The Role of Radiation in All Stages of Nodular Lymphocytic Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma

The Role of Radiation in All Stages of Nodular Lymphocytic Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma

Accepted Manuscript The Role of Radiation in All Stages of Nodular Lymphocytic Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma Bismarck Odei, BS, Dustin Boothe, MD, Jona...

3MB Sizes 0 Downloads 37 Views

Accepted Manuscript The Role of Radiation in All Stages of Nodular Lymphocytic Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma Bismarck Odei, BS, Dustin Boothe, MD, Jonathan Frandsen, MD, Matthew M. Poppe, MD, David K. Gaffney, MD, PhD PII:

S2152-2650(16)30926-0

DOI:

10.1016/j.clml.2017.09.013

Reference:

CLML 1011

To appear in:

Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia

Received Date: 8 December 2016 Revised Date:

7 September 2017

Accepted Date: 15 September 2017

Please cite this article as: Odei B, Boothe D, Frandsen J, Poppe MM, Gaffney DK, The Role of Radiation in All Stages of Nodular Lymphocytic Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma, Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2017.09.013. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

Title:

2 The Role of Radiation in All Stages of Nodular Lymphocytic Predominant Hodgkin

4

Lymphoma

RI PT

3

5

Authors: Bismarck Odei, BSa; Dustin Boothe, MDb; Jonathan Frandsen, MDb; Matthew M.

7

Poppe, MDb; David K. Gaffney, MD, PhDb

SC

6

8

10

aDavid

Geffen School of Medicine UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; bUniversity of Utah Huntsman

M AN U

9

Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Salt Lake City, UT.

11 Full Postal Address a:

13

David Geffen School of Medicine UCLA,

14

Department of Radiation Oncology,

15

200 Suite #B265, Medical Plaza Driveway,

16

Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

EP

AC C

17

TE D

12

18

Full Postal Address b:

19

Huntsman Cancer Hospital

20

University of Utah Dept. of Radiation Oncology

21

1950 Circle of Hope Room 1570

22

Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Corresponding Author:

26

David K Gaffney

27

Huntsman Cancer Hospital

28

University of Utah Dept. of Radiation Oncology

29

1950 Circle of Hope Room 1570

30

Salt Lake City, UT 84112

31

o-801-581-2396; f-801-585-3502

32

Email: [email protected]

M AN U

33

SC

25

Email Address of Authors:

35

Bismarck Odei: [email protected]

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Dustin Boothe: [email protected]

TE D

34

Jonathan Frandsen: [email protected] Matthew M. Poppe: [email protected]

EP

David K. Gaffney: [email protected]

AC C

RI PT

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

44 45 46

Conflict of Interests

47

in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Financial disclosures: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies

49

RI PT

48

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest.

50

SC

51 52

M AN U

53 54 55

EP

58

AC C

57

TE D

56

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MicroAbstract

60

We assessed the role of radiotherapy (RT) in nodular lymphocytic Hodgkin lymphoma

61

(NLPHL), particularly among patients with advanced stage disease, and B symptoms. We

62

found that among NLPHL patients, RT had a potential role in advanced-stage disease and

63

those with B symptoms, suggesting further exploratory studies.

64

RI PT

59

Abstract

66

Background: The goal of this study was to assess the survival differences seen in early-stage

67

and advanced-stage nodular lymphocytic predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) based

68

on treatment modality.

M AN U

SC

65

69

Patients and Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried to identify

71

patients diagnosed with NLPHL between 2004-2012. Overall survival (OS) was determined

72

using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank

73

analysis were used to estimate differences in OS between treatment groups.

EP

74

TE D

70

Results: A total of 1,968 patients were identified for analysis, consisting of stage I (40.4%),

76

stage II (29.3%), stage III (22.3%,) and stage IV (8.0%) disease. The median age of patients

77

was 46 years. The following factors were predictive of radiotherapy (RT) omission in

78

treatment: increasing age, black race, Medicare insurance, chemotherapy use, stage II-IV

79

disease, and the presence of B-symptoms. On survival analysis, RT was associated with

80

prolonged OS in all stages of NLPHL (50.1 versus [vs.] 42.4 months, p<0.01). The OS benefit

81

of RT persisted on multivariate analysis (HR 0.37, p<0.01). On subset analysis, RT was

AC C

75

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

associated with prolonged OS in early disease (49.8 vs. 45.5 months, p<0.01), while a trend

83

towards an OS benefit was observed in advanced-stage (54.1 vs. 39.6 months, p=0.06)

84

NLPHL. Radiotherapy was also associated with prolonged OS among patients with B-

85

symptoms (49.0 vs. 42.6 months, p<0.01).

