Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is associated with excellent outcomes with standard frontline chemotherapy or combined modality therapy. However, up to 25% of patients will have relapsed or primary refractory (RR) cHL. Improving the cure rate with frontline treatment, treatment-related complications and late effects, and poor therapy tolerance with high relapse rates in older patients are unmet needs in the initial management of cHL. The introduction of novel therapies, including the CD30-directed antibody drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin and PD-1 blockade (ie, pembrolizumab or nivolumab), has transformed the treatment of RR cHL and has the potential to address these unmet needs in the frontline setting. Incorporation of these potent, targeted immunotherapies into frontline therapy may improve outcomes, may allow for de-escalation of therapy without sacrificing efficacy to reduce treatment complications, and may allow for well-tolerated and targeted escalation of therapy for patients demonstrating an insufficient response. In this article, we provide a case-based approach to the use of novel agents in the frontline treatment of cHL.

Learning Objectives

  • Review the frontline treatment options with a focus on more recent studies incorporating brentuximab vedotin (BV) and PD-1 blockade

  • Review the use of frontline BV and anti–PD-1 antibodies in managing older patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma

The frontline treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is determined according to stage and prognostic factors. In early-stage cHL, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) with radiotherapy or positron emission tomography (PET)–adapted chemotherapy yields long-term progression-free survival (PFS) of 85% to 95%,13  depending on disease bulk and other risk factors. In patients with advanced-stage cHL, PET-adapted approaches starting with ABVD or escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP) are associated with 75% to 90% long-term PFS.46  Standard therapy may result in acute and long-term toxicities such as bleomycin pulmonary toxicity (BPT), infertility (particularly with BEACOPP), secondary malignancies, and cardiovascular disease. Targeted, well-tolerated, and highly effective novel therapies may provide an opportunity to refine frontline therapy approaches, either improving or maintaining efficacy while potentially reducing toxicity.

Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an ADC linking a CD30- targeting antibody with the potent microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin E. BV was initially approved in patients with relapsed or primary refractory (RR) cHL who progressed after autologous stem cell transplantation with an overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate of 75% and 33%, respectively, and a median PFS of 9.3 months.7  Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are anti–PD-1 antibodies that block interactions with PD-L1 and PD-L2 ligands, overexpressed in Hodgkin/Reed-Sternberg cells due to genetic alterations at chromosome 9p24.1.8  Exploiting this genetic sensitivity, pembrolizumab and nivolumab produce an ORR of 69% to 72% and a CR rate of 16% to 28% in patients with RR cHL who failed prior autologous stem cell transplantation and/or prior BV with a median duration of response of ~16 months.912  After their approval in RR cHL, the anti–PD-1 antibodies and BV were studied in earlier lines of therapy, including salvage treatment and ultimately frontline treatment.

Here, we review the data evaluating BV and PD-1 blockade in the frontline setting and discuss their current and possible future roles in early-stage and advanced-stage cHL.

A 24-year-old asymptomatic man presents with a supraclavicular mass, and excisional biopsy specimen reveals nodular sclerosing cHL. PET/computed tomography demonstrates an FDG-avid 1.9-cm right cervical lymphadenopathy (standardized uptake value [SUV] max 12.6), right supraclavicular lymphadenopathy measuring 2.3 cm (SUV max 12.7), left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy measuring 1.2 cm (SUV max 6.7), and a 4-cm mediastinal mass (SUV max 10.0). Laboratory values were as follows: white blood cells, 8.03; absolute neutrophil count, 5.99; hemoglobin, 14.4; platelets, 254; and ESR, 60.

Combined-modality treatment

Conventional treatment of early-stage cHL has historically comprised combination chemotherapy and radiation, with duration of chemotherapy and dose of radiotherapy based on the presence of clinical risk factors that denote favorable or unfavorable disease (Table 1). The HD10 established ABVD  ×  2 followed by 20 Gy of involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT) as the standard combined-modality treatment (CMT) for early-stage favorable cHL.13  HD11 established ABVD  ×  4 followed by 30 Gy IFRT as standard CMT for early-stage unfavorable cHL, with HD14 demonstrating in comparison superior PFS but comparable overall survival (OS) with escalated (esc)BEACOPP  ×  4 followed by 30 Gy IFRT.14,15 

Table 1.

Selected clinical trials in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma without the use of novel agents

TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
Combined-modality treatment 
HD1013  1370 Favorable, stage I or II 38.8 1. ABVD  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT
2. ABVD  ×  4  +  20 Gy IFRT
3. ABVD  ×  2  +  30 Gy IFRT
4. ABVD  ×  2  +  20 Gy IFRT 
7.5 CR rates
1. 96.3%
2. 96.6%
3. 97.3%
4. 96.3% 
8-year PFS
1. 88.4%
2. 90.0%
3. 85.4%
4. 86.5% 
8-year OS
1. 94.4%
2. 94.7%
3. 93.6%
4. 95.1% 
HD1114  1395 Unfavorable, stages IA, IB IIA, IIB 33 1. ABVD  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT
2. ABVD  ×  4  +  20 Gy IFRT
3. BEACOPPbaseline  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT
4. BEACOPPbaseline ×  4  +  20 Gy IFRT 
7.6 CR rates
Overall 94.1%
1. 94.7%
2. 92.8%
3. 94.4%
4. 94.6%
 
5-year PFS
1. 87.2%
2. 82.1%
3. 87.9%
4. 87% 
5-year OS
1. 94.3%
2. 93.8%
3. 94.6%
4. 95.1% 
HD1415  1528 Unfavorable, stages IA, IB, IIA, IIB 32 1. ABVD  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT
2. escBEACOPP  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT 
3.6 CR rates
Overall 95.4% 
5-year PFS
1. 89.1%
2. 95.4% 
5-year OS
Overall 97.0%
1. 96.8%
2. 97.2% 
PET-adapted treatment 
RAPID1  602 Stage IA or IIA, nonbulky 34 ABVD  ×  3 → PET
If PET–, then
1. IFRT or
2. No further treatment
If PET+, then
3. ABVD  ×  1  +  30 Gy IFRT 
 3-year PFS
1. 94.6%
2. 90.8%
3. 87.6%
 
3-year OS
1. 97.1%
2. 99.0%
3. 87.6% 
CALGB 506043  164 Stage I or II, favorable or unfavorable, nonbulky only 31 ABVD  ×  2 → PET
1. If PET–, then ABVD  ×  2
2. If PET+, then escBEACOPP×  2 + IFRT 
3.8 EOT CR rate
1. 97%
2. 85% 
3-year PFS PET– DS 1-3
Overall 89%
1. 91%
2. 66%
PET– DS 1-2
Overall 94% 
 
EORTC H102  1950 Stage I or II, favorable or unfavorable 30 Favorable
1. ABVD  ×  2 → ABVD  ×  1 + INRT
or
ABVD  ×  2 → PET
2. If PET–, then ABVD  ×  2
3. If PET+, then escBEACOPP  ×  2 + INRT
Unfavorable
4. ABVD  ×  2 → ABVD  ×  2 + INRT
or
ABVD  ×  2 → PET
5. If PET–, then ABVD  ×  4
6. If PET+, then escBEACOPP  ×  2 + INRT 
4.5  PET+
Favorable and unfavorable
Group 1 or 4: 5-year PFS 77.4%
Group 3 or 6: 5-year PFS 90.6%
PET–
Favorable
Group 1: 5-year PFS 99.0%
Group 2: 5-year PFS 87.1%
Unfavorable
Group 4: 5-year PFS 92.1%
Group 5: 5-year PFS 89.6% 
PET+
Favorable and unfavorable
Group 1 or 4: 5-year OS 89.3%
Group 3 or 6: 5-year OS 96.0%
PET–
Favorable
Group 1: 5-year OS 100%
Group 2: 5-year OS 99.6%
Unfavorable
Group 4: 5-year OS 96.7%
Group 5: 5-year OS 98.3% 
CALGB 5080148  94 Stage IA-IIB, bulky only 30 ABVD  ×  2 → pET
1. PET–, then ABVD  ×  4
2. PET+, then escBEACOPP×  4  +  30 Gy ISRT 
5.5  3-year PFS
1. 89.7%
2. 92.3% 
3-year OS
1. 94.4%
2. 97.7% 
RATHL24  1203 Stage IIB to IV or IIA with adverse features 33 ABVD  ×  2 → PET
If PET–, then
1. ABVD  ×  4 or
2. AVD  ×  4
If PET+, then
3. BEACOPP  ×  4 
3.4  3-year PFS
1. 85.7%
2. 84.4%
3. 67.5% 
3-year OS
1. 97.2%
2. 97.6%
3. 87.8% 
TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
Combined-modality treatment 
HD1013  1370 Favorable, stage I or II 38.8 1. ABVD  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT
2. ABVD  ×  4  +  20 Gy IFRT
3. ABVD  ×  2  +  30 Gy IFRT
4. ABVD  ×  2  +  20 Gy IFRT 
7.5 CR rates
1. 96.3%
2. 96.6%
3. 97.3%
4. 96.3% 
8-year PFS
1. 88.4%
2. 90.0%
3. 85.4%
4. 86.5% 
8-year OS
1. 94.4%
2. 94.7%
3. 93.6%
4. 95.1% 
HD1114  1395 Unfavorable, stages IA, IB IIA, IIB 33 1. ABVD  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT
2. ABVD  ×  4  +  20 Gy IFRT
3. BEACOPPbaseline  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT
4. BEACOPPbaseline ×  4  +  20 Gy IFRT 
7.6 CR rates
Overall 94.1%
1. 94.7%
2. 92.8%
3. 94.4%
4. 94.6%
 
