Minimising the Toxicities of First Line Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment in the Modern Era.

Peer reviewed: TrueStriking advances in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma over the last 30 years have culminated in high rates of disease-free survival in younger patients with early and advanced stage disease. In this review we focus on strategies that have evolved over recent years to reduce short and long-term toxicities of treatment. These strategies include the selection of first-line chemotherapy, the stratification of patients based on initial response and subsequent adaptation of treatment, the addition of novel agents (e.g., brentuximab vedotin), the removal of specific drugs (e.g., bleomycin), the use of drug substitution, and the removal of consolidation radiotherapy based on interim and end of treatment PET assessment. While these strategies have successfully reduced toxicity of Hodgkin lymphoma therapy, the cornerstone of treatment continues to be combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy with significant short- and long-term side effects. To further reduce toxicity while maintaining or improving efficacy, we shall need to incorporate novel agents into our first-line treatment algorithms, and several such potentially practice-changing trials are underway

Evusheld Prophylaxis Improves Social Interactions, Anxiety, Depression, Agoraphobia, and Quality of Life in Blood Cancer Patients

Peer reviewed: TrueEvusheld is a combination injection of tixagevimab and cilgavimab and is indicated for the pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older. Its use has been advocated for immunosuppressed individuals, such as blood cancer patients, although uptake varies significantly between countries. Despite extensive use internationally, there has been limited analysis of potential psychological benefits that vulnerable patients might gain from receiving this prophylactic medication. In this study we have quantified four key psychological health parameters in blood cancer patients who received Evusheld (EQ5D-3L quality of life score, DSM5 Agoraphobia score, Duke’s Social Support Index and the hospital anxiety and depression score) and compared their responses with a control group of patients who did not receive Evusheld. We show that patients who opted for treatment had higher baseline markers of psychological stress and ill-health compared with non-treated individuals but that treatment with Evusheld significantly improved the psychological health of recipients and increased the level of physical social/work interactions over that of control patients. Although there are limitations with this small study, the findings strongly suggest that Evusheld prophylaxis can provide significant psychological benefits for vulnerable blood cancer patients who have significant anxiety about COVID-19 infection

Managing relapsed refractory lymphoma with palliative oral chemotherapy: A multicentre retrospective study.

PEP-C (prednisolone, etoposide, procarbazine and cyclophosphamide) is an orally administered daily chemotherapy regimen used with palliative intent in relapsed refractory lymphoma. To our knowledge, no data on PEP-C have been reported since the original group described the regimen. Here we present a multicentre retrospective cohort reporting our use of PEP-C in 92 patients over an 8-year period. We find that even heavily pretreated lymphoma can respond to PEP-C, particularly low-grade lymphoma (including mantle cell) and lymphoma that was sensitive to the previous line of systemic therapy (chemosensitive). These characteristics may help in the selection of patients likely to derive benefit. The median overall survival of patients with chemosensitive lymphoma treated with PEP-C is 217 days. Within the limitations of a retrospective cohort, we find that PEP-C is well tolerated: the most common toxicity leading to discontinuation is marrow suppression. We suggest that PEP-C should be considered for patients with relapsed refractory lymphoma in two settings: first, where there is no licensed alternative; and second, where the licensed alternative is an intravenous drug and the patient would prefer to choose an oral chemotherapy option