An individual patient-data comparison of combined modality therapy and ABVD alone for patients with limited-stage Hodgkin lymphoma

Background Treatment options for patients with nonbulky stage IA-IIA Hodgkin lymphoma include combined modality therapy (CMT) using doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) plus involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT), and chemotherapy with ABVD alone. There are no mature randomized data comparing ABVD with CMT using modern radiation techniques. Patients and methods Using German Hodgkin Study Group HD10/HD11 and NCIC Clinical Trials Group HD.6 databases, we identified 588 patients who met mutually inclusive eligibility criteria from the preferred arms of HD10 or 11 (n = 406) and HD.6 (n = 182). We evaluated time to progression (TTP), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival, including in three predefined exploratory subset analyses. Results With median follow-up of 91 (HD10/11) and 134 (HD.6) months, respective 8-year outcomes were for TTP, 93% versus 87% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.78]; for PFS, 89% versus 86% (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.42-1.18) and for overall survival, 95% versus 95% (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49-2.40). In the exploratory subset analysis including HD10 eligible patients who achieved complete response (CR) or unconfirmed complete response (CRu) after two cycles of ABVD, 8-year PFS was 87% (HD10) versus 95% (HD.6) (HR 2.8; 95% CI 0.64-12.5) and overall survival 96% versus 100%. In contrast, among those without CR/CRu after two cycles of ABVD, 8-year PFS was 88% versus 74% (HR 0.35; 95% CI 0.16-0.79) and overall survival 95% versus 91%, respectively (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.12-1.44). Conclusions In patients with nonbulky stage IA-IIA Hodgkin lymphoma, CMT provides better disease control than ABVD alone, especially among those not achieving complete response after two cycles of ABVD. Within the follow-up duration evaluated, overall survivals were similar. Longer follow-up is required to understand the implications of radiation and chemotherapy-related late effects. Clinical trials The trials included in this analysis were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: HD10 - NCT00265018, HD11 - NCT00264953, HD.6 - NCT0000256

Interventionally implanted port catheter systems for hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy in patients with colorectal liver metastases: A phase II-study and historical comparison with the surgical approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The high complication rates of surgically implanted port catheter systems (SIPCS) represents a major drawback in the treatment of isolated liver neoplasms by hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of chemotherapy. Interventionally implanted port catheter systems (IIPCS) have evolved into a promising alternative that enable initiation of HAI without laparatomy, but prospective data on this approach are still sparse. Aim of this study was to evaluate the most important technical endpoints associated with the use of IIPCS for the delivery of 5-fluorouracil-based HAI in patients with colorectal liver metastases in a phase 2-study, and to perform a non-randomised comparison with a historical group of patients in which HAI was administered via SIPCS.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>41 patients with isolated liver metastases of colorectal cancer were enrolled into a phase II-study and provided with IIPCS between 2001 and 2004 (group A). The primary objective of the trial was defined as evaluation of device-related complications and port duration. Results were compared with those observed in a pre-defined historical collective of 40 patients treated with HAI via SIPCS at our institution between 1996 and 2000 (group B).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Baseline characteristics were balanced between both groups, except for higher proportions of previous palliative pre-treatment and elevated serum alkaline phosphatase in patients of group A. Implantation of port catheters was successful in all patients of group A, whereas two primary failures were observed in group B. The frequency of device-related complications was similar between both groups, but the secondary failure rate was significantly higher with the use of surgical approach (17% vs. 50%, p < 0.01). Mean port duration was significantly longer in the interventional group (19 vs. 14 months, p = 0.01), with 77 vs. 50% of devices functioning at 12 months (p < 0.01). No unexpected complications were observed in both groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>HAI via interventionally implanted port catheters can be safely provided to a collective of patients with colorectal liver metastases, including a relevant proportion of preatreated individuals. It appears to offer technical advantages over the surgical approach.</p