5-year PFS
1. 87.2%
2. 82.1%
3. 87.9%
4. 87% 
5-year OS
1. 94.3%
2. 93.8%
3. 94.6%
4. 95.1% 
HD1415  1528 Unfavorable, stages IA, IB, IIA, IIB 32 1. ABVD  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT
2. escBEACOPP  ×  4  +  30 Gy IFRT 
3.6 CR rates
Overall 95.4% 
5-year PFS
1. 89.1%
2. 95.4% 
5-year OS
Overall 97.0%
1. 96.8%
2. 97.2% 
PET-adapted treatment 
RAPID1  602 Stage IA or IIA, nonbulky 34 ABVD  ×  3 → PET
If PET–, then
1. IFRT or
2. No further treatment
If PET+, then
3. ABVD  ×  1  +  30 Gy IFRT 
 3-year PFS
1. 94.6%
2. 90.8%
3. 87.6%
 
3-year OS
1. 97.1%
2. 99.0%
3. 87.6% 
CALGB 506043  164 Stage I or II, favorable or unfavorable, nonbulky only 31 ABVD  ×  2 → PET
1. If PET–, then ABVD  ×  2
2. If PET+, then escBEACOPP×  2 + IFRT 
3.8 EOT CR rate
1. 97%
2. 85% 
3-year PFS PET– DS 1-3
Overall 89%
1. 91%
2. 66%
PET– DS 1-2
Overall 94% 
 
EORTC H102  1950 Stage I or II, favorable or unfavorable 30 Favorable
1. ABVD  ×  2 → ABVD  ×  1 + INRT
or
ABVD  ×  2 → PET
2. If PET–, then ABVD  ×  2
3. If PET+, then escBEACOPP  ×  2 + INRT
Unfavorable
4. ABVD  ×  2 → ABVD  ×  2 + INRT
or
ABVD  ×  2 → PET
5. If PET–, then ABVD  ×  4
6. If PET+, then escBEACOPP  ×  2 + INRT 
4.5  PET+
Favorable and unfavorable
Group 1 or 4: 5-year PFS 77.4%
Group 3 or 6: 5-year PFS 90.6%
PET–
Favorable
Group 1: 5-year PFS 99.0%
Group 2: 5-year PFS 87.1%
Unfavorable
Group 4: 5-year PFS 92.1%
Group 5: 5-year PFS 89.6% 
PET+
Favorable and unfavorable
Group 1 or 4: 5-year OS 89.3%
Group 3 or 6: 5-year OS 96.0%
PET–
Favorable
Group 1: 5-year OS 100%
Group 2: 5-year OS 99.6%
Unfavorable
Group 4: 5-year OS 96.7%
Group 5: 5-year OS 98.3% 
CALGB 5080148  94 Stage IA-IIB, bulky only 30 ABVD  ×  2 → pET
1. PET–, then ABVD  ×  4
2. PET+, then escBEACOPP×  4  +  30 Gy ISRT 
5.5  3-year PFS
1. 89.7%
2. 92.3% 
3-year OS
1. 94.4%
2. 97.7% 
RATHL24  1203 Stage IIB to IV or IIA with adverse features 33 ABVD  ×  2 → PET
If PET–, then
1. ABVD  ×  4 or
2. AVD  ×  4
If PET+, then
3. BEACOPP  ×  4 
3.4  3-year PFS
1. 85.7%
2. 84.4%
3. 67.5% 
3-year OS
1. 97.2%
2. 97.6%
3. 87.8% 

INRT, involved node radiotherapy; pET, positron emission tomography.

PET-adapted therapy

PET-adapted therapy of early-stage cHL uses interim PET (iPET) results to omit radiation and/or shorten the duration of chemotherapy in PET-negative patients or escalate therapy in PET- positive patients (Table 1). In patients with early-stage nonbulky cHL, the RAPID study assessed the noninferiority of chemotherapy alone vs CMT among patients with a negative iPET scan.1  While ABVD  ×  3 alone in PET-negative patients resulted in 3-year PFS of 91%, noninferiority to CMT was not established, particularly in patients with tumors larger than 5 cm.1,16  CALGB 50604 also studied a PET-adapted approach in early-stage nonbulky patients using iPET Deauville score (DS) 1 to 3 as negative—after ABVD  ×  2, an additional ABVD  ×  2 resulted in an overall 3-year PFS of 89%, and 3-year PFS of 91% in PET after 2 cycles (PET2)-negative patients while escalating to escBEACOPP in PET2-positive patients resulted in a 3-year PFS of 66%.3  Notably, patients with iPET DS 1 to 2 had a 3-year event-free survival of 94%, while iPET DS 3 patients had a 3-year event-free survival of 77%, raising the question of whether a shorter course of ABVD was appropriate for iPET DS 3 patients, although the number of patients in that subgroup was small.3  In separate cohorts for early-stage favorable and unfavorable cHL, the H10 study evaluated a response-adapted strategy after ABVD  ×  2, comparing 1 to 2 additional cycles of ABVD followed by involved node radiotherapy based on risk in the control arm compared with 2 to 4 additional cycles of ABVD without radiation depending on risk in the experimental arm. PET2-positive patients received escBEACOPP  ×  2 followed by radiation. The study demonstrated that CMT improved 5-year PFS by 12% in favorable-risk patients and 3% in unfavorable-risk patients. For PET-positive patients, intensified therapy improved 5-year PFS by 13%.2  In early-stage bulky patients, the CALGB 50801 study demonstrated excellent outcomes with omitting radiation in 78% of patients who were iPET negative (ABVD  ×  6 total), and in iPET-positive patients (escalation to BEACOPP with consolidative radiation), outcomes were also excellent (3-year PFS 93.1% in PET negative, 89.7% in PET positive).17 

These randomized trials have demonstrated a small but consistent detriment in PFS when radiation is omitted for iPET- negative patients and a benefit in PFS with escalation of therapy for iPET-positive patients. Despite the failure of RAPID and H10 studies to show noninferiority in PFS with PET-adapted omission of radiotherapy compared with CMT, there was no survival difference between PET-adapted approaches and CMT. Treatment selection for early-stage cHL should entail a balanced discussion with the patient of the potential late effects of radiation (secondary malignancies, cardiovascular/pulmonary complications) with the risks of PET-adapted radiotherapy omission (inferior disease control). In certain scenarios, the authors favor PET-adapted chemotherapy approaches (young, female patients with mediastinal/axillary involvement, 3+ areas of lymph node areas of involvement), but there are other patients in whom a CMT approach may be favored (eg, male patients with a single, peripheral site of involvement).

Using novel agents in frontline early-stage cHL

Studies incorporating BV into treatment of early-stage cHL have shown promising efficacy despite the omission of radiation (Table 2). A multicenter phase 2 study evaluating BV - AVD (doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) in stage I/II, nonbulky, favorable or unfavorable cHL that used a PET-adapted approach of BV - AVD for 4 cycles in PET2-negative patients and 6 cycles in PET2- positive patients demonstrated 3-year PFS of 94% and OS of 97%.18  Another multicenter study evaluated the role of consolidative radiation after BV - AVD in early-stage unfavorable cHL, with the majority of enrolled patients having bulky disease (defined as >7 cm). Patients received BV-AVD  ×  4 cycles followed by either 30 Gy or 20 Gy involved-site radiotherapy, consolidation- volume radiotherapy, or no radiotherapy. Across the cohorts, the overall 2-year PFS and OS rates were 94% and 99%, respectively, with a 2-year PFS of 97% in the cohort of patients who received BV-AVD  ×  4 without radiation.19  A multicenter phase 2 study evaluated BV as consolidation after frontline ABVD for nonbulky, early- stage favorable and unfavorable cHL, stratifying patients to 3 arms with varying duration of ABVD based on risk and iPET followed by 6 cycles of BV consolidation, resulting in a 3-year PFS of 92% and 3-year OS of 97%.20  In all of these studies, the incorporation of BV into frontline therapy of early-stage cHL was generally well tolerated, with higher rates of peripheral neuropathy observed and more febrile neutropenia/sepsis observed when BV was combined with AVD.

