Why the study?
The prognostic impact of Epstein-Barr virus in classical Hodgkin lymphoma is controversial, with heterogeneous prior results hindering its validation as a prognostic biomarker.
Does the expression of EBV-LMP1 impact overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma treated with ABVD?
Does the expression of EBV-LMP1 impact overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma treated with ABVD?
The expression of EBV-LMP1 does not significantly impact overall or progression-free survival in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma treated with ABVD.
EBV-LMP1 assessment in cHL should not yet inform prognosis; leaves open its independent value pending prospective validation.
The prognostic impact of the presence of Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is controversial. Previous studies reported heterogeneous results, rendering difficult the clinical validation of EBV as a prognostic biomarker in this lymphoma. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival impact of the expression of EBV Latent-Membrane Protein 1 (EBV-LMP1) in tumoral Hodgkin–Reed–Sternberg (HRS) cells of primary diagnostic samples of cHL. Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) lymph node samples from 88 patients with cHL were analyzed. Patients were treated with the standard first-line chemotherapy (CT) with Adriamycin, Bleomycin, Vinblastine and Dacarbazine (ABVD) followed by radiotherapy. The Kaplan–Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model were used for carrying out the survival analysis. In order to investigate whether the influence of EBV was age-dependent, analyses were performed both for patients of all ages and for age-stratified subgroups. In bivariate analysis, the expression of EBV was associated with older age (p = 0.011), mixed cellularity subtype cHL (p < 0.001) and high risk International Prognostic Score (IPS) (p = 0.023). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were associated with the presence of bulky disease (p = 0.009) and advanced disease at diagnosis (p = 0.016). EBV-positive cases did not present a significantly lower OS and PFS in comparison with EBV-negative cases, for all ages and when stratifying for age. When adjusted for covariates, absence of bulky disease at diagnosis (HR: 0.102, 95% CI: 0.02–0.48, p = 0.004) and limited disease stages (I–II) (HR: 0.074, 95% CI: 0.01–0.47, p = 0.006) were associated with a significant better OS. For PFS, limited-disease stages also retained prognostic impact in the multivariate Cox regression (HR: 0.145, 95% CI: 0.04–0.57, p = 0.006). These results are of importance as the early identification of prognostic biomarkers in cHL is critical for guiding and personalizing therapeutic decisions. The prognostic role of EBV in cHL could be modulated by the type of CT protocol employed and interact with the rest of presenting features.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santisteban‐Espejo et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: