A prognostic model for prolonged event-free survival after ... - Nature

Bone Marrow Transplantation (2005) 35, 557–566 & 2005 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0268-3369/05 $30.00

www.nature.com/bmt

A prognostic model for prolonged event-free survival after autologous or allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin’s disease T Hahn1,6, M Benekli1,6, C Wong2, KB Moysich3, A Hyland3, AM Michalek2, A Alam1, MR Baer1, B Bambach4, MS Czuczman1, M Wetzler1, JL Becker5 and PL McCarthy1 1

Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; 2Department of Education, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; 3Department of Epidemiology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; 4 Department of Pediatrics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA; and 5Laboratory Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA

Summary: There are several prognostic models for Hodgkin’s disease (HD) patients, but none evaluating patient characteristics at time of blood and marrow transplantation (BMT). We developed a prognostic model for event-free survival (EFS) post-BMT based on HD patient characteristics measured at the time of autologous (auto) or allogeneic (allo) BMT. Between 1/1991 and 12/2001, 64 relapsed or refractory HD patients received an auto (n ¼ 46) or allo (n ¼ 18) BMT. A multivariate prognostic model was developed measuring time to relapse, progression or death. Median follow-up was 51.7 months; median EFS for auto and allo BMT was 36 and 3 months, respectively (P ¼ 0.001). Significant multivariate predictors of shorter EFS were chemotherapy-resistant disease, KPS o90 and X3 chemotherapy regimens pre-BMT. Patients with two to three adverse factors had significantly shorter EFS at 2 years (58 vs 11% in auto; 38 vs 0% in allo BMT patients). Despite a selection bias favoring auto BMT, the model was valid in both auto and allo BMT groups. We were able to differentiate patients at high vs low risk for adverse outcomes post-BMT. This prognostic model may prove useful in predicting patient outcomes and identifying high-risk patients for novel treatment strategies. Validation of this model in a larger cohort of patients is warranted. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2005) 35, 557–566. doi:10.1038/sj.bmt.1704789 Published online 24 January 2005 Keywords: prognostic model; Hodgkin’s disease; autologous BMT; allogeneic BMT

Correspondence: Dr T Hahn, Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, New York 14263, USA; E-mail: [email protected] 6 These two authors contributed equally to this work Received 10 August 2004; accepted 16 September 2004 Published online 24 January 2005

Relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s disease (HD) patients have a poor prognosis with standard salvage chemotherapy, yielding a cure rate of 20% or less.1–4 High-dose therapy followed by autologous blood or marrow transplantation (auto BMT) has become a standard treatment for patients refractory to or relapsing after induction therapy.5–17 The role of allogeneic BMT (allo BMT) in relapsed or refractory HD has not been fully determined,18–26 although the existence of a graft-versuslymphoma (GVL) effect has been suggested.20–25 Prognostic models based on presentation features in HD patients have been proposed for predicting the outcome.26–35 These models have proven quite useful for predicting the outcome in newly diagnosed HD patients, however, not all HD patients have these prognostic factors evaluated at diagnosis, which can be difficult to obtain in patients referred for BMT often years after diagnosis. There have been three prognostic scoring systems reported in the last 3 years for auto BMT patients. Stiff et al36 developed a prognostic score based on 72 patients treated from 1990 to 1995 in the SWOG 9011 trial of cyclophosphamide, etoposide and carmustine vs cyclophosphamide, etoposide and total body irradiation as conditioning for auto BMT. Significant multivariate predictors of overall survival (OS) were 42 prior regimens, relapse in a previously radiated field and extranodal disease. Patients with two to three adverse factors had a significantly inferior OS compared to those with zero to one factor (38 vs 60%, P ¼ 0.05). Moskowitz et al37 proposed a two-step risk-adapted treatment strategy for 65 relapsed and refractory HD patients enrolled from 1994 to 1998, of whom 57 underwent auto BMT at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) based on a prognostic model of factors evaluated at the initiation of salvage chemotherapy. The three prognostic factors identified by the MSKCC model were B symptoms at the time of salvage chemotherapy, extranodal involvement at the time of salvage chemotherapy and CR duration o1 year or primary refractory disease. Patients with zero to one adverse factors had significantly superior EFS (83%) compared to those with two (27%) or three (10%) adverse factors (Po0.001).

PreBMT prognostic factors in HD T Hahn et al

558

Josting et al38 developed a prognostic score based on the relapse characteristics of 422 eligible relapsed HD patients from the German Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group (GHSG) treated between 1988 and 1998 with salvage chemotherapy plus autologous transplant (n ¼ 140) vs salvage chemotherapy alone (n ¼ 228) vs salvage radiation therapy alone (n ¼ 54). Significant multivariate adverse predictors of OS and freedom from second failure (FF2F) were o12 months from the end of induction therapy to relapse, stage III or IV at relapse, and hemoglobin o12 g/dl in males or o10.5 g/dl in females at relapse. Relapsed HD patients o60 years old with a KPS X90 and zero, one, two or three of these factors treated with autologous transplant had an OS of 100, 73, 55 and 50%, respectively (Po0.0001). We intended to develop a prognostic model for eventfree survival based on factors measured at the time of transplant rather than at salvage therapy that would be applicable to both autologous and allogeneic BMT patients. In the current study, we also present our validation of the MSKCC prognostic model in our auto and allo BMT patient population. The model presented herein may allow for more rapid validation using autologous and allogeneic transplant registry data.

