Impact of baseline and interim quantitative PET parameters on outcomes of classical Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Currently, analysis of interim PET (iPET) according to the Deauville score (DS) is the most important predictive factor in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL); however, there is room for improvement in its prognostic power. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of quantitative PET analysis (maximum standard uptake value [SUVmax], total metabolic tumor volume [TMTV] and total lesion glicolysis [TLG]) at baseline (PET0) and iPET in a retrospective cohort of newly diagnosed classical HL. For positive iPET (+ iPET), the reduction of quantitative parameters in relation to PET0 (ΔSUVmax, ΔTMTV and ΔTLG) was calculated. Between 2011 and 2017, 234 patients treated with ABVD were analyzed. Median age was 30 years-old, 59% had advanced stage disease, 57% a bulky mass and 25% a + iPET (DS 4-5). At baseline, high TLG was associated with an increased cumulative incidence of failure (CIF) (p = 0.032) while neither SUVmax, TMTV or TLG were associated with overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). In multivariate analysis, only iPET was associated with CIF (p < 0.001). Among ΔSUVmax, ΔTMTV and ΔTLG, only a ΔSUVmax ≥ 68.8 was significant for PFS (HR: 0.31, CI95%: 0.11-0.86, p = 0.024). A subset of patients with improved PFS amongst + iPET was identified by the quantitative (ΔSUVmax ≥ 68.8%) analysis. In this real-world Brazilian cohort, with prevalent high-risk patients, quantitative analysis of PET0 did not demonstrate to be prognostic, while a dynamic approach incorporating the ΔSUVmax to + iPET succeeded in refining a subset with better prognosis. These findings warrant validation in larger series and indicate that not all patients with + iPET might need treatment intensification.

Rivaroxaban to prevent major clinical outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the CARE - COALITION VIII randomised clinical trial.

Background: COVID-19 progression is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Randomised trials have demonstrated that anticoagulants reduce the risk of thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but a benefit of routine anticoagulation has not been demonstrated in the outpatient setting. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open-label, controlled, multicentre study, evaluating the use of rivaroxaban in mild or moderate COVID-19 patients. Adults ≥18 years old, with probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, presenting within ≤7 days from symptom onset with no clear indication for hospitalization, plus at least 2 risk factors for complication, were randomised 1:1 either to rivaroxaban 10 mg OD for 14 days or to routine care. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of venous thromboembolic events, need of mechanical ventilation, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or death due to COVID-19 during the first 30 days. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04757857. Findings: Enrollment was prematurely stopped due to sustained reduction in new COVID-19 cases. From September 29th, 2020, through May 23rd, 2022, 660 patients were randomised (median age 61 [Q1-Q3 47-69], 55.7% women). There was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and control in the primary efficacy endpoint (4.3% [14/327] vs 5.8% [19/330], RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46). There was no major bleeding in the control group and 1 in the rivaroxaban group. Interpretation: On light of these findings no decision can be made about the utility of rivaroxaban to improve outcomes in outpatients with COVID-19. Metanalyses data provide no evidence of a benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19. These findings were the result of an underpowered study, therefore should be interpreted with caution. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and Bayer S.A.