86

RI PT

82

Conclusion: The use of RT in NLPHL is less likely among those with advanced-stage and B-

88

symptoms. However, we found RT to be associated with prolonged OS in all stages of

89

NLPHL, including those with B-symptoms.

90 91

Keywords: Hodgkin lymphoma; Nodular lymphocytic Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL);

92

Advanced Staged; B symptoms

M AN U

TE D EP AC C

SC

87

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

93 94

Introduction1

95 Nodular lymphocytic predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) is a rare variant of Hodgkin

97

lymphoma (HL), accounting for only 3% to 8% of HL patients.1,2 Immunophenotyping

98

differentiates NLPHL from classical HL in that NLPHL cells express CD20 and do not express

99

CD15 and CD30.3 This immunophenotype is similar to non-hodgkin lymphoma. Nodular

SC

RI PT

96

lymphocytic predominant Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with a good prognosis in which

101

70%-80% of patients present with stage I or II disease and experience a 10-year overall

102

survival (OS) of 71% to 100%.2,4-8 Advanced stage disease carries a worse prognosis. Diel et

103

al. evaluated outcomes among 271 patients with stage IV disease, reporting an 8-yr disease

104

specific survival of 41%.9

M AN U

100

TE D

105

Treatment of NLPHL is controversial. Due to the rare nature of NLPHL, treatment guidelines

107

are based on conclusions derived from limited retrospective studies. Treatment options for

108

NLPHL include observation, radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT), a combination of

109

chemotherapy and radiation (CRT), or rituximab alone.10-15 For early stage disease, the use

110

of RT has demonstrated a significant progression-free survival benefit, while the

111

substitution or addition of chemotherapy has not.8,16-18 For advanced NLPHL, systemic

112

therapy is the mainstay of treatment, while the role of RT is unclear.9,18,19

AC C

EP

106

113

1

Abbreviations: NLPHL, nodular lymphocytic predominant Hodgkin lymphoma; HL, Hodgkin lymphoma; OS, overall survival; RT, radiotherapy; CT, chemotherapy; CRT, combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy; NCDB, National Cancer Data Base; CoC, Commission on Cancer; OR, odds ratio; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PET, positron emission tomography.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A recent study utilizing the National Cancer Database (NCDB) demonstrated that RT was

115

associated with an OS benefit among early-stage patients. Our goal was to add to the

116

existing registry data, by investigating the role of RT among all stages of NLPHL within the

117

NCDB.

RI PT

114

118 119

Patients and Methods

SC

120

The NCDB is a joint project of the Commission on Cancer (CoC) of the American College of

122

Surgeons and the American Cancer Society. It is estimated that the NCDB captures 70% of

123

new cancer diagnoses from over 1,500 CoC-accredited hospitals and clinics in the United

124

States and Puerto Rico. An application was submitted to gain access to the NCDB participant

125

user files, limited to NLPHL diagnosed between 2004 and 2012. This was subsequently

126

approved by our institutional internal review board. The data used in the study are derived

127

from a de-identified NCDB file. The American College of Surgeons and the Commission on

128

Cancer have not verified and are not responsible for the analytic or statistical methodology

129

employed, or the conclusions drawn from these data by the investigator.

TE D

EP

AC C

130

M AN U

121

131

To address our proposed clinical question, we applied specific inclusion and exclusion

132

criteria. Only patients with NLPHL histology were included. Patients under age 18, or those

133

with absent or unknown chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or staging information were

134

excluded. Those with unknown survival time or with a survival time of less than three

135

months from diagnosis were also excluded from analysis. The following demographic

136

variables were collected for patterns-of-care and survival analysis: age, race, insurance

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

status, treatment facility type, and modified Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. The modified

138

Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score represents the presence of up to 15 potential

139

comorbidities (heart disease, diabetes, AIDS, etc.) with higher scores associated with more

140

burdensome diagnoses 20. We also analyzed a variety of clinical data including stage and

141

presence of B-symptoms. Surgical resection was not included due to the suspicion that

142

excisional biopsies were underreported in this dataset. Staging was according to the Ann

143

Arbor staging system. Information on presence or absence of bulky disease is not available

144

in the NCDB dataset.