Patients and methods Patients A total of 64 patients with relapsed or refractory HD underwent auto and/or allo BMT at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute between January 1991 and December 2001. Standard eligibility criteria included age p60 for allo BMT, p70 for auto BMT and adequate cardiac, pulmonary, hepatic and renal function. A total of 68 BMT procedures were performed (18 allo BMT and 50 auto BMT). Four patients received two transplants at our center during this time period, all of whom had an allo BMT after a failed auto BMT. To avoid violating the statistical assumption of independent samples, only one transplant per patient (the second BMT) was included in the analysis; therefore, four first auto BMTs were excluded from the analysis, yielding 64 transplants on 64 patients. Of the 64 patients, 11 had prior transplants (see Table 1), seven of which were performed at other centers. Only transplants performed at RPCI were included and analyzed in this study. A sensitivity analysis of the multivariate model was conducted, in which the study population was restricted to the first BMT patients only (see results section). All allo BMT patients had HLA-matched (at A, B and DRB1 antigens) related (n ¼ 16) or unrelated (n ¼ 2) donors. All patients received myeloablative conditioning regimens. All patients were treated on multiple Institutional Review Board approved protocols and signed informed consent. All individual patient data presented in this report have been de-identified.

Treatment Four patients did not receive any salvage therapy prior to BMT. All others were treated with etoposide-, or platinumbased salvage chemotherapy regimens and/or radiation Bone Marrow Transplantation

therapy at the discretion of the referring physician. Patients were prioritized to receive an auto BMT and only received an allo BMT after a failed auto BMT or in the setting of a high risk of relapse at the discretion of the transplant team and contingent on the availability of a suitable donor. Myeloablative conditioning regimens for patients undergoing allo BMT included thiotepa 450 mg/m2 2 days and carboplatin 400 mg/m2 4 days (TtCp) (n ¼ 12),39 thiotepa 300 mg/m2 2 days and 1000-1200 cGy TBI over 3 days (TtTBI) (n ¼ 3),39 busulfan 1 mg/kg every 6 h for 16 doses and cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg 2 days (BuCy) (n ¼ 1),40 etoposide 1800 mg/m2 1 day, cyclophosphamide 60 mg/ kg 3 days and TBI 1000 cGy in 5 fractions over 3 days (n ¼ 1),41 or fludarabine 25 mg/m2 5 days and melphalan 70 mg/m2 2 days (n ¼ 1).42 Auto BMT patients received etoposide 2400 mg/m2 1 day, cyclophosphamide 1800 mg/ m2 4 days, and BCNU 600 mg/m2 1 day (VCB) (n ¼ 28),43 TtCp with the above schedule (n ¼ 10), TtTBI with the above schedule (n ¼ 4), thiotepa 300 mg/m2 3 days and cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg 3 days (n ¼ 2)39 or BuCy as busulfan 1 mg/kg every 6 h for 16 doses and cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg 2 or 4 days (n ¼ 2).40,44 Conditioning regimen-related toxicity (RRT) was graded according to published criteria.45 Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis for patients undergoing allo BMT consisted of combinations of cyclosporine (CSA) and methotrexate (n ¼ 4),46 CSA, methotrexate and methylprednisone (MP) (n ¼ 1),47 CSA and MP (n ¼ 3),48 or CSA, MP and OKT3 (n ¼ 10)49 based on the institutional protocols available at the time of BMT. CSA was switched to FK506 in three patients due to CSA toxicity. Acute GVHD was defined according to standard criteria.50–51

Statistical considerations The primary outcome was event-free survival (EFS) after transplant. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and regimen-related toxicity (RRT) were analyzed as secondary end points. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of independent samples was performed to compare means and the w2 test (with Fisher’s exact test, where applicable) was used to compare proportions. Tests of significance were two-sided, with Po0.05 considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted using the intent-to-treat principle. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were calculated from the date of hematopoietic stem cell infusion (day 0).52 Differences in survival between the prognostic factor risk groups were determined by the log rank test. Survival was last updated on 1/15/2004. For EFS, all patients are included in the analysis and were censored only at the time of last follow-up if disease progression did not occur; events were disease relapse, progression or death due to any cause. For PFS, all patients were included in the analysis and were censored at the time of last follow-up if disease progression did not occur or at death if disease progression did not occur; events were disease relapse or progression. For OS, all patients were included in the analysis and were censored at the time of last follow-up; events were death due to any cause. No patients developed a secondary malignancy post-BMT. Landmark analysis at 2 years post-BMT was performed to provide a comparison with other reported


559 Table 1

Patient characteristics

Patient characteristics Age in years, median (range) Males Histology Mixed cellularity Nodular sclerosis Lymphocyte predominance Lymphocyte depletion Stage at diagnosis I II III IV Unknown

Allo BMT (n ¼ 18) n (%)

Auto BMT (n ¼ 46) n (%)

P

33.5 (21–47) 12 (67)

32 (14–70) 25 (54)

NS NS NS

4 13 1 0

(22) (72) (6) (0)

7 37 1 1

(15) (80) (2) (2)

0 5 7 5 0

(0) (28) (39) (28) (0)

2 16 17 10 1

(4) (35) (37) (22) (2)

NS

0.04

Extranodal disease at salvage chemotherapy Yes No

11 (61) 7 (39)

15 (33) 31 (67)

