Table 1.
Phase II and III Studies Evaluating Anti-PD1 mAb Therapies in Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
| Study | Phase | Key Inclusion | Agent | n | ORR (CR) | PFS (Median Follow Up) | OS | mDOR (Median Follow Up) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple R/R Disease: anti-PD-1 mAb monotherapy | ||||||||
| Younes 2016 [18] Armand 2018 [19] Ansell 2021 [20] |
II | Post ASCT +/− BV | Nivo | 243 | 71% (21%) | 37% (24 m) 18% (60 m) |
87% (24 m) 71% (60 m) |
18 m (58 m) |
| Chen 2017 [21] Chen 2019 [22] Armand 2021 [23] |
II | Post ASCT +/− BV or R/R to first line salvage therapy |
Pembro | 210 | 71% (28%) | 44% (60 m) | 71% (60 m) |
7 m (60 m) |
| Zinzani 2020 [24] | II | Primary Refractory Disease subgroup |
Pembro | 71 | 82% (35%) | 32% (24 m) | 94% (24 m) |
17 m (28 m) |
| Kuruvilla 2021 [25] | III | Post or ineligible for ASCT | Pembro vs. BV | 304 | N/A | 54% vs. 36 (12 m) | N/A | N/A |
| Song 2020 [26] Song 2022 [27] |
II | Post or ineligible for ASCT | Tislelizumab | 70 | 87% (67%) | 41% (36 m) | 85% (36 m) |
32 m (10 m) |
| Nie 2019 [28] Liu 2021 [29] |
II | Post 2+ prior LOT | Camrelizumab | 19 | 90% (32%) | 67% (24 m) | 63% (24 m) |
NR |
| Song 2019 [30] | II | Post ASCT | Camrelizumab | 75 | 76.0% (28%) | 81% (6 m) 67% (12 m) |
NR | NR |
| Multiple R/R Disease: anti-PD-1 mAb combination therapies | ||||||||
| Diefenbach 2020 [31] | I/II | R/R after 1+ prior LOT | Ipi/BV | 21 | 76% (57%) | 61% (12 m) | NR | N/A |
| Nivo/BV | 18 | 89% (61%) | 70% (12 m) | NR | NR | |||
| Ipi/Nivo/BV | 22 | 82% (73%) | 80% (12 m) | NR | NR | |||
| Lepik 2020 [32] | II | R/R to Nivo monotherapy | Nivo + Benda | 30 | 87% (57%) | 23% (25 m) | 97% (24 m) |
7 m (25 m) |
| Nie 2019 [28] Liu 2021 [29] |
II | R/R in anti-PD-1 mAb naïve pts | Camrelizumab + Decitabine | 42 | 95% (71%) | 79% (6 m) 89% (12 m) |
63% (24 m) |
NR |
| R/R in anti-PD-1 resistant pts | Camrelizumab + Decitabine | 25 | 52% (28%) | 79% (6 m) 59% (12 m) |
N/A | 16 m (35 m) | ||
| First Salvage prior to Transplant | ||||||||
| Advani 2021 [33] | I/II | R/R in first salvage therapy |
Nivo+ BV | 91 | 85% (67%) | 77% (36 m) | 93% (36 m) |
N/A |
| Moskowitz 2021 [34] | II | R/R prior to ASCT | Pembro + GVD | 38 | 100% (95%) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Mei 2022 [35] | II | R/R bridge to ASCT | Nivo +/− ICE | 9 | 100% (89%) | 72% (24 m) | 94% (24 m) |
N/A |
| Bryan 2021 [36] | II | R/R prior to ASCT | Pembro + ICE | 42 | N/A | 88% (24 m) | 95% (24 m) |
N/A |
| Maintenance after ASCT | ||||||||
| Armand 2019 [37] | II | R/R after ASCT | Pembro | 30 | N/A | 82% (18 m) | 100% (18 m) |
N/A |
| Frontline | ||||||||
| Cheson 2020 [38] | II | 60+ years old and ineligible for chemotherapy | Nivo + BV | 46 | 61% (48%) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Brockelmann 2020 [39] | II | Early stage unfavorable |
Nivo + AVD (C and S) |
109 | 96% (87%) | S: 95% (24 m) C: 100% (24 m) |
S: 100% (24 m) C: 100% (24 m) |
N/A |
| Ramchandren 2019 [40] | II | Advanced stage | Nivo + AVD (S) | 51 | 84% (67%) | 92% (9 m) | 98% (9 m) | N/A |
| Allen 2021 [41] | II | Early stage unfavorable and advanced stage |
Pembro + AVD (S) | 30 | 100% (No CR) | NR | NR | N/A |
AVD: Adriamycin, vinblastine, dacabazine; C: combination; CR: complete response rate assessed by positron emission tomography (PET); GVD: gemcitabine, vinorelbine, doxorubicin (liposomal); ICE: ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide; Ipi: ipilimumab; LOT: line of therapy; mDOR: median duration of response; N/A: data not available; NR: not reached; Nivo: nivolumab; ORR: overall response rate assessed by PET; PFS: progression-free survival; Pembro: pembrolizumab; S: sequential; m: month.