The predictive role of interim PET after the first chemotherapy cycle and sequential evaluation of response to ABVD in Hodgkin's lymphoma patients-the Polish Lymphoma Research Group (PLRG) Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Interim PET after two ABVD cycles (iPET2) predicts treatment outcome in classical Hodgkin's lymphoma. To test whether an earlier assessment of chemosensitivity would improve the prediction accuracy, we launched a prospective, multicenter observational study aimed at assessing the predictive value of iPET after one ABVD (iPET1) and the kinetics of response assessed by sequential PET scanning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed classical Hodgkin's lymphoma underwent interim PET scan after one ABVD course (iPET1). PETs were interpreted according to the Deauville score (DS) as negative (-) (DS 1-3) and positive (+) (DS 4, 5). Patients with iPET1 DS 3-5 underwent iPET2. RESULTS: About 106 early (I-IIA) and 204 advanced (IIB-IV) patients were enrolled between January 2008 and October 2014. iPET1 was (-) in 87/106 (82%) or (+) in 19/106 (18%) of early, and (-) in 133/204 (65%) or (+) in 71/204 (35%) of advanced stage patients, respectively. Twenty-four patients were excluded from response analysis due to treatment escalation. After a median follow-up of 38.2 (3.2-90.2) months, 9/102 (9%) early and 43/184 (23%) advanced patients experienced a progression-free survival event. At 36 months, negative and positive predictive value for iPET1 were 94% and 41% (early) and 84% and 43% (advanced), respectively. The kinetics of PET response was assessed in 198 patients with both iPETs. All 116 patients with iPET1(-) remained iPET2(-) (fast responders), 41/82 with IPET1(+) became iPET2(-) (slow responders), and the remaining 41 stayed iPET2(+) (non-responders); progression-free survival at 36 months for fast, slow and non-responders was 0.88, 0.79 and 0.34, respectively. CONCLUSION: The optimal tool to predict ABVD outcome in HL remains iPET2 because it distinguishes responders, whatever their time to response, from non-responders. However, iPET1 identified fast responders with the best outcome and might guide early treatment de-escalation in both early and advanced-stage HL.

Efficacy and safety of lenalidomide treatment in multiple myeloma (MM) patients--Report of the Polish Myeloma Group.

UNLABELLED: The aim of the multi-centre retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide (LEN) therapy in patients with resistant or relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) as well as in patients with stable disease (LEN used due to neurological complications). The primary endpoint of this study was an overall response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints were as follows: time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and the safety of drug use. Data were collected in 19 centres of the Polish Multiple Myeloma Study Group. The study group consisted of 306 subjects: 153 females and 153 males. In 115 patients (38.8%, group A), a resistant myeloma was diagnosed; in 135 (44.1%, group B) a relapse, and in 56 (18.3%, group C) a stable disease were stated. In 92.8% of patients, LEN+DEX combination was used; in remaining group, LEN monotherapy or a combination therapy LEN+bortezomib or LEN+bendamustine and other were used. In the entire study group, ORR was 75.5% (including 12.4% patients achieving complete remission [CR] or stringent CR [sCR]). Median time to progression (TTP) was 20 months. Median overall survival (OS) was 33.3 months. The regression model for "treatment response" was on the borderline of statistical significance (p=0.07), however the number of LEN treatment cycles ≥ 6 (R(2)=17.2%), baseline LDH level (R(2)=1.1%) and no ASCT use (R(2)=1.7%) where the factors most affecting treatment response achievement. The regression model for dependant variable--"overall survival"--was statistically significant (p=0.0000004). Factors with the most impact on OS were as follows: number of LEN cycles treatment ≥ 6 (R(2)=16.7%), treatment response achievement (R(2)=6.9%), ß-2-microglobulin (ß-2-M) level (R(2)=4.8%), renal function (R(2)=3.0%) and lack of 3/4 grade adverse events (R(2)=1.4%). SUMMARY: LEN is an effective and safe therapeutic option, even in intensively treated resistant and relapsed MM patients, as well as in patients with stable disease and previous treatment-induced neurological complications. In particular, the number of LEN treatment cycles ≥ 6 was the factor which affected treatment response achievement the most, together with an important impact on OS.