B symptoms at salvage chemotherapy KPS at BMT, median (range)

8 (44) 85 (20–90)

7 (15) 90 (50–100)

Disease status at BMT CR41 Primary refractory Relapse X1

3 (17) 5 (28) 10 (56)

9 (20) 14 (30) 23 (50)

Chemosensitivity at BMT Sensitive Resistant NE

6 (33) 11 (61) 1 (6)

25 (54) 15 (33) 6 (13)

Number of prior chemotherapy regimens o3 X3

6 (33) 12 (67)

35 (76) 11 (24)

Prior radiotherapy Yes No

13 (72) 5 (28)

28 (61) 18 (39)

Graft source BM PB BM+PB

18 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0)

6 (13) 27 (59) 13 (28)

X2 BMT Duration of first CR o1 year or primary refractory disease Time from diagnosis to BMT, months, median (range)

9 (50) 10 (56) 41 (10–123)

2 (4) 33 (72) 20 (8–128)

Time from diagnosis to BMT X36 months o36 months

0.01 0.03 NS

0.03

0.001

NS

o0.001

o0.001 NS 0.02 0.03

9 (50) 9 (50)

10 (22) 36 (78)

Time from last therapy to BMT, months, median (range)

2.6 (0.8–15)

1.5 (0.3–39)

Conditioning regimen VCB TtCp Other

0 (0) 12 (67) 6 (33)

28 (61) 10 (22) 8 (17)

Conditioning regimen TBI-containing Non-TBI-containing

4 (22) 14 (78)

4 (9) 42 (91)

NS o0.001

NS

NS ¼ not significant: P40.1; CR ¼ complete response; KPS ¼ Karnofsky performance status; NE ¼ not evaluated; BM ¼ bone marrow; PB ¼ peripheral blood; VCB ¼ Etoposide+cyclophosphamide (Cy)+BCNU (carmustine); TtCp ¼ thiotepa+carboplatin; Other ¼ Thiotepa+total body irradiation (TBI), or Busulfan+Cy or Etoposide+Cy+TBI.

Bone Marrow Transplantation


560

studies; only three additional events occurred between 3 and 4 years post-transplantation. The prognostic model of EFS at 2 years used a Cox proportional hazards model with forward stepwise selection conditional on the likelihood ratio with Po0.1 to enter and P40.05 to remove each factor from the model.53 Complete response was defined as complete disappearance of all known disease with the exception of persistent scan abnormalities of unknown significance for X4 weeks; partial response was defined as X50% reduction in the greatest diameter of all sites of known disease and no new sites of disease development. Patients who achieved a complete or partial response to salvage therapy were categorized as chemotherapy-sensitive, those who underwent BMT directly without salvage therapy and those who received salvage therapy but were not evaluated for disease response were categorized as not evaluated (NE), all others were defined as having chemotherapy-resistant disease. Disease progression post-transplantation was defined as (1) evidence of relapse in patients with a documented complete response after BMT, (2) evidence of new areas of disease post-BMT, (3) evidence of tumor growth in areas of persistent disease post-BMT or (4) death due to disease. For the validation of the MSKCC model, the prognostic factors evaluated were B symptoms at the time of initiation of last salvage chemotherapy before BMT, extranodal involvement (defined as involvement of a noncontiguous extranodal site, including bone marrow, or direct extension to an adjacent organ from a nodal mass) at the time of last salvage chemotherapy before BMT, and CR duration p1 year or primary refractory disease. For the four patients who did not receive salvage chemotherapy for their most recent relapse before BMT, we collected the prognostic factors at the time of last disease relapse pre-BMT.

apy, more chemotherapy-resistant disease at the time of transplant, X3 standard chemotherapy regimens before transplant, received a prior transplant and received bone marrow as the source of stem cells than auto BMT patients. There was also a significantly longer time from diagnosis of HD to BMT in the allo BMT group.

Engraftment The median times to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) X500/mm3 and platelets X20 000/mm3 were similar in both the auto and allo BMT groups (Table 2). Two auto BMT patients died before neutrophil recovery on days þ 14 and þ 26. Six auto BMT patients died before platelet recovery on days þ 14 to 1384 (median 236 days); two auto BMT patients never dropped platelet counts below 20 000/mm3. One auto BMT patient has not yet achieved platelet recovery on day þ 572. Three allo BMT patients died before achieving neutrophil recovery on days 0 to þ 4. In all, 11 allo BMT patients died before achieving platelet recovery on days þ 0 to 215 (median 59 days).

Toxicity and causes of death

Results

In the allo BMT group, 10 patients (56%) developed acute GVHD, five (29%) developed chronic GVHD, four of whom were previously diagnosed with acute GVHD. There were 14 early transplant-related deaths within the first 100 days following BMT; five (11%) in the auto BMT group and eight (44%) in the allo BMT (P ¼ 0.006). Treatmentrelated mortality (TRM) in the allo BMT group was attributable to RRT (n ¼ 5), acute GVHD (n ¼ 2) and infection (n ¼ 1). TRM in the auto BMT group was due to RRT (n ¼ 3) and infection (n ¼ 2). Overall, 28 patients (62%) died within the follow-up period (13 auto vs 15 allo). Causes of death for the auto BMT group were underlying disease (n ¼ 8), RRT (n ¼ 3) and infection (n ¼ 2), and for the allo BMT group were RRT (n ¼ 5), infection (n ¼ 4), GVHD (n ¼ 3) and underlying disease (n ¼ 3).