Table 2.

Selected clinical trials in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma using novel agents

TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
BV - AVD18  34 Stage I/II, favorable and unfavorable, nonbulky only 36 BV - AVD × 2 → PET
1. If PET–, then BV - AVD × 2 (total 4)
2. If PET+, then BV - AVD × 4 (total 6) 
3.2 ORR and CR at EOT 91.2% 3-year PFS 94% 3-year OS 97% 
ABVD followed by BV consolidation20  41 Stage I/II, favorable and unfavorable non-bulky only 29 ABVD × 2 → PET
3. If favorable and PET–, then BV consolidation
4. If favorable and PET+ or unfavorable and PET–, then ABVD × 2 + BV consolidation
5. If unfavorable and PET+, then ABVD × 4 + BV consolidation 
3.9 CR rate 95% 3-year PFS 92% 3-year OS 97% 
BV - AVD19  117 Stage I/II, unfavorable only 32 BV-AVD × 4 → PET
If PET–, then
1. 30 Gy ISRT
2. 20 Gy ISRT
3. 30 consolidation volume radiotherapy
4. No radiotherapy 
3.8 EOT CR rates for 4 cohorts
1. 93%
2. 100%
3. 93%
4. 97% 
Overall 2-year PFS 94%
2-year PFS for 4 cohorts
1. 93.1%
2. 97%
3. 90%
4. 97%
 
Overall 2-year OS 99.1%
 
NIVAHL21  109 Stage I/II, unfavorable only 27 1. Nivo-AVD × 4 + 30 Gy ISRT
2. Sequential therapy: nivo × 4 doses → nivo-AVD × 2 → AVD × 2 + 30 Gy ISRT 
1.2 in group 1 and 1.1 group 2 Group 1: ORR 100%, CR 83%
Group 2: ORR 98%, CR 84% 
12-month PFS:
Group 1: 100%
Group 2: 98% 
12-month OS 100% in both groups 
Sequential pembrolizumab and AVD22  30 Stage I/II unfavorable only, stage III/IV 29 Pembro × 3 → AVD × 4-6 (4 cycles for early stage, 6 cycles for advanced stage or early-stage bulky) 1.9 CMR after pembro 37%, CMR after AVD 100%, EOT CMR 100% Median PFS not reached, 2-year PFS 100% Median OS not reached, 2-year OS 100% 
Pembrolizumab and AVD23  30 Stages I, II, III, IV 32 Pembro + AVD (2-6 cycles) 0.86 68% PET2–, 78% EOT PET– 1-year PFS 96% 1-year OS 100% 
TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
BV - AVD18  34 Stage I/II, favorable and unfavorable, nonbulky only 36 BV - AVD × 2 → PET
1. If PET–, then BV - AVD × 2 (total 4)
2. If PET+, then BV - AVD × 4 (total 6) 
3.2 ORR and CR at EOT 91.2% 3-year PFS 94% 3-year OS 97% 
ABVD followed by BV consolidation20  41 Stage I/II, favorable and unfavorable non-bulky only 29 ABVD × 2 → PET
3. If favorable and PET–, then BV consolidation
4. If favorable and PET+ or unfavorable and PET–, then ABVD × 2 + BV consolidation
5. If unfavorable and PET+, then ABVD × 4 + BV consolidation 
3.9 CR rate 95% 3-year PFS 92% 3-year OS 97% 
BV - AVD19  117 Stage I/II, unfavorable only 32 BV-AVD × 4 → PET
If PET–, then
1. 30 Gy ISRT
2. 20 Gy ISRT
3. 30 consolidation volume radiotherapy
4. No radiotherapy 
3.8 EOT CR rates for 4 cohorts
1. 93%
2. 100%
3. 93%
4. 97% 
Overall 2-year PFS 94%
2-year PFS for 4 cohorts
1. 93.1%
2. 97%
3. 90%
4. 97%
 
Overall 2-year OS 99.1%
 
NIVAHL21  109 Stage I/II, unfavorable only 27 1. Nivo-AVD × 4 + 30 Gy ISRT
2. Sequential therapy: nivo × 4 doses → nivo-AVD × 2 → AVD × 2 + 30 Gy ISRT 
1.2 in group 1 and 1.1 group 2 Group 1: ORR 100%, CR 83%
Group 2: ORR 98%, CR 84% 
12-month PFS:
Group 1: 100%
Group 2: 98% 
12-month OS 100% in both groups 
Sequential pembrolizumab and AVD22  30 Stage I/II unfavorable only, stage III/IV 29 Pembro × 3 → AVD × 4-6 (4 cycles for early stage, 6 cycles for advanced stage or early-stage bulky) 1.9 CMR after pembro 37%, CMR after AVD 100%, EOT CMR 100% Median PFS not reached, 2-year PFS 100% Median OS not reached, 2-year OS 100% 
Pembrolizumab and AVD23  30 Stages I, II, III, IV 32 Pembro + AVD (2-6 cycles) 0.86 68% PET2–, 78% EOT PET– 1-year PFS 96% 1-year OS 100% 

CMR, complete metabolic response.

PD-1 blockade has also been studied in the frontline setting for early-stage cHL either sequentially or concurrently with chemotherapy (Table 2). In early-stage unfavorable cHL patients, the phase 2 randomized NIVAHL trial of 109 patients compared 4 cycles of concomitant nivolumab (N) and AVD to sequential treatment with 4 doses of nivolumab, 2 cycles of N-AVD, and 2 cycles of AVD followed by a 30-Gy involved-site radiotherapy in both groups. The CR rate at end of treatment (EOT) was 90% in the concomitant arm and 94% in the sequential therapy arm, with a 12-month PFS of 100% for patients receiving concomitant treatment and 98% for patients receiving sequential therapy.21  Another phase 2 study of 30 patients evaluated frontline sequential pembrolizumab monotherapy for 3 cycles followed by AVD 4 to 6 cycles in both early-stage unfavorable and advanced-stage cHL. In the early-stage unfavorable patients (n  =  12), the CR rate after 3 cycles of pembrolizumab was 42%, and with a median follow-up of 22.5 months, the median PFS and OS were not reached (2-year PFS and OS 100%).22  Another ongoing 30-patient study is evaluating concurrent pembrolizumab with AVD treatment in untreated cHL of any stage that has included 40% early-stage patients. With a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 1-year PFS and OS were 96% and 100%, but outcomes in the early-stage group have not yet been reported separately.23 

There are several ongoing studies, including large randomized phase 3 trials, evaluating the incorporation of BV and/or PD-1 blockade into frontline treatment of early-stage cHL (Table 3). While the results of smaller phase 2 studies have been promising thus far, these randomized studies will determine whether novel agents can improve outcomes in early-stage cHL or allow for the safe omission of radiation therapy. Currently, in the absence of randomized evidence, PET-adapted chemotherapy or CMT remains the standard treatment approach for early-stage cHL.

Table 3.