SC

RI PT

137

M AN U

145

Univariate and multivariate logistical regression were applied to identify predictors of RT

147

use. Variables predictive of RT with a p-value of less than 0.20 were included in our

148

multivariate model. All other variables were added to the multivariate model in a step-wise

149

fashion and were analyzed to see if the odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) of the variable

150

of interest changed by greater than 10% 21. To determine the effect of therapy on overall

151

survival (OS), Kaplan-Meier, as well as log-rank analysis, was performed. Multivariate Cox

152

regression analysis was performed to assess for the impact of treatment modality on OS

153

while controlling for additional demographic and clinical factors. All statistical analyses

154

were performed using STATA 14.0 (Austin, TX).

155 156

Results

AC C

EP

TE D

146

157 158

A total of 1,968 patients were identified for analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 46 years.

159

The predominant race was Caucasian (69.3%). The majority of patients were privately

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

insured (68.0%), while less than half of patients were treated at a comprehensive cancer

161

center (48%). Most patients had a Charlson comorbidity score of zero (87.5%) and lacked B-

162

symptoms (83.6%). Additionally, stage I was the most common stage at presentation

163

(40.6%) (see Table 1).

RI PT

160

164

On multivariate analysis, increasing stage was associated with RT omission: stage II (OR

166

0.74, p=0.02), stage III (OR 0.03, p<0.01), and stage IV (OR 0.11, p<0.01). Additionally, the

167

following were predictors for omission of RT: increasing age (OR 0.83, p=0.01), B-symptoms

168

(OR 0.62, p=0.01), Medicare insurance (OR 0.67, p=0.04), black race (OR 0.67, p=0.01),

169

chemotherapy use (OR 0.34, p=<0.01), and Charlson Comorbidity score of one (OR 0.61,

170

p=0.02) (see Table 2).

M AN U

SC

165

171

Radiation therapy use was associated with prolonged survival in NLPHL patients of all

173

stages, 50.1 versus (vs.) 42.4 months (p<0.01) (see Figure 1a). We further examined the

174

association of RT with survival among early and late-stage patients. Receipt of RT in early-

175

stage patients was associated with a statistically significant improved median survival, 49.8

176

vs. 45.5 months (p<0.01) (see Figure 1b). A trend towards a survival benefit was seen

177

among advanced-stage patients, 54.1 vs. 39.6 months (p=0.06) (see Figure 1c). Also, a sub-

178

group analysis was done on all patients presenting with B-symptoms. Interestingly, patients

179

with B-symptoms also experienced a survival prolongation with RT, 49.0 vs. 42.6 months

180

(p<0.01) (see Figure 2).

181

AC C

EP

TE D

172

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Multivariate analysis of the entire cohort revealed that receipt of RT was associated with a

183

decreased risk of death (HR 0.37, p<0.01). Other predictors of an increased risk of death in

184

multivariate analysis included: Medicaid insurance (HR 2.48, p<0.01), B-symptoms (HR

185

1.78, p<0.01), and Charlson comorbidity of 1 (HR 2.43, p<0.01). Increasing stage was also

186

associated with an increased risk of death: stage III (HR 1.68, p=0.05), and stage IV (HR 2.37,

187

p=0.01).When assessing the entire cohort, regardless of disease stage,, chemotherapy use

188

was not associated with a survival benefit (HR 0.83, p=0.36) (see Table 3). However, on

189

subset analysis, chemotherapy was associated with a survival benefit among those with

190

stage III or IV, 42.1 vs. 34.7 months (p<0.01). Only 72 of the 581 (12.4%) patients with

191

advanced stage disease did not receive chemotherapy.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

182

192

194

Discussion

TE D

193

The present study reports on 1,968 patients with both early and advanced stage NLPHL

196

from the NCDB (2004-2012). Our study builds on the recent study by Parikh et al., which

197

revealed the patterns-of-care and the association of RT with prolonged survival among

198

patients with stage I or II NLPHL only.18 In our expanded cohort analysis (including

199

advanced stage disease), we found B-symptoms and advanced stage disease to be associated

200

with omission of RT. In patients with advanced stage disease, we observed a trend toward

201

improved survival with the addition of RT (p=0.06). Additionally, subgroup analysis of

202

patients with B-symptoms demonstrated RT to be associated with a prolonged OS.