Patient characteristics

Survival

Pretransplant patient demographics and disease characteristics of the 64 patients (46 auto BMT, 18 allo BMT) treated for relapsed or refractory HD are summarized in Table 1. A significantly higher proportion of allo BMT patients had B symptoms at the time of salvage chemother-

A total of 24 patients (38%) were alive and in CR at the time of analysis at a median follow-up for surviving patients of 51.7 months. Of those, two (11%) were in the allo BMT and 22 (48%) were in the auto BMT group. All survival parameters, except PFS, were significantly superior

Table 2

Transplant outcomes

Time to ANC X500/mm3, days, median (range) Time to platelets X20 000/mm3, days, median (range) Survival 100-day, n (%) 1-year, n (%) Median EFS, months Median PFS, months Median OS, months

Allo BMT (n ¼ 18)

Auto BMT (n ¼ 46)

P

11 (8–33) (n ¼ 14) 22 (14–41) (n ¼ 7)

11 (9–61) (n ¼ 44) 15 (9–60) (n ¼ 37)

NS NS

10 (56) 6 (33) 3 NYR (21+) 3

40 (87) 37 (80) 36 NYR (36+) NYR (48+)

0.006 o0.001 0.001 NS o0.001

Allo ¼ allogeneic; Auto ¼ autologous; ANC ¼ absolute neutrophil count; NS ¼ not significant: P40.1; EFS ¼ event-free survival; PFS ¼ progression-free survival; NYR ¼ not yet reached; OS ¼ overall survival. Bone Marrow Transplantation


561 Table 3

Univariate analysis of prognostic factors for favorable event-free survival at 2 year landmark

Patient characteristics Age, years, median (range) Males

Event-free (n ¼ 26) n (%)

Death or progression (n ¼ 38) n (%)

P

31.5 (14–66) 13 (50)

33.5 (15–70) 24 (63)

NS NS NS

Histology Mixed cellularity Nodular sclerosis Lymphocyte Predominance Lymphocyte Depletion

3 22 1 0

(12) (85) (4) (0)

8 28 1 1

(21) (74) (3) (3)

Stage at diagnosis I II III IV Unknown

0 11 9 6 0

(0) (42) (35) (23) (0)

2 11 15 9 1

(5) (29) (39) (24) (3)

Extranodal disease at salvage chemotherapy Yes No

5 (19) 21 (81)

17 (45) 21 (55)

B symptoms at salvage chemotherapy KPS at BMT, median (range)

3 (12) 90 (80–100)

12 (32) 90 (20–100)

Disease status at BMT CR41 Primary refractory Relapse X1

8 (31) 7 (27) 11 (42)

4 (11) 12 (32) 22 (58)

Chemo-sensitivity at BMT Sensitive or NE Resistant

21 (81) 5 (19)

17 (45) 21 (55)

Number of chemotherapy regimens pre-BMT o3 X3

22 (85) 4 (15)

19 (50) 19 (50)

Any radiation therapy pre-BMT

15 (58)

26 (68)

Donor type Autologous Allogeneic

23 (88) 3 (12)

23 (61) 15 (39)

Graft source BM PB BM+PB

4 (15) 14 (54) 8 (31)

20 (53) 13 (34) 5 (13)

Second or greater BMT Duration of first CR o1 year or primary refractory disease Time from diagnosis to BMT in months, median (range)

1 (4) 19 (73) 19 (8–80)

10 (26) 24 (63) 25 (8–128)

Time from diagnosis to BMT X36 months o36 months

4 (15) 22 (85)

15 (39) 23 (61)

Time from last therapy to BMT, months, median (range)

1.4 (0.3–39)

1.7 (0.3–29)

Conditioning regimen VCB TtCp Other

16 (62) 5 (19) 5 (19)

12 (32) 17 (45) 9 (24)

Conditioning regimen TBI-containing Non-TBI-containing

4 (15) 22 (85)

4 (11) 34 (89)

NS

0.004

0.06 0.008 NS

0.004

0.005

NS 0.02

0.009

0.02 NS 0.02 0.04

NS 0.04

NS

NS ¼ P40.1; CR ¼ complete response; KPS ¼ Karnofsky performance status; BM ¼ bone marrow; PB ¼ peripheral blood; VCB ¼ Etoposide+ cyclophosphamide (Cy)+BCNU (carmustine); TtCp ¼ thiotepa+carboplatin; Other ¼ Thiotepa+total body irradiation (TBI), or Busulfan+Cy or Etoposide+Cy+TBI.