Ongoing trials with novel agents in early-stage and advanced-stage cHL

TrialClinical trials.gov identifierClinical disease featuresTherapy received/arms of treatmentPhaseAnticipated enrollment
Brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab in treating patients with early-stage cHL NCT03712202
 
Early stage (favorable, unfavorable, bulky, nonbulky) ABVD × 2 → PET–
1. ABVD × 2→ nivo × 6
or
2. BV × nivo × 6
PET+
3. BV-AVD × 4 → nivo × 6
*Bulky patients all randomized to arm 1 
264 
Brentuximab vedotin in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (RADAR) NCT04685616
 
Early stage (favorable, unfavorable, bulky, nonbulky) 1. ABVD ± ISRT
ABVD × 2 → PET
DS 1-3 ABVD × 2
DS 4 ABVD × 2 + ISRT
DS 5 withdraw
2. BV-AVD ± ISRT
BV-AVD × 2 → PET
DS 1-3 BV-AVD × 1
DS 4 BV-AVD × 2 + ISRT
DS 5 withdraw
 
1042 
BV-AVD + nivolumab in stage I/II cHL NCT03233347
 
Early stage (favorable, unfavorable, nonbulky) BV-AVD × 3 → PET
1. If PET+, → BV + nivo × 4 →
If PET+, → nivo × 8
2. If PET–, → nivo × 8 
82 
Avelumab + ABVD in advanced-stage cHL (AVENuE)50  NCT03617666
 
High risk stage II, stage II, stage IV cHL Avelumab × 4 → ABVD × 2 → PET
PET+, → escBEACOPP × 4
PET–, → AVD × 4 
49 
Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in advanced-stage cHL (KEYNOTE-C11) NCT05008224
 
Unfavorable risk stage I/II, stage III, or stage IV Pembro × 3 → AVD × 2 → PET
1. PET–, → AVD × 4 → pembro × 4
2. PET + → escBEACOPP × 4 → pembro × 4 
140 
Immunotherapy (nivolumab or BV) plus chemotherapy (S1826)35  NCT03907488
 
Stage III or IV cHL 1. Nivolumab + AVD × 6 (with interim PET2)
2. BV-AVD × 6 (with interim PET2) 
987 
Brentuximab vedotin, nivolumab, doxorubicin, and dacarbazne (AN + AD) for advanced-stage cHL (SGN35-027 Part B)50  NCT03646123
 
Bulky stage I/II, stage III, or stage IV (BV + nivolumab + doxorubicin + dacarbazine) × 6 240 
TrialClinical trials.gov identifierClinical disease featuresTherapy received/arms of treatmentPhaseAnticipated enrollment
Brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab in treating patients with early-stage cHL NCT03712202
 
Early stage (favorable, unfavorable, bulky, nonbulky) ABVD × 2 → PET–
1. ABVD × 2→ nivo × 6
or
2. BV × nivo × 6
PET+
3. BV-AVD × 4 → nivo × 6
*Bulky patients all randomized to arm 1 
264 
Brentuximab vedotin in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (RADAR) NCT04685616
 
Early stage (favorable, unfavorable, bulky, nonbulky) 1. ABVD ± ISRT
ABVD × 2 → PET
DS 1-3 ABVD × 2
DS 4 ABVD × 2 + ISRT
DS 5 withdraw
2. BV-AVD ± ISRT
BV-AVD × 2 → PET
DS 1-3 BV-AVD × 1
DS 4 BV-AVD × 2 + ISRT
DS 5 withdraw
 
1042 
BV-AVD + nivolumab in stage I/II cHL NCT03233347
 
Early stage (favorable, unfavorable, nonbulky) BV-AVD × 3 → PET
1. If PET+, → BV + nivo × 4 →
If PET+, → nivo × 8
2. If PET–, → nivo × 8 
82 
Avelumab + ABVD in advanced-stage cHL (AVENuE)50  NCT03617666
 
High risk stage II, stage II, stage IV cHL Avelumab × 4 → ABVD × 2 → PET
PET+, → escBEACOPP × 4
PET–, → AVD × 4 
49 
Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in advanced-stage cHL (KEYNOTE-C11) NCT05008224
 
Unfavorable risk stage I/II, stage III, or stage IV Pembro × 3 → AVD × 2 → PET
1. PET–, → AVD × 4 → pembro × 4
2. PET + → escBEACOPP × 4 → pembro × 4 
140 
Immunotherapy (nivolumab or BV) plus chemotherapy (S1826)35  NCT03907488
 
Stage III or IV cHL 1. Nivolumab + AVD × 6 (with interim PET2)
2. BV-AVD × 6 (with interim PET2) 
987 
Brentuximab vedotin, nivolumab, doxorubicin, and dacarbazne (AN + AD) for advanced-stage cHL (SGN35-027 Part B)50  NCT03646123
 
Bulky stage I/II, stage III, or stage IV (BV + nivolumab + doxorubicin + dacarbazine) × 6 240 

This patient with newly diagnosed unfavorable stage IIA cHL was treated with 4 cycles of ABVD (PET2 was negative) based on the CALGB 50604 study given nonbulky disease and the patient's desire to avoid radiation. He achieved CR at EOT.

A 28-year-old man presents with new-onset chest pain, pruritus, and diffuse lymphadenopathy with ultrasound-guided biopsy of the left supraclavicular lymph node consistent with cHL. PET/computed tomography showed a 11.8-cm superior mediastinal mass (SUV 15.5), an 8-cm right pulmonary mass (SUV 14.3), a 2.3  ×  1.4-cm left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy (SUV 12.5), and a 1.1  ×  0.8-cm left retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (SUV 13.1). Laboratory values were as follows: white blood cells, 18; hemoglobin, 9; platelets, 150; albumin, 2.0; and ESR, 40.

Frontline advanced-stage cHL management without novel agents

Standard-of-care frontline treatment for advanced-stage cHL in North America for over 20 years has been a full course of ABVD-based therapy for 6 cycles. The RATHL study evaluated dropping bleomycin after 2 cycles using a PET-adapted approach, with the aim of reducing the cumulative bleomycin dose and minimizing the risk of BPT. Omitting bleomycin after 2 cycles (AVD) in PET2-negative patients was noninferior to ABVD  ×  6, with a 3-year PFS of 84.4% vs 85.7%, respectively, and a 3-year OS of 97.6% vs 97.2%, respectively, with fewer respiratory adverse events observed in the AVD arm, thus validating PET-adapted A(B)VD as the standard frontline treatment approach for advanced-stage cHL.24  The PET-adapted SWOG S0816 established the role of escalating therapy from ABVD to escBEACOPP for PET2- positive patients with a 5-year PFS of 66%.25  EscBEACOPP is a more intensive regimen primarily used in Europe that is associated with superior disease control in advanced-stage cHL.26  However, BEACOPP is associated with more toxicity, including myelosuppression, increased risk of secondary malignancies, infertility, and prolonged fatigue, among other adverse effects.26  Given the excess toxicities associated with escBEACOPP, 2 studies established the feasibility of de-escalating escBEACOPP therapy for early responders based on iPET2 either to reduced number of cycles in the HD18 study (5-year PFS of 90.8% vs 92.2% in standard and reduced-cycle arms, respectively)27  or to ABVD in the AHL2011 trial (5-year PFS of 86.2% vs 85.7% in standard and de-escalation arms, respectively).28  Despite improved disease control, BEACOPP is not associated with a survival advantage over ABVD; thus, use of one regimen or the other in advanced-stage cHL depends on provider and patient prioritization of efficacy and toxicity (Table 4).

Table 4.

Selected clinical trials in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma without the use of novel agents

TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
Stanford V49  142 Stage III or IV or locally extensive mediastinal stage I or II 28 Stanford V: vinblastine, doxorubicin, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone followed by 36 to 44 Gy RT 5.4  5-year freedom from progression 89% 5-year OS 96% 
S081625  331 Stage III or IV 31 ABVD × 2 → PET
1. If CR, then ABVD × 4
2. If not in CR, then switch to escBEACOPP × 6 
5.9 PET2– 82% 5-year PFS
Overall 74%
PET2– 76%
PET2 + 66% 
5-year OS
Overall 94%
PET2– 96%
PET2 + 86% 
RATHL24  1214 Stage IIB to IV or stage IIA with adverse features 33 ABVD × 2 → PET
1. If PET–, then AVD × 4
2. If PET+, then switch to escBEACOPP 
3.4 PET– 83.7% 3-year PFS
PET2– 85.7%
PET2 + 67.5% 
3-year OS
PET2– 97.2%
PET2 + 87.8% 
HD1827  2101 Stage III or IV, stage II with B symptoms or bulky 32 escBEACOPP × 2 → PET
If PET–, then
1. escBEACOPP × 6 (later amended to escBEACOPP × 4) or
2. escBEACOPP × 2
If PET+, then
3. escBEACOPP × 6 
5.5  Overall
5-year PFS 89.4%
PET–
Overall 5-year PFS 91.4%
escBEACOPP × 8 (or × 6)
5-year PFS 90.8%
escBEACOPP × 4
5-year PFS 92.2%
PET+
5-year PFS 88.3%
 