203

AC C

EP

195

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In our analysis, we noted a trend towards significance for RT in advanced-stage NLPHL. To

205

date, no published studies have investigated the role of RT in advanced NLPHL.

206

Unfortunately, the largest studies involving stage III and IV disease primarily focus on

207

differences between classical HL and NLPHL, rather than treatment outcomes.9,22 In a case-

208

matched analysis, Xing et al. compared classical HL and NLPHL and found NLPHL to have

209

similar rates of treatment failure and survival 23. Therefore, an explanation of the OS benefit

210

seen with RT among advanced NLPHL patients could be drawn from outcomes in patients

211

with classical HL.24-26 Proponents of consolidative RT in classical HL utilize RT to improve

212

local recurrence, often in the setting of bulky disease or residual positron emission

213

tomography (PET) avidity.24,25 Patients with advanced NLPHL may similarly benefit from

214

RT; however, NLPHL studies to date have not identified patterns of recurrence or risk

215

factors predictive of local recurrence that would support this hypothesis.

SC

M AN U

TE D

216

RI PT

204

Our analysis also demonstrated a survival benefit for receipt of RT in the setting of B-

218

symptoms in patients with NLPHL. Among those with early stage NLPHL, B-symptoms have

219

been associated with poor survival, which is concordant with our results.27 Consequently,

220

more aggressive treatment involving CRT with the option of rituximab has been

221

recommended.19 However, as seen by our patterns-of-care analysis, patients with B-

222

symptoms often do not receive RT.

AC C

223

EP

217

224

Our study supports the role of CT for those with advanced disease. Multiple studies describe

225

the role of CT in advanced staged NLPHL.23,28 Fanale et al. assessed a subset of 11 patients

226

with stage III or IV disease treated with R-CHOP and reported no relapse at a median follow-

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

up of 42 months (range 8-111 months).28 Xing et al. found NLPHL patients receiving ABVD-

228

like chemotherapy had an associated 10-year freedom from failure of 75%.23 More studies

229

are needed to evaluate the clinical application of our findings and to assess the comparative

230

benefits of CT, rituximab, RT, and CRT in advanced-stage disease.

231

RI PT

227

The presented patterns-of-care analysis showed the following factors to be predictive of the

233

omission of RT in the treatment of all stages of NLPHL: stage II-IV, younger age, and B-

234

symptoms. The rationale for the omission of RT in treating younger patients might be due to

235

concerns for secondary malignancy, and late toxicities associated with RT. To mitigate such

236

adverse effects, smaller RT fields and lower doses are now used in lieu of wider fields and

237

higher doses.29

M AN U

SC

232

238

Our NCDB study has multiple limitations. The retrospective nature of the study increases

240

the likelihood of introducing confounders and selection bias. It is possible that there were

241

unmeasured confounding variables resulting in a bias towards improved OS with RT.

242

Multiple clinical factors important to patient survival and decision making are either

243

incomplete or excluded from the NCDB, such as performance status, and tumor size. The

244

omission of these factors limits the effectiveness and widespread applicability of our study.

245

Treatment details in the NCDB are also limited to the first course of therapy only. This is a

246

significant limitation with NLPHL given the often relapsing and remitting course.

AC C

EP

TE D

239

247 248 249

Conclusion

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

This study is the largest retrospective analysis examining the effect of RT in patients with

251

advanced and limited stage NLPHL. We found that the addition of RT to the first course of

252

therapy improves survival. On subgroup analysis, this survival improvement persisted for

253

patients with early stage disease and for individuals with B-symptoms. For patients with

254

advanced stage disease, RT is associated with a trend towards improved survival. Further

255

research is needed to further characterize appropriate treatments for this patient

256

population.