562 Table 4

Multivariate analysis of prognostic variables for favorable EFS at 2 years post BMT

Prognostic variables

Relative risk

95% confidence interval

P

3.2 2.5 3.2

1.6, 6.4 1.3, 5.0 1.6, 6.5

0.001 0.008 0.002

Number of prior regimens (X3 vs o3) Chemo-sensitivity at BMT (resistant vs sensitive or NE) KPS at BMT (o90 vs X90)

Factors that were considered for the multivariate model but did not reach statistical significance include: donor type (auto vs allo), stem cell type (BM vs PB vs PB+BM), second BMT (yes vs no), conditioning regimen (VCB vs TtCp vs other), extranodal disease at time of salvage chemotherapy (yes vs no). NE ¼ not evaluated; KPS ¼ Karnofsky performance status; VCB ¼ etoposide, cyclophosphamide, BCNU; TtCp ¼ Thiotepa, carboplatin.

in the auto BMT group (see Table 2). The median PFS has not yet been reached in either group. The 2-year landmark univariate analysis yielded several factors at BMT that were associated with shorter EFS (Table 3). The multivariate analysis of prognostic factors found chemotherapy-resistant disease at BMT, KPSo90 at BMT, and X3 chemotherapy regimens prior to BMT as statistically significant indicators of disease progression or death (inferior EFS) at 2 years post-BMT (Table 4). Donor relation (auto vs allo), stem cell type (BM vs PB vs PB þ BM), second BMT (yes vs no) and conditioning regimen (VCB vs TtCp vs other) were not prognostic for EFS. Extranodal disease at the time of salvage chemotherapy was significant in the univariate analysis; however, it was not included as a factor in the multivariate analysis, since we aimed to develop a predictive model based on pretransplant characteristics. Two sensitivity analyses were performed on the multivariate model. Extranodal disease at the time of salvage chemotherapy was considered as a factor in the multivariate analysis; however, it failed to reach statistical significance as an independent predictor. The multivariate analysis was also repeated, while restricted to patients receiving their first BMT (second BMT patients were excluded), yielding the same predictive factors with similar relative risks.

Development of the prognostic model Each significant factor in the multivariate analysis had a similar relative risk, therefore, each was given 1 point. All patients were assigned a prognostic score based on their total number of points. Table 5 shows the number of auto and allo BMT patients with 0, 1, 2 or 3 factors. EFS curves were nearly identical for zero vs one factor and two vs three factors, therefore, the patients were grouped as low risk if they had one point or less, and high risk if they had two points or more. EFS was significantly prolonged in low-risk patients compared to high-risk patients, as defined by our prognostic model when applied to both the auto and allo BMT groups (Figure 1a–c). In the auto BMT group, the 4year EFS estimates were 58% for the low-risk and 11% for the high-risk group (Po0.0001). The 4-year EFS estimates in the allo BMT group were 38 and 0% in low-risk and high-risk groups (P ¼ 0.0022).

Validation of existing prognostic scoring systems We were unable to attempt a validation of the SWOG and GHSG prognostic models due to the unavailability of one prognostic factor from each system. For the SWOG model, we Bone Marrow Transplantation

Table 5 patients

Prognostic score for autologous and allogeneic BMT

# of risk factors from multivariate modela 0 1 2 3

Auto N ¼ 46 n (%) 19 18 6 3

(41) (39) (13) (7)

Allo N ¼ 18 n (%) 1 7 5 5

(6) (39) (28) (28)

a

Number of the following factors: KPSo90, chemotherapy resistant disease, X3 prior chemotherapy regimens.

were unable to obtain complete and accurate information regarding prior radiation therapy fields on the majority of patients and therefore unable to determine if the sites of relapse were in or out of a prior RT field.36 For the GHSG model, laboratory data from the time of relapse are not routinely collected from outside oncologists when a patient is referred for transplant.38 As most patients lacked one data point, we were unable to investigate the applicability of these two scoring systems to our patient population. In addition, the SWOG and GHSG scores were developed to predict OS, whereas the MSKCC model was developed to predict the same end point, EFS, as our proposed model. It was difficult but possible to obtain information on all three prognostic factors identified in the MSKCC model, therefore, we attempted to validate the MSKCC prognostic scoring system.37 The prognostic factors identified in the MSKCC model were B symptoms at the time of salvage chemotherapy, extranodal disease at time of salvage chemotherapy, and CR p1 year or primary refractory disease.37 Patients who had zero or one factor were considered group A (good risk), two factors group B (intermediate) and three factors group C (poor risk). When we applied this model to our patient population including auto and allo BMT patients, the EFS estimates were 51, 24 and 20% for groups A, B and C, respectively (P ¼ 0.0091, Figure 2), and thus predictive of outcome. The MSKCC model in only auto BMT patients yielded EFS estimates of 83, 27 and 10% in groups A, B and C, respectively (Po0.001).37 The difference in EFS estimates for groups A, B and C was not statistically significant when stratified by auto vs allo BMT (data not shown), probably due to small numbers in the prognostic groups; however, they showed the same trends.

Discussion There have been several effective prognostic models to predict outcomes in newly diagnosed HD patients.26–35


563

A reliable prognostic system is still needed for HD patients undergoing BMT. This is particularly problematic for patients treated at BMT referral centers because pre-BMT and/or diagnostic laboratory and/or clinical information may not be available or complete. Therefore, we developed a prognostic model based on factors that are easily

a 1.2

Probability of survival

1.0 0.8 0.6 Low risk, 55% ± 8% (n = 45)

0.4 0.2

available at the time of transplant, identified by multivariate analysis of refractory and relapsed HD patients undergoing auto and allo BMT. We found that chemotherapy-resistant disease at BMT, poor performance status and three or more chemotherapy regimens prior to BMT were independent predictors of poor outcome. Since these three factors had very similar relative risks in the multivariate analysis (range 2.5–3.2), we gave them equal weight in the development of the predictive model. We validated the MSKCC model in our patient cohort, which confirms a prior validation of this model in autologous BMT patients by another group.54 However, the MSKCC model did not evaluate the three prognostic factors from our model that were predictive of EFS. In contrast to the MSKCC study in which all patients received identical salvage therapy followed by auto BMT,37 our patients were more heterogeneously treated; yet our model was equally significant in both the auto and allo BMT groups (Figure 1a–c). The major limitations of this study include the relatively small sample size of the auto and allo BMT groups, and the heterogeneity of the

