Table 4

Results of RCTs comparing the efficacy of smaller vs larger radiotherapy field

TrialIntervention control participantsOS, %FFTF, %PFS, %EFS, %Late AE, %Response, %Median follow-upReference
GHSG HD8 Arm A: COPP-ABVD + 30 Gy EF + 10 Gy to bulk (n = 565) 90.8 vs 92.4 at 5 y (difference: EF − IF = −1.6% (95% CI: −5.6 to 2.5); P = NS *85.8 vs 84.2 at 5 y (difference of 1.6%, upper boundary, 5.9%); IF was not inferior to EF; margin at 6% 79.8 vs 80.0 at 10 y (95% CI: −5.2 to 5.6); P = NS NR SC: 4.6 vs 2.8 (P = .191) Deaths: 8.1 vs 6.4 (P = .344) CR: 98.5 vs 97.2 55 mo 8, 23 
Arm B: COPP-ABVD + 30 Gy IF + 10 Gy to bulk (n = 571) 
EORTC GELA H8U (unfavorable) Arm A: 6 × MOPP-ABV + IFRT (n = 663) 88 (95% CI: 84-91) vs 85 (95% CI: 78-90) vs 84 (95% CI: 74-90) at 10 y (P = .93) NR NR *82 (95% CI: 77-86) vs 80 (95% CI: 75-85) vs 80 (95% CI: 71-86) at 10 y (P = .80) SC at 10 y: Arm A: 4.5 (95% CI: 2.5-7.9) Arm B: 7.1 (95% CI: 4.3-11.6) Arm C: 8.8 (95% CI: 4.3-17.3), P = .63 Death: 11 vs 11 vs 10 (P values NR) CR/Cru at the end of chemotherapy: 69 vs 64 vs 64 CR/Cru at the end of treatment: 83 vs 85 vs 86 89 mo 25 
Arm B: 4 × MOPP-ABV + IFRT (n = 333) 
Arm C: 4 × MOPP-ABV + STNI (n = 327) 
INCI Arm A: ABVD + STNI (n = 66) 96 (95% CI: 91-100) vs 94 (95% CI: 89-100) at 12 y NR 93 (95% CI: 83-100) vs 94 (95% CI: 88-100) at 12 y 87 (95% CI: 85-98) vs 91 (95% CI: 85-98) at 12 y NR CR: 100 vs 97 116 mo 26 
Arm B: ABVD + IFRT (n = 70) 
DNHSG Arm A: MFRT + 6 × MOPP (n = 163) For patients surviving >15 y, OS was better for arm A than for arm B (P < .02); estimate: 62 vs 50 at 30 y NR NR NR SC at 20 y: NS NR 25 y 16 
Arm B: (S)TNI (n = 164) 
TrialIntervention control participantsOS, %FFTF, %PFS, %EFS, %Late AE, %Response, %Median follow-upReference
GHSG HD8 Arm A: COPP-ABVD + 30 Gy EF + 10 Gy to bulk (n = 565) 90.8 vs 92.4 at 5 y (difference: EF − IF = −1.6% (95% CI: −5.6 to 2.5); P = NS *85.8 vs 84.2 at 5 y (difference of 1.6%, upper boundary, 5.9%); IF was not inferior to EF; margin at 6% 79.8 vs 80.0 at 10 y (95% CI: −5.2 to 5.6); P = NS NR SC: 4.6 vs 2.8 (P = .191) Deaths: 8.1 vs 6.4 (P = .344) CR: 98.5 vs 97.2 55 mo 8, 23 
Arm B: COPP-ABVD + 30 Gy IF + 10 Gy to bulk (n = 571) 
EORTC GELA H8U (unfavorable) Arm A: 6 × MOPP-ABV + IFRT (n = 663) 88 (95% CI: 84-91) vs 85 (95% CI: 78-90) vs 84 (95% CI: 74-90) at 10 y (P = .93) NR NR *82 (95% CI: 77-86) vs 80 (95% CI: 75-85) vs 80 (95% CI: 71-86) at 10 y (P = .80) SC at 10 y: Arm A: 4.5 (95% CI: 2.5-7.9) Arm B: 7.1 (95% CI: 4.3-11.6) Arm C: 8.8 (95% CI: 4.3-17.3), P = .63 Death: 11 vs 11 vs 10 (P values NR) CR/Cru at the end of chemotherapy: 69 vs 64 vs 64 CR/Cru at the end of treatment: 83 vs 85 vs 86 89 mo 25 
Arm B: 4 × MOPP-ABV + IFRT (n = 333) 
Arm C: 4 × MOPP-ABV + STNI (n = 327) 
INCI Arm A: ABVD + STNI (n = 66) 96 (95% CI: 91-100) vs 94 (95% CI: 89-100) at 12 y NR 93 (95% CI: 83-100) vs 94 (95% CI: 88-100) at 12 y 87 (95% CI: 85-98) vs 91 (95% CI: 85-98) at 12 y NR CR: 100 vs 97 116 mo 26 
Arm B: ABVD + IFRT (n = 70) 
DNHSG Arm A: MFRT + 6 × MOPP (n = 163) For patients surviving >15 y, OS was better for arm A than for arm B (P < .02); estimate: 62 vs 50 at 30 y NR NR NR SC at 20 y: NS NR 25 y 16 
Arm B: (S)TNI (n = 164) 

ABV, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine; COPP, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone; CR, complete response; CRu, complete response unconfirmed; DNHSG, Danish National Hodgkin Study Group; EF, extended field; IF, involved field; INCI, Italian National Cancer Institute; MFRT, mantle-field radiotherapy; MOPP, mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone.

*

Primary outcome.

Source of PFS data.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal