Comparison of Oncologist and Model Estimates of Risk for Hospitalization During Systemic Therapy for Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: A validated risk model with inputs of pretreatment sodium and albumin can identify patients at risk for hospitalization during cancer treatment. We evaluated how the model compares with risk estimates from treating oncologists. METHODS: We evaluated the 30-day risk of hospitalization or death in patients starting palliative-intent systemic therapy for solid tumor malignancy. For each patient, we prospectively recorded categorical estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk (bottom third, middle third, top third) generated by a treating oncologist and by the two-variable model; a third hybrid risk estimate represented a composite of the oncologist and model risk assessments. We analyzed the agreement of oncologist and model-based risk estimates and compared discrimination, sensitivity, and specificity of each risk assessment method. RESULTS: We collected oncologist, model, and hybrid estimates of hospitalization risk for 120 patients. The 30-day rate of hospitalization or death was 20%. There was minimal agreement between oncologist and model risk estimates (weighted kappa = 0.27). The c-statistic (a measure of discrimination) was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.81) for the clinician assessment, 0.77 for the model assessment (CI, 0.67 to 0.86; P = .24 compared with the oncologist assessment), and 0.79 for the hybrid assessment (CI, 0.69 to 0.90; P = .007 compared with the oncologist assessment). Sensitivity and specificity of the high-risk categorization did not differ significantly between the oncologist and model assessments; the hybrid assessment was significantly more sensitive (P = .02) and less specific (P = .03) than the oncologist assessment. CONCLUSION: A model with inputs of pretreatment sodium and albumin improves oncologists' predictions of hospitalization risk during cancer treatment.

Checkpoint Blockade Treatment May Sensitize Hodgkin Lymphoma to Subsequent Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies and checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) have shown efficacy for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the relapsed and refractory (R/R) setting, but once discontinued owing to progression or side effects, it is unclear how successful further therapies will be. Moreover, there are no data on optimal sequencing of these treatments with standard therapies and other novel agents. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis, we investigated whether exposure to CBT could sensitize HL to subsequent therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen centers across the U.S. and Canada retrospectively queried medical records for eligible patients. The primary aim was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) to post-CBT treatment using the Lugano criteria. Secondary aims included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were included. Seventy-two percent had stage III-IV disease, and the population was heavily pretreated with a median of four therapies before CBT. Most patients (65%) discontinued CBT owing to progression. The ORR to post-CBT therapy was 62%, with a median PFS of 6.3 months and median OS of 21 months. Post-CBT treatment regimens consisted of chemotherapy (44%), targeted agents (19%), immunotherapy (15%), transplant conditioning (14%), chemotherapy/targeted combination (7%), and clinical trials (1%). No significant difference in OS was found when stratified by post-CBT regimen. CONCLUSION: In a heavily pretreated R/R HL population, CBT may sensitize patients to subsequent treatment, even after progression on CBT. Post-CBT regimen category did not impact OS. This may be a novel treatment strategy, which warrants further investigation in prospective clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Novel, life-prolonging treatment strategies in relapsed and refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are greatly desired. The results of this multicenter analysis concur with a smaller, earlier report that checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) use in R/R HL may sensitize patients to their subsequent treatment. This approach may potentially enhance therapeutic options or to bridge patients to transplant. Prospective data are warranted prior to practice implementation. As more work is done in this area, we may also be able to optimize sequencing of CBT and novel agents in the treatment paradigm to minimize treatment-related toxicity and thus improve patient quality of life.

Impact of Treatment Beyond Progression with Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Atypical response patterns following immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) led to the concept of continuation of treatment beyond progression (TBP); however, the longitudinal benefit of this approach is unclear. We therefore performed a retrospective analysis of 64 patients treated with ICB; 20 who received TBP (TBP cohort) and 44 who stopped ICB at initial progression (non-TBP cohort). The TBP cohort received ICB for a median of 4.7 months after initial progression and delayed subsequent treatment by a median of 6.6 months. Despite receiving more prior lines of therapy, the TBP cohort achieved longer progression-free survival with post-ICB treatment (median, 17.5 months vs. 6.1 months, p = .035) and longer time-to-subsequent treatment failure, defined as time from initial ICB progression to failure of subsequent treatment (median, 34.6 months vs. 9.9 months, p = .003). With the limitations of a retrospective study, these results support the clinical benefit of TBP with ICB for selected patients.