High risk, 5% ± 5% (n =19)

0.0 −500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1.2

3000

Days after BMT

1.0 Probability of survival

b 1.2


1.0 0.8 Low risk, 58% ± 8% (n = 37)

0.6

0.8 Group A, 51% ± 8% (n = 38)

0.6 0.4

Group B, 24% ± 9% (n = 21)

0.2 Group C, 20% ± 18% (n =5)

0.4 0.2

0.0 −500

High risk, 11% ± 10% (n = 9)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Days after BMT 0.0 −500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Days after BMT

c 1.2

Figure 2 Event-free survival by MSKCC prognostic groups in the RPCI patient cohort, including all patients (autologous and allogeneic). Group A has zero to one, Group B two, and Group C three of: B symptoms at the time of salvage chemotherapy, extranodal disease at the time of salvage chemotherapy, and CR o1 year or primary refractory disease (P ¼ 0.0091). The 4-year EFS7the standard error and number of patients are stated.


1.0 Figure 1 (a) Event-free survival by the RPCI prognostic model,

0.8 0.6 Low risk, 38% ± 17% (n = 8)

0.4 0.2 High risk, 0% (n =10)

0.0 −500

0

500

1000

1500

Days after BMT

2000

2500

3000

autologous and allogeneic BMT patients combined. The low-risk group has zero to one, the high-risk group has two to three risk factors listed in Table 4 (Po0.0001). The 4-year EFS7the standard error and number of patients are stated for each risk group. Tick marks are patients alive with no disease progression. (b) Event-free survival by the RPCI prognostic model, autologous BMT patients only. The low-risk group has zero to one, the high-risk group has two to three risk factors listed in Table 4 (P ¼ 0.0001). The 4-year EFS7the standard error and number of patients are stated for each risk group. Tick marks are patients alive with no disease progression. (c) Event-free survival by the RPCI prognostic model, allogeneic BMT patients only. The low-risk group has zero to one, the high-risk group has two to three risk factors listed in Table 4 (P ¼ 0.0022). The 4-year EFS7the standard error and number of patients are stated for each risk group. Tick marks are patients alive with no disease progression.



564

treatment regimens within each donor group. Therefore, it is important to further validate both models in larger patient populations treated at other institutions. The RPCI model may be more rapidly tested using data from registries such as the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry or the Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry because reported patient factors are assessed at the time of BMT rather than at the time of salvage chemotherapy. In order to validate the MKSCC model using Registry data, additional requests for data would be required from all Registry sites, whereas the RPCI model could be validated using Registry data with no further data collection. We acknowledge that the allo BMT group was biased due to a higher rate of poor prognostic features compared to the auto BMT group. These unfavorable factors had a significant confounding effect on the EFS and OS rates and any potential benefits of allo BMT have been offset by the poor disease characteristics of these patients. However, donor type (auto vs allo) was not significant in the multivariate analysis, probably because the poor prognostic features of the allo patients exhibited a stronger effect on outcome than their type of BMT. Therefore, a risk-adapted approach derived from our model can be applied to these patients with poor prognostic features. Nonmyeloablative allo BMT following less intensive conditioning regimens has been shown to offer sustained clinical responses with less RRT and lower peri-transplant mortality rates compared to standard myeloablative conditioning regimens.55–58 High-risk patients should be considered for novel salvage therapies prior to nonmyeloablative allo BMT or other alternative therapies (ie, auto BMT followed by a nonmyeloablative allo BMT), since a myeloablative allo BMT has unacceptably high toxicity and an auto BMT alone is ineffective in controlling disease in these poor prognosis patients. The results of this study support previous reports favoring the use of auto BMT in refractory and relapsed HD patients with good prognostic features. We could not demonstrate a beneficial role for myeloablative allo BMT in this patient population which had poor survival outcomes due to severe post-transplant complications. The RPCI prognostic model predicting shorter EFS in patients with chemotherapy-resistant disease, poor performance status, and three or more chemotherapy regimens prior to BMT will require validation with larger patient numbers.

Acknowledgements We thank Dr James Kepner, Chair of Biostatistics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, for reviewing and commenting on the manuscript, the clinical services, data managers and transplant coordinators for help with data collection, and Ms Dorothy Macchio for editorial assistance.

References 1 Aisenberg AC. Problems in Hodgkin’s disease management. Blood 1999; 93: 761–779. Bone Marrow Transplantation