SC

RI PT

250

257

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

258

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

259 260

Clinical Practice Points: •

Currently among patients with NLPHL with advanced-stage disease or early-staged with B-symptoms, radiotherapy is not predominantly utilized as definitive or adjunct

262

treatment.

263 264



RI PT

261

Our preliminary study suggests that there might be a role for radiotherapy in such settings.

SC

265

M AN U

266 267

AC C

EP

TE D

268

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

269

REFERENCE:

270 271

1.

Morton LM, Wang SS, Devesa SS, Hartge P, Weisenburger DD, Linet MS. Lymphoma incidence patterns by WHO subtype in the United States, 1992-2001. Blood.

273

2006;107(1):265-276.

274

2.

RI PT

272

Goel A, Fan W, Patel AA, Devabhaktuni M, Grossbard ML. Nodular lymphocyte predominant hodgkin lymphoma: biology, diagnosis and treatment. Clinical

276

lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia. 2014;14(4):261-270. 3.

Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Stein H, et al. A revised European-American classification of

M AN U

277

SC

275

278

lymphoid neoplasms: a proposal from the International Lymphoma Study Group.

279

Blood. 1994;84(5):1361-1392.

280

4.

Crennan E, D'Costa I, Liew KH, et al. Lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin's disease: a clinicopathologic comparative study of histologic and immunophenotypic subtypes.

282

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 1995;31(2):333-337.

283

5.

TE D

281

Orlandi E, Lazzarino M, Brusamolino E, et al. Nodular lymphocyte predominance Hodgkin's disease: long-term observation reveals a continuous pattern of recurrence.

285

Leukemia & lymphoma. 1997;26(3-4):359-368. 6.

AC C

286

EP

284

Bodis S, Kraus MD, Pinkus G, et al. Clinical presentation and outcome in lymphocyte-

287

predominant Hodgkin's disease. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the

288

American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1997;15(9):3060-3066.

289

7.

Feugier P, Labouyrie E, Djeridane M, et al. Comparison of initial characteristics and

290

long-term outcome of patients with lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma

291

and classical Hodgkin lymphoma at clinical stages IA and IIA prospectively treated by

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

292

brief anthracycline-based chemotherapies plus extended high-dose irradiation.

293

Blood. 2004;104(9):2675-2681.

294

8.

Chen RC, Chin MS, Ng AK, et al. Early-stage, lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's lymphoma: patient outcomes from a large, single-institution series with long follow-

296

up. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical

297

Oncology. 2010;28(1):136-141. 9.

Diehl V, Sextro M, Franklin J, et al. Clinical presentation, course, and prognostic

SC

298

RI PT

295

factors in lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's disease and lymphocyte-rich classical

300

Hodgkin's disease: report from the European Task Force on Lymphoma Project on

301

Lymphocyte-Predominant Hodgkin's Disease. Journal of clinical oncology : official

302

journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1999;17(3):776-783.

303

10.

M AN U

299

Eichenauer DA, Fuchs M, Pluetschow A, et al. Phase 2 study of rituximab in newly diagnosed stage IA nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma: a report

305

from the German Hodgkin Study Group. Blood. 2011;118(16):4363-4365.

306

11.

TE D

304

Miettinen M, Franssila KO, Saxen E. Hodgkin's disease, lymphocytic predominance nodular. Increased risk for subsequent non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Cancer.

308

1983;51(12):2293-2300. 12.

AC C

309

EP

307

Nogova L, Rudiger T, Engert A. Biology, clinical course and management of nodular

310

lymphocyte-predominant hodgkin lymphoma. Hematology / the Education Program

311

of the American Society of Hematology American Society of Hematology Education

312

Program. 2006:266-272.

313 314

13.

Savage KJ, Skinnider B, Al-Mansour M, Sehn LH, Gascoyne RD, Connors JM. Treating limited-stage nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma similarly to

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

315

classical Hodgkin lymphoma with ABVD may improve outcome. Blood.

316

2011;118(17):4585-4590. 14.

318 319

Schlembach PJ, Wilder RB, Jones D, et al. Radiotherapy alone for lymphocytepredominant Hodgkin's disease. Cancer J. 2002;8(5):377-383.

15.

