No protection of the ovarian follicle pool with the use of GnRH-analogues or oral contraceptives in young women treated with escalated BEACOPP for advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Final results of a phase II trial from the German Hodgkin Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The reduction of treatment-related toxic effects is the main goal in the current trials of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG). In this regard, the protection of the ovarian reserve in young women is very important. Therefore, the GHSG investigated the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone-analogues (GnRH-a) and oral contraceptives (OC) in young women with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women (18-40 years) were randomly assigned either to receive daily OC or monthly GnRH-a during escalated combination therapy with bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPPesc). Hormonal levels were determined at baseline, during therapy, and at follow-up. RESULTS: The study was closed prematurely after an interim analysis of 12 patients in arm A (OC) and 11 in arm B (GnRH-a), 9 and 10 are assessable for the primary end point. Women's median age was 25 years in both arms. The anti-Mullerian hormone level after at least 12 months was reduced in all patients. For the entire study cohort, the respective ovarian follicle preservation rate was 0% (95% confidence interval 0% to 12%). CONCLUSION: We observed no protection of the ovarian reserve with hormonal co-treatment during BEACOPPesc. This result supports efforts of ongoing trials to reduce chemotherapy intensity and toxicity. Alternative strategies for the protection of fertility must be offered to young female HL patients before the start of BEACOPPesc therapy.

Second malignancy risk associated with treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma: meta-analysis of the randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite several investigations, second malignancy risks (SMR) following radiotherapy alone (RT), chemotherapy alone (CT) and combined chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) remain controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We sought individual patient data from randomised trials comparing RT versus CRT, CT versus CRT, RT versus CT or involved-field (IF) versus extended-field (EF) RT for untreated HL. Overall SMR (including effects of salvage treatment) were compared using Peto's method. RESULTS: Data for between 53% and 69% of patients were obtained for the four comparisons. (i) RT versus CRT (15 trials, 3343 patients): SMR were lower with CRT than with RT as initial treatment (odds ratio (OR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62-0.98 and P = 0.03). (ii) CT versus CRT (16 trials, 2861 patients): SMR were marginally higher with CRT than with CT as initial treatment (OR = 1.38, CI 1.00-1.89 and P = 0.05). (iii) IF-RT versus EF-RT (19 trials, 3221 patients): no significant difference in SMR (P = 0.28) although more breast cancers occurred with EF-RT (P = 0.04 and OR = 3.25). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of CT in addition to RT as initial therapy for HL decreases overall SMR by reducing relapse and need for salvage therapy. Administration of RT additional to CT marginally increases overall SMR in advanced stages. Breast cancer risk (but not SMR in general) was substantially higher after EF-RT. Caution is needed in applying these findings to current therapies.

Chemotherapy, radiotherapy and combined modality for Hodgkin's disease, with emphasis on second cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Second malignancies (SM) are a major late effect of treatment for Hodgkin's disease (HD). Reliable comparisons of SM risk between alternative treatment strategies are lacking. OBJECTIVES: Radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT) and combined chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) for newly-diagnosed Hodgkin's disease are compared with respect to SM risk, overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival. Further, involved-field (IF-)RT is compared to extended-field (EF-)RT. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed, EMBASE, CancerLit, LILACS, relevant conference proceedings, trials lists and publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs accruing 30+ patients and completing accrual before/during 2000, comparing at least two treatment modalities for newly-diagnosed HD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Individual patient data were collected and assessed for data quality. Trialists submitted additional information concerning methods and data quality. Peto Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for OS, PFS and SM-free survival. Secondary acute leukemia (AL), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and solid tumours (ST) were also analysed separately. MAIN RESULTS: 37 trials (9312 patients) were analysed: 15 (3343) for RT vs. CRT, 16 (2861) for CT vs. CRT, 3 (415) for RT vs. CT and 10 (3221) for IF-RT vs. EF-RT.CRT was superior to RT in terms of OS (OR=0.76, CI=0.66 to 0.89, p=0.0004), PFS (OR=0.49, CI=0.43 to 0.56, p<0.0001) and SM (OR=0.78. CI=0.62 to 0.98, p=0.03). The superiority of CRT also applied to early and advanced stages (mainly IIIA) separately. Excess SM with RT is due mainly to ST and is apparently caused by greater need for salvage therapy after RT.CRT was superior to CT in terms of PFS (OR=77, CI 0.68 to 0.77, p<0.0001). OS was better with CRT for early stages only (OR=0.62, CI 0.44 to 0.88, p=0.006). SM risk was higher with CRT (OR=1.38, CI 1.00 to 1.89, p=0.05), although not significant for early stages alone. This effect, also seen in AL and ST separately, was due directly to first-line treatment. Data were insufficient to compare RT to CT.EF-RT was superior to IF-RT (each additional to CT in most trials) in terms of PFS (OR=81, CI 0.68 to 0.95, p=0.009) but not OS. No significant difference in SM was observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CRT seems to be optimal for most early stage (I-II) HD patients. For advanced stages (III-IV), CRT better prevents progression/relapse but CT alone seems to cause less SM. RT alone gives a higher overall SM risk than CRT due to increased need for salvage therapy. Reduced SM risk after IF-RT instead of EF-RT could not be demonstrated. Due to the large number of studies excluded because no IPD were received, to the inclusion of many outdated treatments and to the limited amount of long-term data, one must be cautious in applying these results to current therapies.