2 Fung HC, Nademanee AP. Approach to Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the new millenium. Hematol Oncol 2002; 20: 1–15. 3 Longo DL, Duffey PL, Young RC et al. Conventional-dose salvage combination chemotherapy in patients relapsing with Hodgkin’s disease after combination chemotherapy: The low probability of cure. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 210–218. 4 Bonfante V, Santoro A, Viviani S et al. Outcome of patients with Hodgkin’s disease failing after primary MOPP-ABVD. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 528–534. 5 Rapoport AP, Rowe JM, Kouides PA et al. One hundred autotransplants for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma: value of pretransplant disease status for predicting outcome. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 2351–2361. 6 Bierman PJ, Bagin RG, Jagannath S et al. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic rescue in Hodgkin’s disease: long-term follow-up in 128 patients. Ann Oncol 1993; 4: 767–773. 7 Nademanee A, O’Donnell MR, Snyder DS et al. High-dose chemotherapy with or without total body irradiation followed by autologous bone marrow and/or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin’s disease: results in 85 patients with analysis of prognostic factors. Blood 1995; 85: 1381–1390. 8 Horning SJ, Chao NJ, Negrin RS et al. High-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation for recurrent or refractory Hodgkin’s disease: analysis of the Stanford University results and prognostic indices. Blood 1997; 89: 801–813. 9 Sweetenham JW, Taghipour G, Milligan D et al. High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell rescue for patients with Hodgkin’s disease in first relapse after chemotherapy: results from the EBMT. Bone Marrow Transplant 1997; 20: 745–752. 10 Lazarus HM, Rowlings RA, Zhang M-J et al. Autotransplants for Hodgkin’s disease in patients never achieving remission: a report from the autologous blood and marrow transplant registry. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 534–545. 11 Lazarus HM, Loberiza FR, Zhang M-J et al. Autotransplants for Hodgkin’s disease in first relapse or second remission: a report from the autologous blood and marrow transplant registry (ABMTR). Bone Marrow Transplant 2001; 27: 387–396. 12 Sureda A, Arranz R, Iriondo A et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation for Hodgkin’s disease: results and prognostic factors in 494 patients from the Grupo Espanol de Linfomas/ transplante autologo de medula osea Spanish cooperative group. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 1395–1404. 13 Linch DC, Winfield D, Goldstone AH et al. Dose intensification with autologous bone-marrow transplantation in relapsed and resistant Hodgkin’s disease: results of a BNLI randomised trial. Lancet 1993; 341: 1051–1054. 14 Andre M, Henry-Amar M, Pico J-L et al. Comparison of highdose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation with conventional therapy for Hodgkin’s disease induction failure: a case control study. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 222–229. 15 Anselmo AP, Meloni G, Cavalieri E et al. Conventional salvage chemotherapy vs high-dose therapy with autografting for recurrent or refractory Hodgkin’s disease patients. Ann Hematol 2000; 79: 79–82. 16 Yuen AR, Rosenberg SA, Hoppe RT et al. Comparison between conventional salvage therapy and high-dose therapy with autografting for recurrent or refractory Hodgkin’s disease. Blood 1997; 89: 814–822. 17 Moskowitz CH, Kewalramani T, Nimer SD et al. Effectiveness of high dose chemoradiotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with biopsy-proven primary refractory Hodgkin’s disease. Br J Haematol 2004; 124: 645–652.


565 18 Phillips GL, Reece DE, Barnett MJ et al. Allogeneic marrow transplantation for refractory Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 1039–1045. 19 Gajewski JL, Phillips GL, Sobocinski KA et al. Bone marrow transplants from HLA-identical siblings in advanced Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 572–578. 20 Milpied N, Fielding AK, Pearce RM et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplant is not better than autologous transplant for patients with relapsed Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1291–1296. 21 Jones RJ, Piantadosi S, Mann RB et al. High-dose cytotoxic therapy and bone marrow transplantation for relapsed Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8: 527–537. 22 Jones RJ, Ambinder RF, Piantadosi S et al. Evidence of a graft-versus-lymphoma effect associated with allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Blood 1991; 77: 649–653. 23 Anderson JE, Litzow MR, Appelbaum FR et al. Allogeneic, syngeneic, and autologous marrow transplantation for Hodgkin’s disease: the 21-year Seattle experience. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 2342–2350. 24 Akpek G, Ambinder RF, Piantadosi S et al. Long-term results of blood and marrow transplantation for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 4314–4321. 25 Nachbaur D, Oberaigner W, Fritsch E et al. Allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a single center experience. Eur J Haematol 2001; 66: 43–49. 26 Gobbi PG, Zinzani PL, Broglia C et al. Comparison of prognostic models in patients with advanced Hodgkin disease. Promising results from integration of the best three systems. Cancer 2001; 91: 1467–1478. 27 Gobbi PG, Cavalli C, Federico M et al. Hodgkin’s disease prognosis: a directly predictive equation. Lancet 1988; 1: 675–679. 28 Wagstaff J, Gregory WM, Swindell R et al. Prognostic factors for survival in Stage III B and IV Hodgkin’s disease: a multivariate analysis comparing two specialist treatment centres. Br J Cancer 1988; 58: 487–492. 29 Straus DJ, Gaynor JJ, Myers J et al. Prognostic factors among 185 adults with newly diagnosed advanced Hodgkin’s disease treated with alternating potentially noncross-resistant chemotherapy and intermediate-dose radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 1990; 7: 1173–1186. 30 Carella AM, Carlier P, Congiu A et al. Autologous bone marrow transplantation as adjuvant treatment for high-risk Hodgkin’s disease in first complete remission after MOPP/ ABVD protocol. Bone Marrow Transplant 1991; 8: 99–103. 31 Proctor SJ, Taylor P, Donnan P, et al, with the members of the Scotland and Newcastle Lymphoma Group (SNLG) Therapy Working Party. A numerical prognostic index for clinical use in identification of poor-risk patients with Hodgkin’s disease at diagnosis. Eur J Cancer 1991; 27: 624–629. 32 Gobbi PG, Comelli M, Grignani GE et al. Estimate of expected survival at diagnosis in Hodgkin’s disease: a means of weighting prognostic factors and a tool for treatment choice and clinical research. A report from the International Database on Hodgkin’s Disease (IDHD). Haematologica 1994; 79: 241–255. 33 Lee SM, Radford JA, Ryder WDJ et al. Prognostic factors for disease progression in advanced Hodgkin’s disease: an analysis of patients aged under 60 years showing no progression in the first 6 months after starting primary chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 1997; 75: 110–115. 34 Ferme C, Bastion Y, Brice P et al. Prognosis of patients with advanced Hodgkin’s disease. Evaluation of four prognostic models using 344 patients included in the Group d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte Study. Cancer 1997; 80: 1124–1133.