RI PT

317

Schulz H, Rehwald U, Morschhauser F, et al. Rituximab in relapsed lymphocyte-

predominant Hodgkin lymphoma: long-term results of a phase 2 trial by the German

321

Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group (GHSG). Blood. 2008;111(1):109-111.

322

16.

SC

320

Meyer RM, Gospodarowicz MK, Connors JM, et al. ABVD alone versus radiation-based therapy in limited-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. The New England journal of medicine.

324

2012;366(5):399-408.

325

17.

M AN U

323

Wilder RB, Schlembach PJ, Jones D, et al. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte very favorable

327

and favorable, lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin disease. Cancer. 2002;94(6):1731-

328

1738.

329

18.

TE D

326

Parikh RR, Grossbard ML, Harrison LB, Yahalom J. Early-stage nodular lymphocytepredominant Hodgkin lymphoma: the impact of radiotherapy on overall survival.

331

Leukemia & lymphoma. 2015:1-8. 19.

333 334

337

Hacker NF, Nieberg RK, Berek JS, et al. Superficially invasive vulvar cancer with nodal metastases. Gynecologic oncology. 1983;15(1):65-77.

20.

335 336

AC C

332

EP

330

Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 1994;47(11):1245-1251.

21.

Greenland S. Modeling and variable selection in epidemiologic analysis. American journal of public health. 1989;79(3):340-349.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

338

22.

Nogova L, Reineke T, Brillant C, et al. Lymphocyte-predominant and classical Hodgkin's lymphoma: a comprehensive analysis from the German Hodgkin Study

340

Group. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical

341

Oncology. 2008;26(3):434-439.

342

23.

RI PT

339

Xing KH, Connors JM, Lai A, et al. Advanced-stage nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma compared with classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a matched pair

344

outcome analysis. Blood. 2014;123(23):3567-3573.

345

24.

SC

343

Aleman BM, Raemaekers JM, Tomisic R, et al. Involved-field radiotherapy for patients in partial remission after chemotherapy for advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma.

347

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2007;67(1):19-30.

348

25.

M AN U

346

Fabian CJ, Mansfield CM, Dahlberg S, et al. Low-dose involved field radiation after chemotherapy in advanced Hodgkin disease. A Southwest Oncology Group

350

randomized study. Annals of internal medicine. 1994;120(11):903-912.

351

26.

TE D

349

Johnson PW, Sydes MR, Hancock BW, Cullen M, Radford JA, Stenning SP. Consolidation radiotherapy in patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma: survival

353

data from the UKLG LY09 randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN97144519). Journal of

354

clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

355

2010;28(20):3352-3359. 27.

AC C

356

EP

352

Wirth A, Yuen K, Barton M, et al. Long-term outcome after radiotherapy alone for

357

lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma: a retrospective multicenter study of

358

the Australasian Radiation Oncology Lymphoma Group. Cancer. 2005;104(6):1221-

359

1229.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

360

28.

Fanale MA. Outcomes of Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin's Lymphoma

361

(NLPHL) Patients Treated with R-CHOP. American Society of Hematology Annual

362

Conference; December 5, 2010, 6:00 PM-8:00 PM, 2010; Orange County, California. 29.

Stehman FB, Bundy BN, Ball H, Clarke-Pearson DL. Sites of failure and times to failure

RI PT

363

in carcinoma of the vulva treated conservatively: a Gynecologic Oncology Group

365

study. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 1996;174(4):1128-1132;

366

discussion 1132-1123.

SC

364

367

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

368

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

% 19 39 26 16

RI PT

69 23 6 2

SC

68 5 9 18

88 10 3

M AN U

11 48 35 7 41 29 22 8 84 16 12 27 41 20

TE D

N Age 18-29 377 30-49 766 50-64 508 Older than 65 317 Race Caucasian 1,348 Black 446 Hispanic 117 Other 46 Insurance Private Insurance 1,314 No Insurance 94 Medicaid 166 Medicare 347 Charlson Comorbidity 0 1,725 1 188 2+ 55 Facility Type Community 137 Comprehensive 589 Academic Program 428 Integrated 84 Stage I 802 II 575 III 437 IV 154 B-symptoms No 1,477 Yes 287 Adjuvant Treatment None 235 Radiation 511 Chemotherapy 789 Chemoradiation 383 Abbreviations: N=number