Overall 5-year OS 95.6%
PET–
Overall 5-year OS 96.3%
escBEACOPP × 8 (or × 6) 5-year OS 95.4%
escBEACOPP × 4
5-year OS 97.7%
PET+
5-year OS 95.5% 
AHL201128  826 Stage III or IV, high-risk IIB 30 escBEACOPP × 2 → PET (2)
Standard group:
1. escBEACOPP × 2 → PET (4)
If PET–, then escBEACOPP × 2
If PET+, then salvage
or
PET-adapted approach:
2. If PET+, then escBEACOPP × 2 → PET (4)
If PET–, then escBEACOPP × 2
If PET+, then salvage
or
3. If PET–, then ABVD × 2 → PET (4)
If PET–, then ABVD × 2
If PET+, then salvage 
4.2  Overall standard arm: 5-year PFS 86.2%
PET-adapted arm: 5-year PFS 85.7%
PET2 and PET4–
5-year PFS 92.5%
PET2+ and PET 4–
5-year PFS 75.4%
PET 4+
5-year PFS 46.5% 
Overall Standard Arm: 5-year OS 95.2%
PET-adapted arm: 5-year OS 96.4% 
TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
Stanford V49  142 Stage III or IV or locally extensive mediastinal stage I or II 28 Stanford V: vinblastine, doxorubicin, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone followed by 36 to 44 Gy RT 5.4  5-year freedom from progression 89% 5-year OS 96% 
S081625  331 Stage III or IV 31 ABVD × 2 → PET
1. If CR, then ABVD × 4
2. If not in CR, then switch to escBEACOPP × 6 
5.9 PET2– 82% 5-year PFS
Overall 74%
PET2– 76%
PET2 + 66% 
5-year OS
Overall 94%
PET2– 96%
PET2 + 86% 
RATHL24  1214 Stage IIB to IV or stage IIA with adverse features 33 ABVD × 2 → PET
1. If PET–, then AVD × 4
2. If PET+, then switch to escBEACOPP 
3.4 PET– 83.7% 3-year PFS
PET2– 85.7%
PET2 + 67.5% 
3-year OS
PET2– 97.2%
PET2 + 87.8% 
HD1827  2101 Stage III or IV, stage II with B symptoms or bulky 32 escBEACOPP × 2 → PET
If PET–, then
1. escBEACOPP × 6 (later amended to escBEACOPP × 4) or
2. escBEACOPP × 2
If PET+, then
3. escBEACOPP × 6 
5.5  Overall
5-year PFS 89.4%
PET–
Overall 5-year PFS 91.4%
escBEACOPP × 8 (or × 6)
5-year PFS 90.8%
escBEACOPP × 4
5-year PFS 92.2%
PET+
5-year PFS 88.3%
 
Overall 5-year OS 95.6%
PET–
Overall 5-year OS 96.3%
escBEACOPP × 8 (or × 6) 5-year OS 95.4%
escBEACOPP × 4
5-year OS 97.7%
PET+
5-year OS 95.5% 
AHL201128  826 Stage III or IV, high-risk IIB 30 escBEACOPP × 2 → PET (2)
Standard group:
1. escBEACOPP × 2 → PET (4)
If PET–, then escBEACOPP × 2
If PET+, then salvage
or
PET-adapted approach:
2. If PET+, then escBEACOPP × 2 → PET (4)
If PET–, then escBEACOPP × 2
If PET+, then salvage
or
3. If PET–, then ABVD × 2 → PET (4)
If PET–, then ABVD × 2
If PET+, then salvage 
4.2  Overall standard arm: 5-year PFS 86.2%
PET-adapted arm: 5-year PFS 85.7%
PET2 and PET4–
5-year PFS 92.5%
PET2+ and PET 4–
5-year PFS 75.4%
PET 4+
5-year PFS 46.5% 
Overall Standard Arm: 5-year OS 95.2%
PET-adapted arm: 5-year OS 96.4% 

RT, radiotherapy.

Novel agents in frontline advanced-stage cHL

The randomized phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial compared BV-AVD with non-PET-adapted ABVD as frontline treatment of advanced-stage cHL, resulting in a modest improvement in the primary end point of independently assessed 2-year modified PFS with BV-AVD (82.1% vs 77.2%, P   =   .04),29  as well as investigator-assessed 3-year PFS with BV-AVD (83.1% vs 76.0%, P   =   .005) (Table 5).30  A post hoc subgroup analysis showed that patients from North America, patients with involvement of ≥1 extranodal site, patients with a high-risk International Prognostic Score, stage IV patients, and younger patients appeared to derive greater benefit from BV-AVD.30  The 5-year follow-up of ECHELON-1 demonstrated ongoing benefit of BV-AVD over ABVD, with a 5-year PFS rate of 82.2% vs 75.3%, respectively (P   =   .0017), with the benefit maintained across prespecified subgroups, including age, International Prognostic Score risk group, and disease stage. The benefit of BV-AVD over ABVD was observed irrespective of the PET2 status but statistically significant in the PET2-negative group (5-year PFS of 84.9% vs 78.9%, P  =  .0035) compared with the PET2-positive group (5-year PFS of 60.6% vs 45.9%, P  =  .23).31  Importantly, there was increased toxicity observed with BV-AVD compared with ABVD, including higher rates of neuropathy (all grades, 67% vs 43%; grade 3, 11% vs 2%), febrile neutropenia (19% vs 8%), and grade ≥3 infection (18% vs 10%), except for pulmonary toxicity (2% vs 7%) in BV - AVD and ABVD arms, respectively.29,31  Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with BV - AVD reduced the rate of grade ≥3 neutropenia to 29% from 70% and febrile neutropenia to 11% from 21%.32  Peripheral neuropathy improvement or resolution was observed in most patients in both arms (85% vs 86%).31  While fertility was not formally assessed in ECHELON-1, there was no significant difference in the number of pregnancies after either treatment in long-term follow-up.31  The recent ASCO 2022 abstract demonstrated that at a median follow-up of 73 months, the 6-year OS rates were 93.9% vs 89.4% with BV-AVD vs ABVD, respectively, with comparable long-term safety profiles.33  BV-AVD treatment resulted in a statistically significant 41% reduction in the risk of death vs ABVD,33  which makes a compelling case for the preferred use of BV-AVD over ABVD for previously untreated advanced-stage cHL.

Table 5.

Selected clinical trials in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma using novel agents

TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
ECHELON 131  1334 Stage III or IV 36 1. ABVD × 6
2. BV-AVD × 6 
5.1  BV-AVD
5-year PFS 82.2%
ABVD
5-year PFS 75.3% 
 
CHECKMATE 20534  51 Stage III, IV, or IIB with unfavorable risk factors 37 Nivo × 4 → nivo + AVD × 6 0.93 84% ORR, 67% CR 9-month PFS 92% 9-month OS 98% 
Sequential Pembro and AVD22  30 Stage I/II unfavorable only, stage III/IV 29 Pembro × 3 → AVD × 4-6 (4 cycles for early stage, 6 cycles for advanced stage or early-stage bulky) 1.9 CMR after pembro 37%, CMR after AVD 100%, EOT CMR 100% Median PFS not reached, 2-year PFS 100% Median OS not reached, 2-year OS 100% 
Pembro + AVD23  30 Stages I, II, III, IV 32 Pembro + AVD (2-6 cycles) 0.86 68% PET2–, 78% EOT PET– 1-year PFS 96% 1-year OS 100% 
TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
ECHELON 131  1334 Stage III or IV 36 1. ABVD × 6
2. BV-AVD × 6 
5.1  BV-AVD
5-year PFS 82.2%
ABVD
5-year PFS 75.3% 
 
CHECKMATE 20534  51 Stage III, IV, or IIB with unfavorable risk factors 37 Nivo × 4 → nivo + AVD × 6 0.93 84% ORR, 67% CR 9-month PFS 92% 9-month OS 98% 
Sequential Pembro and AVD22  30 Stage I/II unfavorable only, stage III/IV 29 Pembro × 3 → AVD × 4-6 (4 cycles for early stage, 6 cycles for advanced stage or early-stage bulky) 1.9 CMR after pembro 37%, CMR after AVD 100%, EOT CMR 100% Median PFS not reached, 2-year PFS 100% Median OS not reached, 2-year OS 100% 
Pembro + AVD23  30 Stages I, II, III, IV 32 Pembro + AVD (2-6 cycles) 0.86 68% PET2–, 78% EOT PET– 1-year PFS 96% 1-year OS 100% 

CMR, complete metabolic response.

