Baseline prognostic predictors in classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: a retrospective, single-center analysis on patients treated with PET/CT-guided ABVD

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction: The identification of baseline prognostic factors in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma could help in tailoring a risk-based approach as the therapeutic landscape expands. Currently, the International Prognostic Score (IPS) represents the most used prediction tool in clinical practice, but other potential baseline risk predictors have been identified. Methods: FDG-PET/CT-guided ABVD to assess the prognostic significance of the IPS risk factors, and to validate the impact of the peripheral blood lymphocyte to monocyte (LMR) and neutrophil to lymphocyte (NLR) ratios on prognosis definition. Results: Among the considered risk factors, stage IV disease (HR 1.83), leukocytosis (HR 2.28), anemia (HR 3.23) and low LMR (HR 2.01) significantly predicted PFS, whereas male sex (HR 2.93), stage IV disease (HR 3.00) and lymphopenia (HR 7.84) significantly predicted OS. A 4 variable and a 3 variable prognostic system was subsequently proposed for PFS and OS, respectively. In both cases, a stark decrease in the survival probability was documented as the score increased. Moreover, by selecting only the significant IPS items and considering a more recently proposed prognostic factor (LMR) we were able to better identify patients at higher risk of relapsing after PET/CT-guided ABVD. Discussion: Although the IPS was still able to identify a subgroup of high-risk patients within our cohort of individuals treated with PET/CT-guided ABVD, not all the risk factors that it considers were found to have an impact on survival times. Moreover, by selecting only the significant IPS items and considering a more recently proposed prognostic factor (LMR) we were able to better identify patients at higher risk of relapse, in an effort to contribute to the building of a modern risk prediction tool that can help guide treatment choices.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.