JCO global oncology · 2026
Efficacy of Standard-Dose Versus Low-Dose Nivolumab in Relapsed/Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma-A Retrospective Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Trivedi Chirag, John Junita, Karumathil Sujith, Selvarajan Sushil, Lionel Sharon, Hephzibah Julie, Sunny Saumya, Chandramohan Anuradha, Kulkarni Uday, Lakshmi Kavitha, Nambiatheyil Aboobacker Fouzia, Abraham Aby, George Biju, Mathews Vikram, Korula Anu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: As there is a paucity of data comparing outcomes with different dosing regimens of PD-1 inhibitors in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL), this retrospective analysis was undertaken to compare the efficacy of low-dose nivolumab (fixed at 40 mg) with the standard dose of 3 mg/kg.
METHODS: Single-center retrospective analysis of patients with R/R HL who failed at least one salvage regimen and were treated with nivolumab between 2015 and 2023, at either 3 mg/kg (standard-dose nivolumab [SD-NIV]) or a flat dose of 40 mg (NIV40), both administered once in 2 weeks. Treatment response was assessed with 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-computed tomography after four doses of nivolumab.
RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were included: 25 received 3 mg/kg (SD-NIV) and 20 received a flat dose of 40 mg (NIV40). The mean dose of nivolumab administered once in 2 weeks was 2.9 mg/kg (stable disease 0.31) in the SD-NIV group compared with 0.6 mg/kg (stable disease 0.10) in the NIV40 group (P < .001). Responses after four doses of nivolumab were similar in the SD-NIV versus NIV40 group: complete response (48% v 50%), partial response (12% v 10%), stable disease (20% v 20%), and progressive disease (20% v 20%; P = .997). Immune-related adverse effects were similar in the two groups (12% v 10%; P = .790). Two-year event-free survival (EFS) of the whole cohort treated with nivolumab with SD-NIV and NIV40 was 47% and 49.5%, respectively (P = .788). Twenty-two of the 45 patients underwent stem cell transplant (11 from each group), with a 2-year EFS of 90.1% versus 81.8% (P = .545) in the SD-NIV and NIV40 groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Despite the inherent limitations of a retrospective analysis, the data suggests that nivolumab demonstrates biologic efficacy at doses as low as 0.6 mg/kg. Prospective trials comparing different dosing strategies are clearly warranted; such studies may facilitate approval of biologically active and cost-effective regimens, thereby broadening access to checkpoint inhibitors.
METHODS: Single-center retrospective analysis of patients with R/R HL who failed at least one salvage regimen and were treated with nivolumab between 2015 and 2023, at either 3 mg/kg (standard-dose nivolumab [SD-NIV]) or a flat dose of 40 mg (NIV40), both administered once in 2 weeks. Treatment response was assessed with 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-computed tomography after four doses of nivolumab.
RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were included: 25 received 3 mg/kg (SD-NIV) and 20 received a flat dose of 40 mg (NIV40). The mean dose of nivolumab administered once in 2 weeks was 2.9 mg/kg (stable disease 0.31) in the SD-NIV group compared with 0.6 mg/kg (stable disease 0.10) in the NIV40 group (P < .001). Responses after four doses of nivolumab were similar in the SD-NIV versus NIV40 group: complete response (48% v 50%), partial response (12% v 10%), stable disease (20% v 20%), and progressive disease (20% v 20%; P = .997). Immune-related adverse effects were similar in the two groups (12% v 10%; P = .790). Two-year event-free survival (EFS) of the whole cohort treated with nivolumab with SD-NIV and NIV40 was 47% and 49.5%, respectively (P = .788). Twenty-two of the 45 patients underwent stem cell transplant (11 from each group), with a 2-year EFS of 90.1% versus 81.8% (P = .545) in the SD-NIV and NIV40 groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Despite the inherent limitations of a retrospective analysis, the data suggests that nivolumab demonstrates biologic efficacy at doses as low as 0.6 mg/kg. Prospective trials comparing different dosing strategies are clearly warranted; such studies may facilitate approval of biologically active and cost-effective regimens, thereby broadening access to checkpoint inhibitors.