Multiple studies have evaluated PD-1 blockade in combination with chemotherapy in the frontline setting for advanced-stage cHL (Table 5). The CheckMate 205 phase 2 trial assessed frontline nivolumab monotherapy followed by nivolumab plus AVD in patients with advanced-stage cHL, resulting in acceptable tolerability with few immune-related adverse events, as well as an EOT CR rate of 67% per independent radiology review committee, a CR rate of 80% per investigator, and 9-month modified PFS 92%.34  Two separate studies have incorporated pembrolizumab into frontline therapy of cHL. One evaluated sequential pembrolizumab followed by AVD chemotherapy,22  and the other studied concurrent pembrolizumab and AVD chemotherapy.23  Both studies included a mix of early-stage and advanced-stage cHL and yielded similar results, with 2-year PFS 100% in the sequential study and 1-year PFS of 96% in the concurrent study.

The ongoing SWOG S1826 study is a phase 3 randomized study comparing N-AVD with BV-AVD to determine the best immunotherapy partner for AVD in patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage cHL.35  There are several other ongoing trials evaluating nivolumab and BV in frontline therapy for advanced-stage cHL (Table 3).

This patient has high-risk disease with an IPI score of 5 (points given for sex, albumin, hemoglobin, stage, and leukocytosis) with extranodal involvement. He was treated with 6 cycles of BV-AVD with G-CSF support per ECHELON-1 and achieved CR. He developed grade 1 peripheral neuropathy, which resolved after completion of treatment.

A 70-year-old man presents with fatigue, night sweats, and diffuse palpable nontender adenopathy. Excisional lymph node biopsy specimen of the left supraclavicular node is consistent with cHL mixed cellularity type. Staging PET shows diffuse hypermetabolic disease, including bilateral hilar and retroperitoneal adenopathy, with the largest node being 5.8 cm (SUV 17.9). Patient has history of heart failure with ejection fraction of 45% and prior smoking history.

Combination chemotherapy is associated with increased toxicity and poor outcomes in older, frail patients with cHL.36,37  In the E2496 study comparing Stanford V with ABVD in advanced-stage cHL, patients ≥60 years old had higher treatment-related mortality (9% vs 0.3%), lower 5-year failure-free survival (48% vs 74%), and lower 5-year OS (58% vs 90%) compared with the younger patients.36  An analysis of the older patients from ECHELON-1 demonstrated that BV-AVD has similar efficacy to ABVD (5-year PFS of 67.1% vs 61.6%) but poorer outcomes compared with the overall cohort.38  BV-AVD in older patients was associated with higher rates of neuropathy and neutropenia compared with ABVD and compared with those reported with BV-AVD in the overall cohort.38  Given the increased toxicity observed, novel therapies have been studied in older/frail patients as an alternative to traditional therapy, including BV and PD-1 blockade (Table 6).

Table 6.

Selected clinical trials in elderly patients using novel agents

TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
BV 27 ≥60 years cHL
 
78 BV monotherapy × 16 cycles  ORR 92%, CR 73% Median PFS 10.5 months Median OS not reached 
BV (BREVITY)40  38 Stage II with B-symptoms or bulky disease, stage III, stage IV unfit for standard chemotherapy 77 BV monotherapy × 16 cycles ORR 83.9%, CR 25.8% Median PFS 7.3 months Median OS 19.5 months 
BV + bendmaustine (HALO)42  59 Stages III, IV, elderly HL 70.3 BV + bendamustine 1.7  2-year PFS 54% 2-year OS 83% 
BV + DTIC41,43 19 Stages I-IV, aged ≥60 years 69 BV + dacarbazine 4.83 ORR 100%, CR 68% Median PFS 46.8 months Median PFS 64 months 
BV + bendamustine41,43 20 Stages I-IV, aged ≥60 years 75 BV + bendamustine 4.3 ORR 100%, CR 88% Median PFS 40.3 months Median OS 46.9 months 
BV + nivo (≤16 cycles43  21 Stages I-IV, aged ≥60 years 72 BV + nivolumab for up to 16 cycles 1.6 ORR 95%, CR 79% Median PFS not reached Median OS not reached 
Sequential BV → AVD in elderly47  69 Stages I, II, III, IV, aged ≥60 years 69 BV × 2 → AVD × 6 → BV × 4 0.52 ORR 82%, CR 36% 2-year PFS 84% 2-year OS 93% 
BV + nivolumab (8 cycles)
(ACCRU RU051505I)46  
46 Stages I, II, III, IV, aged ≥60 years or unsuitable for standard chemotherapy 71.5 BV + nivolumab for 8 cycles 1.8 ORR 64%, CR 52% Median PFS 18.3 months Median OS not reached 
TrialNClinical disease featuresMedian age, yTherapy received/arms of treatmentMedian follow-up, yResponsePFSOS
BV 27 ≥60 years cHL
 
78 BV monotherapy × 16 cycles  ORR 92%, CR 73% Median PFS 10.5 months Median OS not reached 
BV (BREVITY)40  38 Stage II with B-symptoms or bulky disease, stage III, stage IV unfit for standard chemotherapy 77 BV monotherapy × 16 cycles ORR 83.9%, CR 25.8% Median PFS 7.3 months Median OS 19.5 months 
BV + bendmaustine (HALO)42  59 Stages III, IV, elderly HL 70.3 BV + bendamustine 1.7  2-year PFS 54% 2-year OS 83% 
BV + DTIC41,43 19 Stages I-IV, aged ≥60 years 69 BV + dacarbazine 4.83 ORR 100%, CR 68% Median PFS 46.8 months Median PFS 64 months 
BV + bendamustine41,43 20 Stages I-IV, aged ≥60 years 75 BV + bendamustine 4.3 ORR 100%, CR 88% Median PFS 40.3 months Median OS 46.9 months 
BV + nivo (≤16 cycles43  21 Stages I-IV, aged ≥60 years 72 BV + nivolumab for up to 16 cycles 1.6 ORR 95%, CR 79% Median PFS not reached Median OS not reached 
Sequential BV → AVD in elderly47  69 Stages I, II, III, IV, aged ≥60 years 69 BV × 2 → AVD × 6 → BV × 4 0.52 ORR 82%, CR 36% 2-year PFS 84% 2-year OS 93% 
BV + nivolumab (8 cycles)
(ACCRU RU051505I)46  
46 Stages I, II, III, IV, aged ≥60 years or unsuitable for standard chemotherapy 71.5 BV + nivolumab for 8 cycles 1.8 ORR 64%, CR 52% Median PFS 18.3 months Median OS not reached 

DTIC, dacarbazine; HL, Hodgkin lymphoma.

BV monotherapy demonstrated an ORR of 84% to 92% and CR rates of 26% to 73% in newly diagnosed elderly/frail patients with cHL with a median PFS of 7.3 to 10.5 months, with the primary toxicity being neuropathy.39,40  BV-based doublets, both BV + chemotherapy and BV + PD-1 blockade, have demonstrated efficacy in the frontline setting for elderly patients with cHL. BV + dacarbazine and BV + bendamustine have resulted in similar 100% ORR and similar CR rates of 62% to 69% vs 88%, respectively. However BV + bendamustine is associated with increased toxicity in elderly patients.41  The durability of responses is improved when single-agent chemotherapy is added to BV, with a median PFS of 46.8 months and a 3-year PFS of 52% with BV + dacarbazine and a median PFS of 40.3 months and a 3-year PFS of 60.3% with BV + bendamustine.4145  Frontline BV + nivolumab has also been evaluated in 2 phase 2 studies and is associated with best ORR of 91% to 95% and CR rates of 65% to 79%. More grade ≥3 adverse events were observed in elderly patients, most commonly elevated lipase (19%), neutropenia (17%), and peripheral neuropathy (11%-14%, 48% all grades).43  A fixed duration of 8 cycles of BV + nivolumab was found to have an ORR of 61%, a CR of 48%, and a median PFS of 18.3 months in the ACCRU RU051505I study, but it was closed to accrual after interim analysis failed to meet prespecified efficacy criteria.46 

Many older patients with cHL are candidates for combination chemotherapy, but BPT remains an important risk. One multicenter phase 2 study evaluated omission of bleomycin, in favor of sequential brentuximab followed by AVD in treatment-naive patients with cHL aged ≥60 years. Patients were treated with 2 cycles of BV followed by AVD  ×  6, followed by BV  ×  4 in responding patients. This approach yielded an ORR of 95% and a CR rate of 90% after 6 cycles of AVD with a 2-year event-free survival, PFS, and OS rates of 80%, 84%, and 93%, respectively. The most common high-grade adverse event was neutropenia (44%), and 33% patients had grade 2 peripheral neuropathy.47  Although only about half of patients completed all planned therapy and 20% of patients did not complete a full curative intent course of AVD chemotherapy, 75% of patients who did not receive a full course of AVD remained in CR, suggesting that outcomes were similar among patients who discontinued early.47 

The use of novel agents has transformed the frontline management of elderly, frail patients. Patients who can tolerate chemotherapy should be treated with a sequential BV-AVD regimen due to curative potential with the administration of full systemic course of therapy but minimization of BPT and less toxicity compared with concurrent BV-AVD, given the sequential nature of chemotherapy administration.47  If a patient cannot tolerate combination chemotherapy, BV doublets represent an effective and well-tolerated option, and BV monotherapy can be used in those who are more frail. Patients whose performance status improves with treatment can be transitioned to combination chemotherapy.