EP

370 371 372

Table 1. Study Demographics

AC C

369

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

373

Table 2. Predictors of radiotherapy use Univariate 95% CI 0.75,0.91

P <0.01

OR 0.83

Multivariate 95% CI 0.71,0.96

P Age 0.01 Race Caucasian Black 0.77 0.62,0.96 0.02 0.67 0.50,0.91 0.01 Hispanic 1.27 0.87,1.86 0.21 0.99 0.59,1.67 0.97 Other 0.92 0.51,1.65 0.77 0.90 0.40,2.00 0.79 Insurance Private Insurance No Insurance 0.85 0.56,1.29 0.43 1.07 0.59,1.92 0.83 Medicaid 0.60 0.43,0.84 <0.01 0.72 0.45,1.13 0.15 Medicare 0.55 0.43,0.71 <0.01 0.67 0.46,0.99 0.04 Charlson Comorbidity 0 1 0.76 0.56,1.03 0.08 0.61 0.41,0.92 0.02 2+ 0.63 0.36,1.09 0.10 1.29 0.60,2.79 0.52 Facility Type Community Program Comprehensive Program 1.21 0.83,1.76 0.32 Academic Program 1.06 0.72,1.56 0.78 Integrated 1.50 0.87,2.59 0.15 AJCC Stage I II 0.61 0.49,0.76 <0.01 0.74 0.57,0.96 0.02 III 0.03 0.02,0.04 <0.01 0.03 0.02,0.06 <0.01 IV 0.06 0.04,0.11 <0.01 0.11 0.06,0.19 <0.01 B-symptoms No Yes 0.40 0.31,0.53 <0.01 0.62 0.45,0.87 0.01 Chemotherapy No Yes 0.22 0.18,0.27 <0.01 0.34 0.26,0.44 <0.01 Abbreviations: OR=odds ratio; HR=hazard ratio; CI=confidence interval; AJCC=American Joint Committee on Cancer.

TE D EP AC C

374 375 376

M AN U

SC

RI PT

OR 0.83

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Predictors of overall survival Multivariate 95% CI

P

<0.01 <0.01

0.37 2.22

0.23,0.60 1.72,2.87

<0.01 <0.01

0.94 <0.01 <0.01

1.22 2.48 1.41

0.49,3.07 1.41,4.35 0.88,2.27

0.67 <0.01 0.16

<0.01 <0.01

2.43 1.69

1.63,3.61 0.81,3.50

0.81 0.45 0.52

0.19 0.48 0.23

RI PT

HR

<0.01 0.16

0.03 <0.01 <0.01

1.26 1.68 2.37

0.76,2.09 1.00,2.84 1.29,4.33

0.37 0.05 0.01

<0.01

1.78

1.21,2.62

<0.01

0.10

0.83

0.55,1.24

0.36

TE D

EP AC C

378 379 380 381

Radiation None Radiation 0.22 0.15,0.33 Age 2.50 2.11,2.97 Race Caucasian Black 0.95 0.66,1.38 Hispanic 0.75 0.35,1.60 Other 1.34 0.55,3.29 Insurance Private Insurance No Insurance 1.04 0.42,2.58 Medicaid 2.93 1.77,4.83 Medicare 5.07 3.64,7.06 Charlson Comorbidity 0 1 2.96 2.04,4.29 2+ 3.97 2.19,7.19 Facility Type Community Program Comprehensive Program 1.46 0.83,2.56 Academic Program 0.80 0.43,1.49 Integrated 0.53 0.19,1.48 AJCC Stage I II 1.63 1.05,2.54 III 3.47 2.30,5.25 IV 5.25 3.26,8.46 B-symptoms No Yes 2.27 1.59,3.23 Chemotherapy No Yes 1.31 0.95,1.82 Abbreviations: HR=hazard ratio; CI=confidence interval

P

SC

Univariate 95% CI

HR

M AN U

377

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure Legends

383

Figure 1. Survival analysis by stage: all stages (panel A), stages I & II (panel B), and stages III

384

& IV (panel C).

385 386

Figure 2. Survival analysis among patients with B-symptoms.

387

SC

388

RI PT

382

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

389

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT