Meeting the Challenges in Treating Lymphoma: A Conversation With Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD

Published: Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz

Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD

The 16th Annual International Congress on Hematologic Malignancies was held in Snowbird, Utah, February 23 to 26, 2012. The four-day symposium was chaired by Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, chief of Lymphoma Service and vice chairman of Medical Informatics at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York City.

Zelenetz, who works as part of a multidisciplinary team, has helped develop agents to treat lymphoma, and through clinical trials is evaluating combinations of new lymphoma drugs.

Oncology & Biotech News had the chance to sit down with Zelenetz to discuss a number of new therapies and interesting challenges regarding the treatment of patients with both Hodgkin and non- Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as promising studies that have helped oncologists to better understand these hematologic malignancies.

OBTN: How effective are today’s available treatments for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, specifically diffuse large B-cell lymphoma?

Dr Zelenetz:
The standard of care for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the United States remains rituximab (R) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and predisone (CHOP) given every 21 days. There are a number of regimens that have reported better results than would be expected with R-CHOP, such as dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) (developed at the NCI) and sequential R-CHOP-14 followed by ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide (ICE) (developed at MSKCC). However, we’ve been in the situation before where phase II trials have suggested improved outcomes that have not been validated in phase III trials. We await the results of CALGB 50303 (R-CHOP-21 vs DA-EPOCH-R) and further evaluation of R-CHOP-ICE to see if we can confirm improved outcomes.

The major issue in DLBCL is that, over the past decade, we have recognized that this is not a single disease. Expression-profiling data suggest that DLBCL is at least three diseases, and certainly more than that. But even within the subtypes (ie, primary mediastinal B-cell, germinal center, and activated B-cell), the genomic studies have demonstrated that there is variability. I believe that the real advances are not going to involve simply juggling cytotoxic chemotherapies. We’re going to have to start selecting patients based on the presence or absence of certain features of the disease.

For instance, the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor targets lymphomas with tonic B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling that is seen in active B-cell lymphomas (and possibly some germinal center lymphomas). However, additional mutations downstream of BTK, such as CARD 11 or MYD88 mutations, will likely block the activity of this inhibitor. This suggests that, even within a subtype of DLBCL, treatments will be selected based on what we know about the genetic abnormalities.

The R-CHOP regimen appears to be effective in two-thirds of the patients, but that remaining one-third of patients presents a challenge. Where do you go from there in terms of treatment?

The International Prognostic Index (IPI) is a simple clinical tool that can predict clinical outcome in the rituximab era. Patients with low- or low-intermediate-risk disease have a substantially better outcome than patients with high-intermediate or high-risk disease. This can help us select therapy. For patients with low- or low-intermediate-risk disease, R-CHOP-21 may be appropriate. However, for high- or high-intermediate-risk patients, the sequential R-CHOP-ICE regimen we published a few years ago had an excellent outcome where long-term overall survival and progressionfree survival were between 75% and 80%. Furthermore, the French R-ACVBP (rituximab plus doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin, and prednisone) regimen has shown a superior outcome for poor-risk patients.

These data suggest that we can improve outcomes with conventional chemotherapy, but at the same time we don’t want to overtreat patients and expose them to excessive toxicity if they won’t benefit from chemotherapy. The IPI can be used to select more favorable patients who are expected to do very well with R-CHOP. One strategy to determine if a new therapy is better than R-CHOP-21 is to enroll patients with unfavorable IPI; in doing so, the difference (if any) with R-CHOP-21 may be magnified. We are looking forward to the results of the CLGB 50303 comparing R-CHOP-21 to DA-EPOCH-R. That is a very important study because it has two features: embedded gene-expression profiling and some limited genomics. This will allow us to determine if there is any correlation between the chemotherapy and specific genomic and gene-expression profile signatures. Ultimately, this may help us select patients who can get R-CHOP with excellent results and patients who might benefit from the more aggressive DA-EPOCH-R.

View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
Clinical Interchange™: Moving Forward From the Status Quo for the Treatment of Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Key Questions and New Answers to Optimize OutcomesOct 31, 20182.0
Hematology Briefings™: Advancing Care and Improving Outcomes for Patients With Pyruvate Kinase DeficiencyOct 31, 20181.0
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication