Combined modality therapy for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma in the PET era: A realworld study.

e19532 Background: The traditional approach to the treatment of early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) has been combined modality therapy (CMT) with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT). CMT has shown improved disease control, but RT can lead to long-term adverse effects, including secondary malignancies and cardiac toxicity. Multiple clinical trials have assessed treatment de-escalation strategies to chemotherapy-alone regimens, but results are conflicting. We aimed to assess the real-world implications of these trials by comparing patient outcomes based upon treatment with CMT or chemotherapy-alone. Furthermore, we proposed to assess differences in treatment outcomes stratified by disease bulk, favorable/unfavorable disease, and PET2 response. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multi-center cohort study of consecutive adult patients with early-stage (stage IA-IIB) cHL treated between January 2010-December 2020. Baseline characteristics, treatment modality, and outcomes were abstracted by chart review. Available PET2 scans (n=110) were independently reviewed by a blinded nuclear radiologist. Deauville score (DS) ≥4 was characterized as positive (+), and DS≤3 negative (-). All analysis was conducted using intention-to-treat principles based upon the initial treatment plan (CMT or chemotherapy-alone). Results: In 125 patients [58% male, median age 34 (range, 18-78)] with early-stage cHL, CMT was intended in 63 (50%) patients, with chemotherapy-alone in 62 (50%). Bulky disease was observed in 43 (34%), unfavorable disease in 81 (65%), and 15 (14%) were found to be PET2+. With median follow-up of 59.8 months (95%CI, 48.6 to 71.0), 5 (4%) deaths occurred, and 17 (14%) patients had relapsed/refractory disease. No significant differences in overall survival (OS) were seen based upon treatment intention. However, there was substantially reduced progression-free survival (PFS) (Table) with chemotherapy-alone in the whole cohort, and also in those with bulky, unfavorable, and PET2+ disease. No significant PFS differences were seen based upon treatment intention for patients with non-bulky, favorable, or PET2- disease. Conclusions: Based on our real-world experience, CMT appears particularly beneficial for patients with bulky disease, unfavorable prognostic factors, and PET2+ disease. However, while recent trials showed a benefit of CMT in non-bulky, favorable and PET2- patients, chemotherapy-alone may be comparable for these patients in actual clinical practice.[Table: see text]