35 Hasenclever D, Diehl V, for the International Prognostic Factors Project on Advanced Hodgkin’s Disease. A prognostic score to predict tumor control in advanced Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1506–1514. 36 Stiff PJ, Unger JM, Forman SJ et al. The value of augmented preparative regimens combined with an autologous bone marrow transplant for the management of relapsed or refractory Hodgkin disease: A Southwest Oncology Group phase II trial. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2003; 9: 529–539. 37 Moskowitz CH, Nimer SD, Zelenetz AD et al. A 2-step comprehensive high-dose chemoradiotherapy second-line program for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin disease: analysis by intent to treat and development of a prognostic model. Blood 2001; 97: 616–623. 38 Josting A, Franklin J, May M et al. New Prognostic Score based on treatment outcomes of patients with relapsed Hodgkin’s lymphoma registered in the database of the German Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 221–230. 39 Alidina A, Lawrence D, Ford LA et al. Thiotepa-associated cardiomyopathy during blood or marrow transplantation: association with the female sex and cardiac risk factors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 1999; 5: 322–327. 40 Tutschka PJ, Copelan EA, Klein JP. Bone marrow transplantation for leukemia following a new busulfan and cyclophosphamide regimen. Blood 1987; 70: 1382–1388. 41 Brown RA, Wolff SN, Fay JW et al. High-dose etoposide, cyclophosphamide, and total body irradiation with allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first untreated relapse: a study by the North American Marrow Transplant Group. Blood 1995; 85: 1391–1395. 42 Giralt S, Estey E, Albitar M et al. Engraftment of allogeneic hematopoietic progenitor cells with purine analog-containing chemotherapy: harnessing graft-versus-leukemia without myeloablative therapy. Blood 1997; 89: 4531–4536. 43 Alam AR, Younis T, Hahn T et al. High dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT) with an intensive VCB conditioning regimen for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin’s disease. Blood 2002; 100: 863a (abstr. 3404). 44 Santos GW, Tutschka PJ, Brookmeyer R. Marrow transplantation for acute nonlymphocytic leukemia after treatment with busulfan and cyclophosphamide. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1347–1353. 45 Bearman SI, Appelbaum FR, Buckner CD et al. Regimenrelated toxicity in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6: 1562–1568. 46 Nash RA, Pepe MS, Storb R et al. Acute graft-vs-host disease: analysis of risk factors after allogeneic marrow transplantation and prophylaxis with cyclosporine and methotrexate. Blood 1992; 80: 1838–1845. 47 Chao NJ, Schmidt GM, Niland JC et al. Cyclosporine, methotrexate and prednisone compared with cyclosporine and prednisone for prophylaxis of acute graft-vs-host disease. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1225–1229. 48 Shepherd JD, Shore TB, Reece DE et al. Cyclosporine and methylprednisolone for prophylaxis of acute graft-versus-host disease. Bone Marrow Transplant 1988; 3: 553–557. 49 Alam AR, Baer MR, Bernstein S et al. Phase II clinical trial of OKT3 for acute graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (alloBMT). Blood 1997; 90: 102a (abstr.). 50 Glucksberg H, Storb R, Fefer A et al. Clinical manifestations of graft-versus-host disease in human recipients of marrow from HL-A matched sibling donors. Transplantation 1974; 18: 295–304. Bone Marrow Transplantation


566 51 Przepiorka D, Weisdorf D, Martin P et al. 1994 Consensus conference on acute GVHD grading. Bone Marrow Transplant 1995; 15: 825–828. 52 Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation for incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53: 457–481. 53 Cox DR, Oakes D. Analysis of Survival Data. Chapman and Hall: New York, 1984. 54 Qazilbash MH, Devetten MP, Abraham J et al. High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in relapsed and refractory Hodgkin’s disease: outcome based on a prognostic model. Acta Haematol 2003; 110: 173–178. 55 Carella AM, Cavaliere M, Lerma E et al. Autografting followed by nonmyeloablative immunosuppressive chemotherapy and allogeneic peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell


transplantation as treatment of resistant Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3918–3924. 56 Anderlini P, Giralt S, Andersson B et al. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation with fludarabine-based, less intensive conditioning regimens as adoptive immunotherapy in advanced Hodgkin’s disease. Bone Marrow Transplant 2000; 26: 615–620. 57 Branson K, Chopra R, Kottaridis PD et al. Role of nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation after failure of autologous transplantation in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 4022–4031. 58 Cooney JP, Stiff PJ, Toor AA, Parthasarathy M. BEAM allogeneic transplantation for patients with Hodgkin’s disease who relapse after autologous transplantation is safe and effective. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2003; 9: 177–182.