans Eich, Christian Baues, Harald Stein, Michael Fuchs, Georg Kuhnert, Volker Diehl, Markus Dietlein, Andreas Engert

Abstract

The intensive polychemotherapy regimen eBEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone in escalated doses) is very active in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, albeit at the expense of severe toxicities. Individual patients might be cured with less burdensome therapy. We investigated whether metabolic response determined by PET after two cycles of standard regimen eBEACOPP (PET-2) would allow adaption of treatment intensity, increasing it for PET-2-positive patients and reducing it for PET-2-negative patients. In this open-label, randomised, parallel-group phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma in 301 hospitals and private practices in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic. After central review of PET-2, patients were assigned (1:1) to one of two parallel treatment groups on the basis of their PET-2 result. Patients with positive PET-2 were randomised to receive six additional cycles of either standard eBEACOPP (8 × eBEACOPP in total) or eBEACOPP with rituximab (8 × R-eBEACOPP). Those with negative PET-2 were randomised between standard treatment with six additional cycles of eBEACOPP (8 × eBEACOPP) or experimental treatment with two additional cycles (4 × eBEACOPP). A protocol amendment in June, 2011, introduced a reduction of standard therapy to 6 × eBEACOPP; after this point, patients with positive PET-2 were no longer randomised and were all assigned to receive 6 × eBEACOPP and patients with negative PET-2 were randomly assigned to 6 × eBEACOPP (standard) or 4 × eBEACOPP (experimental). Randomisation was done centrally using the minimisation method including a random component, stratified according to centre, age (<45 vs ≥45 years), stage (IIB, IIIA vs IIIB, IV), international prognostic score (0-2 vs 3-7), and sex. eBEACOPP was given as previously described; rituximab was given intravenously at a dose of 375 mg/m(2) (maximum total dose 700 mg). The primary objectives were to show superiority of the experimental treatment in the PET-2-positive cohort, and to show non-inferiority of the experimental treatment in the PET-2-negative cohort in terms of the primary endpoint, progression-free survival. We defined non-inferiority as an absolute difference of 6% in the 5-year progression-free survival estimates. Primary analyses in the PET-2-negative cohort were per protocol; all other analyses were by intention to treat. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00515554. Between May 14, 2008, and July 18, 2014, we recruited 2101 patients, of whom 137 were found ineligible before randomisation and a further 19 were found ineligible after randomisation. Among 434 randomised patients (217 per arm) with positive PET-2, 5-year progression-free survival was 89·7% (95% CI 85·4-94·0) with eBEACOPP and 88·1% (83·5-92·7) with R-eBEACOPP (log-rank p=0·46). Patients with negative PET-2 randomly assigned to either 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP (n=504) or 4 × eBEACOPP (n=501) had 5-year progression-free survival of 90·8% (95% CI 87·9-93·7) and 92·2% (89·4-95·0), respectively (difference 1·4%, 95% CI -2·7 to 5·4). 4 × eBEACOPP was associated with fewer severe infections (40 [8%] of 498 vs 75 [15%] of 502) and organ toxicities (38 [8%] of 498 vs 91 [18%] of 502) than were 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP in PET-2-negative patients. Ten treatment-related deaths occurred: four in the PET-2-positive cohort (one [<1%] in the 8 × eBEACOPP group, three [1%] in the 8 × R-eBEACOPP group) and six in the PET-2-negative group (six [1%] in the 8 × eBEACOPP or 6 × eBEACOPP group). The favourable outcome of patients treated with eBEACOPP could not be improved by adding rituximab after positive PET-2. PET-2 negativity allows reduction to only four cycles of eBEACOPP without loss of tumour control. PET-2-guided eBEACOPP provides outstanding efficacy for all patients and increases overall survival by reducing treatment-related risks for patients with negative PET-2. We recommend this PET-2-guided treatment strategy for patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. Deutsche Krebshilfe, Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research, and Roche Pharma AG.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 246 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 17%
Other 36 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 49 20%
Unknown 69 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 125 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 86 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2021.
All research outputs
#623,171
of 26,009,886 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#5,439
of 43,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,919
of 341,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#102
of 415 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,009,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 43,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 415 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.