Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 10;2021(1):247-253. doi: 10.1182/hematology.2021000256

Table 1.

Conventional cytotoxic therapy options in R/R cHL

Agent Study design Median age (range), years Total, N Prior AHCT (n) ORR% (CR%) Median PFS/EFS (mo) Reference
Gemcitabine based
Gemcitabine II 35 (19-58) 23 0 39 (9) 6.7 Santoro et al8
GDP II 36 (19–57) 23 0 69 (17) NR Baetz et al9
GVD I/II 33 (19–83) 91 40 70 (19) 8.5* Bartlett et al10
IGEV II 30 (17-59) 91 NA 81 (54) 3-y FFP 53% Santoro et al11
Platinum based
ICE II 27 (12-59) 65 NA 88 (26) 58% Moskowitz et al12
DHAP II 34 (21-64) 102 NA 89 (21) NR Josting et al13
ESHAP II 34 (18-66) 22 2 73 (40) 3-y DFS 27% Aparicio et al14
Vinca alkaloids
Vinblastine II 31 (23-48) 17 17 59 (12) 8.3 Little et al15
Vinorelbine II NR 24 4 50 (14) 6 Devizzi et al16
Alkylators
Bendamustine II 34 (21–75) 35 27 53 (33) 5.2 Moskowitz et al17
*

Median EFS was not reached in the transplant-naive group, while it was 8.5 months in patients with prior transplant.

At a median follow-up of 43 months, as analyzed by intent to treat, the EFS was 58%.

ASCT, autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation; DFS, disease-free survival; DHAP, dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, cisplatin; EFS, event-free survival; ESHAP, etoposide, methylprednisolone, high-dose cytarabine, cisplatin; FFP, freedom from progression; GDP, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, cisplatin; GVD, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, liposomal doxorubicin; ICE, ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide; IGEV, ifosfamide, gemcitabine, etoposide, vinorelbine; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; PFS, progression-free survival.