Purpose: The multicentre response-adapted paediatric Hodgkin lymphoma trial GPOH-HD95 (1995-2001, 925 patients) was followed by the 'HD-Interval' period (2001-2002, 203 patients). During this period, treatment was recommended according to GPOH-HD95 protocol with only minor changes. Central review and treatment planning as in HD95, however, had to be omitted in the absence of funding. Results of both periods were compared to evaluate the impact of central review on staging, stratification, treatment planning and outcome.
Methods: Pre- and post-chemotherapy computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of HD-Interval patients were evaluated with respect to reliability of staging, response assessment and subsequent treatment stratification.
Results: Despite more favourable patient characteristics and treatment group stratifications, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) was inferior in HD-Interval patients compared to GPOH-HD95 patients with nearly identical therapy (86% versus 91%, P=0.01). Of 142 patients without guidance by the reference centre, 56 (39%) received a treatment deviating from protocol recommendations: chemotherapy doses were either lower or higher than recommended in 17% of patients, and deviations concerning radiotherapy dose and treatment volume occurred in 25% and 20%, respectively. In both periods, the 10-year PFS was lower in patients with diminished therapy compared to those with adequate treatment according to the given recommendations (HD-Interval: 72% versus 89%, P=0.02; GPOH-HD95: 80% versus 92%, P=0.04).
Conclusions: Deviations from protocol treatment may influence negatively the outcome in paediatric oncology. Protocol enrolment and compliance including timely and correct treatment are crucial. Central reference and consultation centres offer quality assurance, support protocol adherence, and hence influence PFS.
Keywords: Central review; Hodgkin lymphoma; Paediatric; Reference centre.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.