Given this patient's smoking history, age, and heart failure history, both bleomycin and doxorubicin were avoided, and the patient received BV + dacarbazine for 12 cycles followed by BV monotherapy and achieved CR.

Several clinical trials have evaluated the use of BV and PD-1 blockade in the frontline treatment of cHL. The incorporation of these agents into frontline cHL treatment provides opportunities to potentially improve outcomes, reduce short- and long-term toxicities of therapy, or escalate/de-escalate therapy in a targeted way. While studies using BV and PD-1 blockade for initial treatment of early-stage cHL have yielded promising results, randomized studies to establish these approaches as a standard option are ongoing, and novel agents remain investigational in that setting. For advanced-stage cHL, omitting bleomycin and substituting with BV in combination with AVD is a standard-of-care approach that improves efficacy but is associated with some added toxicity. The ongoing randomized S1826 study will further clarify the role of PD-1 blockade in frontline advanced-stage cHL. Finally, novel agents have a clear role in the frontline management of older/frail patients with cHL who are unable to tolerate combination chemotherapy and are at higher risk for BPT. With ongoing and upcoming studies potentially cementing the role of novel agents in frontline cHL management, future research will be needed to identify ways to overcome resistance to BV and PD-1 blockade, optimally salvage patients who progress after frontline regimens by incorporating novel agents, and understand what role newer agents (eg, CD30 chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy) may play and how to sequence these therapies.

Swetha Kambhampati: no competing financial interests to declare.

Alex F. Herrera: AstraZeneca: consultancy, research funding; ADC Therapeutics: consultancy, research funding; Tubulis: consultancy; Merck: consultancy, research funding; Genentech: consultancy, research funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: research funding; Takeda: consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: consultancy, research funding; Gilead Sciences: research funding; Seagen: consultancy, research funding; Karyopharm: consultancy.

Swetha Kambhampati: nothing to disclose.

Alex F. Herrera: nothing to disclose.

1.
Radford
J
,
Illidge
T
,
Counsell
N
, et al.
Results of a trial of PET-directed therapy for early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma
.
N Engl J Med
.
2015
;
372
(
17
):
1598
-
1607
.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1408648
.
2.
André
MPE
,
Girinsky
T
,
Federico
M
, et al.
Early positron emission tomography response-adapted treatment in stage I and II Hodgkin lymphoma: final results of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 Trial
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2017
;
35
(
16
):
1786
-
1794
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.68.6394
.
3.
Straus
DJ
,
Jung
S-H
,
Pitcher
B
, et al.
CALGB 50604: risk-adapted treatment of nonbulky early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma based on interim PET
.
Blood
.
2018
;
132
(
10
):
1013
-
1021
.
doi:10.1182/blood-2018-01-827246
.
4.
Gallamini
A
,
Tarella
C
,
Viviani
S
, et al.
Early chemotherapy intensification with escalated BEACOPP in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma with a positive interim positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan after two ABVD cycles: long-term results of the GITIL/FIL HD 0607 Trial
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2018
;
36
(
5
):
454
-
462
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.75.2543
.
5.
Mounier
N
,
Brice
P
,
Bologna
S
, et al
;
Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA)
.
ABVD (8 cycles) versus BEACOPP (4 escalated cycles ≥4 baseline): final results in stage III-IV low-risk Hodgkin lymphoma (IPS 0-2) of the LYSA H34 randomized trial
.
Ann Oncol
.
2014
;
25
(
8
):
1622
-
1628
.
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu189
.
6.
Carde
P
,
Karrasch
M
,
Fortpied
C
, et al.
Eight cycles of ABVD versus four cycles of BEACOPPescalated plus four cycles of BEACOPPbaseline in stage III to IV, international prognostic score ≥3, high-risk hodgkin lymphoma: first results of the phase III EORTC 20012 Intergroup Trial
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2016
;
34
(
17
):
2028
-
2036
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.64.5648
.
7.
Younes
A
,
Gopal
AK
,
Smith
SE
, et al.
Results of a pivotal phase II study of brentuximab vedotin for patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2012
;
30
(
18
):
2183
-
2189
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.38.0410
.
8.
Ansell
SM
.
PD-1 blockade in classic Hodgkin lymphoma
.
JCO Oncol Pract
.
2021
;
17
(
2
):
72
-
73
.
doi:10.1200/op.20.01020
.
9.
Armand
P
,
Engert
A
,
Younes
A
, et al.
Nivolumab for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation: extended follow-up of the multicohort single-arm phase II CheckMate 205 Trial
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2018
;
36
(
14
):
1428
-
1439
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.0793
.
10.
Younes
A
,
Santoro
A
,
Shipp
M
, et al.
Nivolumab for classical Hodgkin's lymphoma after failure of both autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin: a multicentre, multicohort, single-arm phase 2 trial
.
Lancet Oncol
.
2016
;
17
(
9
):
1283
-
1294
.
doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30167-X
.
11.
Chen
R
,
Zinzani
PL
,
Fanale
MA
, et al
;
KEYNOTE-087
.
Phase II study of the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2017
;
35
(
19
):
2125
-
2132
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.72.1316
.
12.
Chen
R
,
Zinzani
PL
,
Lee
HJ
, et al.
Pembrolizumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: 2-year follow-up of KEYNOTE-087
.
Blood
.
2019
;
134
(
14
):
1144
-
1153
.
doi:10.1182/blood.2019000324
.
13.
Engert
A
,
Plütschow
A
,
Eich
HT
, et al.
Reduced treatment intensity in patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma
.
N Engl J Med
.
2010
;
363
(
7
):
640
-
652
.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1000067
.
14.
Eich
HT
,
Diehl
V
,
Görgen
H
, et al.
Intensified chemotherapy and dose- reduced involved-field radiotherapy in patients with early unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: final analysis of the German Hodgkin Study Group HD11 trial
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2010
;
28
(
27
):
4199
-
4206
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.29.8018
.
15.
von Tresckow
B
,
Plütschow
A
,
Fuchs
M
, et al.
Dose-intensification in early unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: final analysis of the German Hodgkin Study Group HD14 trial
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2012
;
30
(
9
):
907
-
913
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.38.5807
.
16.
Illidge
TM
,
Phillips
EH
,
Counsell
N
, et al.
Maximum tumor diameter is associated with event-free survival in PET-negative patients with stage I/IIA Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood Adv
.
2020
;
4
(
1
):
203
-
206
.
doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001023
.
17.
LaCasce
AS
,
Bociek
RG
,
Sawas
A
, et al.
Brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine: a highly active first salvage regimen for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood
.
2018
;
132
(
1
):
40
-
48
.
doi:10.1182/blood-2017-11-815183
.
18.
Abramson
JS
,
Arnason
JE
,
LaCasce
AS
, et al.
Brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine for nonbulky limited-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood
.
2019
;
134
(
7
):
606
-
613
.
doi:10.1182/blood.2019001272
.
19.
Kumar
A
,
Casulo
C
,
Advani
RH
, et al.
Brentuximab vedotin combined with chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed early-stage, unfavorable-risk Hodgkin lymphoma
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2021
;
39
(
20
):
2257
-
2265
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.21.00108
.
20.
Park
SI
,
Shea
TC
,
Olajide
O
, et al.
ABVD followed by BV consolidation in risk-stratified patients with limited-stage Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood Adv
.
2020
;
4
(
11
):
2548
-
2555
.
doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001871
.
21.
Bröckelmann
PJ
,
Goergen
H
,
Keller
U
, et al.
Efficacy of nivolumab and AVD in early-stage unfavorable classic Hodgkin lymphoma: the randomized phase 2 German Hodgkin Study Group NIVAHL Trial
.
JAMA Oncol
.
2020
;
6
(
6
):
872
.
doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0750
.
22.
Allen
PB
,
Savas
H
,
Evens
AM
, et al.
Pembrolizumab followed by AVD in untreated early unfavorable and advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood
.
2021
;
137
(
10
):
1318
-
1326
.
doi:10.1182/blood.2020007400
.
23.
Lynch
RC
.
Concurrent pembrolizumab with AVD for untreated classical Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood
.
2021
;
138
(
suppl 1
):
233
.
doi:10.1182/blood-2021-144610
.
24.
Johnson
P
,
Federico
M
,
Kirkwood
A
, et al.
Adapted treatment guided by interim PET-CT scan in advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma
.
N Engl J Med
.
2016
;
374
(
25
):
2419
-
2429
.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1510093
.
25.
Stephens
DM
,
Li
H
,
Schöder
H
, et al.
Five-year follow-up of SWOG S0816: limitations and values of a PET-adapted approach with stage III/IV Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood
.
2019
;
134
(
15
):
1238
-
1246
.
doi:10.1182/blood.2019000719
.
26.
Diehl
V
,
Franklin
J
,
Pfreundschuh
M
, et al
;
German Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group
.
Standard and increased-dose BEACOPP chemotherapy compared with COPP-ABVD for advanced Hodgkin's disease
.
N Engl J Med
.
2003
;
348
(
24
):
2386
-
2395
.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa022473
.
27.
Borchmann
P
,
Goergen
H
,
Kobe
C
, et al.
PET-guided treatment in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HD18): final results of an open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial by the German Hodgkin Study Group
.
Lancet
.
2017
;
390
(
10114
):
2790
-
2802
.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32134-7
.
28.
Casasnovas
R-O
,
Bouabdallah
R
,
Brice
P
, et al.
PET-adapted treatment for newly diagnosed advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (AHL2011): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study
.
Lancet Oncol
.
2019
;
20
(
2
):
202
-
215
.
doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30784-8
.
29.
Connors
JM
,
Jurczak
W
,
Straus
DJ
, et al
;
ECHELON-1 Study Group
.
Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage III or IV Hodgkin's lymphoma
.
N Engl J Med
.
2018
;
378
(
4
):
331
-
344
.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1708984
.
30.
Straus
DJ
,
Długosz-Danecka
M
,
Alekseev
S
, et al.
Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma: 3-year update of the ECHELON-1 study
.
Blood
.
2020
;
135
(
10
):
735
-
742
.
doi:10.1182/blood.2019003127
.
31.
Straus
DJ
,
Długosz-Danecka
M
,
Connors
JM
, et al.
Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (ECHELON-1): 5-year update of an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial
.
Lancet Haematol
.
2021
;
8
(
6
):
e410
-
e421
.
doi:10.1016/S2352-3026(21)00102-2
.
32.
Straus
D
,
Collins
G
,
Walewski
J
, et al.
Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF may improve outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV Hodgkin lymphoma treated with brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy
.
Leuk Lymphoma
.
2020
;
61
(
12
):
2931
-
2938
.
doi:10.1080/10428194.2020.1791846
.
33.
Ansell
SM
,
Connors
JM
,
Radford
JA
, et al.
First-line brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy to improve overall survival in patients with stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma: an updated analysis of ECHELON-1
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2022
;
40
(
16, suppl
):
7503
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.7503
.
34.
Ramchandren
R
,
Domingo-Domènech
E
,
Rueda
A
, et al.
Nivolumab for newly diagnosed advanced-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma: safety and efficacy in the phase II CheckMate 205 Study
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2019
;
37
(
23
):
1997
-
2007
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00315
.
35.
Herrera
AF
,
Li
H
,
Castellino
SM
, et al.
SWOG S1826: a phase III, randomized study of nivolumab plus AVD or brentuximab vedotin plus AVD in patients with newly diagnosed advanced STage classical Hodgkin Lymphoma
.
Blood
.
2020
;
136
(
suppl 1
):
23
-
24
.
doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136422
.
36.
Evens
AM
,
Hong
F
,
Gordon
LI
, et al.
The efficacy and tolerability of adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine and Stanford V in older Hodgkin lymphoma patients: a comprehensive analysis from the North American intergroup trial E2496
.
Br J Haematol
.
2013
;
161
(
1
):
76
-
86
.
doi:10.1111/bjh.12222
.
37.
Evens
AM
,
Helenowski
I
,
Ramsdale
E
, et al.
A retrospective multicenter analysis of elderly Hodgkin lymphoma: outcomes and prognostic factors in the modern era
.
Blood
.
2012
;
119
(
3
):
692
-
695
.
doi:10.1182/blood-2011-09-378414
.
38.
Evens
AM
,
Connors
JM
,
Younes
A
, et al.
Older patients (aged ≥60 years) with previously untreated advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a detailed analysis from the phase III ECHELON-1 study
.
Haematologica
.
2022
;
107
(
5
):
1086
-
1094
.
doi:10.3324/haematol.2021.278438
.
39.
Forero-Torres
A
,
Holkova
B
,
Goldschmidt
J
, et al.
Phase 2 study of frontline brentuximab vedotin monotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma patients aged 60 years and older
.
Blood
.
2015
;
126
(
26
):
2798
-
2804
.
doi:10.1182/blood-2015-06-644336
.
40.
Gibb
A
,
Pirrie
SJ
,
Linton
K
, et al.
Results of a UK National Cancer Research Institute Phase II study of brentuximab vedotin using a response-adapted design in the first-line treatment of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma unsuitable for chemotherapy due to age, frailty or comorbidity (BREVITY)
.
Br J Haematol
.
2021
;
193
(
1
):
63
-
71
.
doi:10.1111/bjh.17073
.
41.
Friedberg
JW
,
Forero-Torres
A
,
Bordoni
RE
, et al.
Frontline brentuximab vedotin in combination with dacarbazine or bendamustine in patients aged ≥60 years with HL
.
Blood
.
2017
;
130
(
26
):
2829
-
2837
.
doi:10.1182/blood-2017-06-787200
.
42.
de Colella
JMS
,
Viviani
S
,
Rapezzi
D
, et al.
Brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine as first-line treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma in the elderly (HALO Trial)
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2020
;
38
(
15, suppl
):
8029
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.8029
.
43.
Yasenchak
CA
,
Bordoni
R
,
Patel-Donnelly
D
, et al.
Frontline brentuximab vedotin as monotherapy or in combination for older Hodgkin lymphoma patients
.
Blood
.
2020
;
136
(
suppl 1
):
18
-
19
.
doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136583
.
44.
Friedberg
JW
,
Forero-Torres
A
,
Holkova
B
, et al.
Long-term follow-up of brentuximab vedotin ± dacarbazine as first line therapy in elderly patients with Hodgkin lymphoma
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2018
;
36
(
15, suppl
):
7542
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.7542
.
45.
LaCasce
AS
,
Bociek
RG
,
Sawas
A
, et al.
Three-year outcomes with brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine as first salvage therapy in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Br J Haematol
.
2020
;
189
(
3
):
e86
-
e90
.
doi:10.1111/bjh.16499
.
46.
Cheson
BD
,
Bartlett
NL
,
LaPlant
B
, et al.
Brentuximab vedotin plus nivolumab as first-line therapy in older or chemotherapy-ineligible patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (ACCRU): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial
.
Lancet Haematol
.
2020
;
7
(
11
):
e808
-
e815
.
doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(20)30275-1
.
47.
Evens
AM
,
Advani
RH
,
Helenowski
IB
, et al.
Multicenter phase II study of sequential brentuximab vedotin and doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine chemotherapy for older patients with untreated classical Hodgkin lymphoma
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2018
;
36
(
30
):
3015
-
3022
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.79.0139
.
48.
LaCasce
AS
,
Dockter
T
,
Ruppert
AS
, et al.
CALGB 50801 (Alliance): PET adapted therapy in bulky stage I/II classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL)
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2021
;
39
(
15, suppl
):
7507
.
doi:10.13039/100000002
.
49.
Horning
SJ
,
Hoppe
RT
,
Breslin
S
,
Bartlett
NL
,
Brown
BW
,
Rosenberg
SA
.
Stanford V and radiotherapy for locally extensive and advanced Hodgkin's disease: mature results of a prospective clinical trial
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2002
;
20
(
3
):
630
-
637
.
doi:10.1200/JCO.2002.20.3.630
.
50.
Lee
HJ
,
Flinn
IW
,
Melear
J
, et al.
Brentuximab vedotin, nivolumab, doxorubicin, and dacarbazine (AN+AD) for advanced stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma: preliminary safety results from the single-arm phase 2 study (SGN35-027 Part B)
.
Blood
.
2021
;
138
(
suppl 1
):
2454
.
doi:10.1182/blood-2021-147891
.