Richard I. Fisher

The purpose of this work was to modernize recommendations for evaluation, staging, and response assessment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). A workshop was held at the 11th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma in Lugano, Switzerland, in June 2011, that included leading hematologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine physicians, representing major international lymphoma clinical trials groups and cancer centers. Clinical and imaging subcommittees presented their conclusions at a subsequent workshop at the 12th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma, leading to revised criteria for staging and of the International Working Group Guidelines of 2007 for response. As a result, fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)–computed tomography (CT) was formally incorporated into standard staging for FDG-avid lymphomas. A modification of the Ann Arbor descriptive terminology will be used for anatomic distribution of disease extent, but the suffixes A or B for symptoms will only be included for HL. A bone marrow biopsy is no longer indicated for the routine staging of HL and most diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. However, regardless of stage, general practice is to treat patients based on limited (stages I and II, nonbulky) or advanced (stage III or IV) disease, with stage II bulky disease considered as limited or advanced disease based on histology and a number of prognostic factors. PET-CT will be used to assess response in FDG-avid histologies using the 5-point scale. The product of the perpendicular diameters of a single node can be used to identify progressive disease. Routine surveillance scans are discouraged. These recommendations should improve evaluation of patients with lymphoma and enhance the ability to compare outcomes of clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Standardized response criteria are needed to interpret and compare clinical trials and for approval of new therapeutic agents by regulatory agencies. METHODS: The International Working Group response criteria (Cheson et al, J Clin Oncol 17:1244, 1999) were widely adopted, but required reassessment because of identified limitations and the increased use of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET), immunohistochemistry (IHC), and flow cytometry. The International Harmonization Project was convened to provide updated recommendations. RESULTS: New guidelines are presented incorporating PET, IHC, and flow cytometry for definitions of response in non-Hodgkin's and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Standardized definitions of end points are provided. CONCLUSION: We hope that these guidelines will be adopted widely by study groups, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and regulatory agencies to facilitate the development of new and more effective therapies to improve the outcome of patients with lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The survival of patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma after chemotherapy is influenced by molecular features of the tumors. We used the gene-expression profiles of these lymphomas to develop a molecular predictor of survival. METHODS: Biopsy samples of diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma from 240 patients were examined for gene expression with the use of DNA microarrays and analyzed for genomic abnormalities. Subgroups with distinctive gene-expression profiles were defined on the basis of hierarchical clustering. A molecular predictor of risk was constructed with the use of genes with expression patterns that were associated with survival in a preliminary group of 160 patients and was then tested in a validation group of 80 patients. The accuracy of this predictor was compared with that of the international prognostic index. RESULTS: Three gene-expression subgroups--germinal-center B-cell-like, activated B-cell-like, and type 3 diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma--were identified. Two common oncogenic events in diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma, bcl-2 translocation and c-rel amplification, were detected only in the germinal-center B-cell-like subgroup. Patients in this subgroup had the highest five-year survival rate. To identify other molecular determinants of outcome, we searched for individual genes with expression patterns that correlated with survival in the preliminary group of patients. Most of these genes fell within four gene-expression signatures characteristic of germinal-center B cells, proliferating cells, reactive stromal and immune cells in the lymph node, or major-histocompatibility-complex class II complex. We used 17 genes to construct a predictor of overall survival after chemotherapy. This gene-based predictor and the international prognostic index were independent prognostic indicators. CONCLUSIONS: DNA microarrays can be used to formulate a molecular predictor of survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma.

Standardized guidelines for response assessment are needed to ensure comparability among clinical trials in non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHL). To achieve this, two meetings were convened among United States and international lymphoma experts representing medical hematology/oncology, radiology, radiation oncology, and pathology to review currently used response definitions and to develop a uniform set of criteria for assessing response in clinical trials. The criteria that were developed include anatomic definitions of response, with normal lymph node size after treatment of 1.5 cm in the longest transverse diameter by computer-assisted tomography scan. A designation of complete response/unconfirmed was adopted to include patients with a greater than 75% reduction in tumor size after therapy but with a residual mass, to include patients-especially those with large-cell NHL-who may not have residual disease. Single-photon emission computed tomography gallium scans are encouraged as a valuable adjunct to assessment of patients with large-cell NHL, but such scans require appropriate expertise. Flow cytometric, cytogenetic, and molecular studies are not currently included in response definitions. Response rates may be the most important objective in phase II trials where the activity of a new agent is important and may provide support for approval by regulatory agencies. However, the goals of most phase III trials are to identify therapies that will prolong the progression-free survival, if not the overall survival, of the treated patients. We hope that these guidelines will serve to improve communication among investigators and comparability among clinical trials until clinically relevant laboratory and imaging studies are identified and become more widely available.