We conducted a phase II study evaluating pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and liposomal doxorubicin (pembro-GVD) as second-line therapy for relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03618550).

Transplant eligible patients with rel/ref cHL following first-line therapy were treated with two to four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenous [IV], day 1), gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), vinorelbine (20 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), and liposomal doxorubicin (15 mg/m2, days 1 and 8), given on 21-day cycles. The primary end point was complete response (CR) following up to four cycles of pembro-GVD. Patients who achieved CR by labeled fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (Deauville ≤ 3) after two or four cycles proceeded to high-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HDT/AHCT). HDT/AHCT was carried out according to institutional standards, and brentuximab vedotin maintenance was allowed following HDT/AHCT.

Of 39 patients enrolled, 41% had primary ref disease and 38% relapsed within 1 year of frontline treatment. 31 patients received two cycles of pembro-GVD, and eight received four cycles. Most adverse events were grade 1 or two, whereas few were grade 3 and included transaminitis (n = 4), neutropenia (n = 4), mucositis (n = 2), thyroiditis (n = 1), and rash (n = 1). Of 38 evaluable patients, overall and CR rates after pembro-GVD were 100% and 95%, respectively. Thirty-six (95%) patients proceeded to HDT/AHCT, two received pre-HDT/AHCT involved site radiation, and 13 (33%) received post-HDT/AHCT brentuximab vedotin maintenance. All 36 transplanted patients are in remission at a median post-transplant follow-up of 13.5 months (range: 2.66-27.06 months).

Second-line therapy with pembro-GVD is a highly effective and well-tolerated regimen that can efficiently bridge patients with rel/ref cHL to HDT/AHCT.

Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is often cured with frontline therapy; however, up to 25% of patients with advanced stage and up to 10% with early stage will have relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) disease.1-3 The standard approach for these patients is second-line therapy (SLT) followed by consolidation with high-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (HDT/AHCT). The role of HDT/AHCT in rel/ref cHL was established by two randomized studies, published in 1993 and 2002, which showed that 55% of patients who respond to second-line cytotoxic chemotherapy can be cured with HDT/AHCT.4,5 More recent studies show considerably better outcomes for rel/ref disease with a 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) of about 70% or better.6,7 Two main factors account for the improved outcomes observed in recent studies: the establishment of pre-HDT/AHCT labeled fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) response as the single most important prognostic factor predicting post-HDT/AHCT outcome and the introduction of SLT containing newer agents for cHL, such as brentuximab vedotin (BV).


  • Key Objective

  • Up to 25% of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) develop relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) disease following frontline therapy, and the standard treatment for these patients is administration of second-line therapy (SLT) followed by consolidation with high-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (HDT/AHCT). Achievement of complete response (CR) on labeled fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography before HDT/AHCT is the strongest prognostic factor for long-term outcome in rel/ref cHL. There is no one standard SLT; however, optimal SLTs are associated with high rates of CR and favorable tolerability. Given the increasing use of brentuximab vedotin in the frontline setting for cHL, highly active SLTs that do not include brentuximab vedotin are needed. Building upon the efficacy of programmed cell death protein-1 blockade in cHL, this study aimed to assess the CR rate to pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and liposomal doxorubicin (pembro-GVD) for transplant eligible patients with rel/ref cHL after frontline treatment.

  • Knowledge Generated

  • Pembrolizumab plus GVD as SLT for cHL is associated with a CR rate of 95% and favorable toxicity profile. This regimen efficiently and safely bridged patients with rel/ref cHL to HDT/AHCT.

  • Relevance (J.W. Friedberg)

  • The high activity of pembrolizumab plus GVD as SLT for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma warrants further investigation in prospective randomized trials.*

  • Relevance section written by JCO Editor-in-Chief Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD.

We previously reported that the 5-year event-free survival for rel/ref cHL patients with negative pre-HDT/AHCT functional imaging (gallium or FDG-PET) was 75% compared with 31% for patients with persistent abnormalities on functional imaging.8 Numerous other groups reported similar findings, suggesting that normalization of FDG-PET following SLT should be a goal for patients proceeding to HDT/AHCT.9-14 There is no single standard SLT for cHL, and traditional options include platinum-based regimens such as ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE) or dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin (DHAP) and gemcitabine-based regimens such as ifosfamide, gemcitabine, and etoposide (IGEV), gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP), or gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and doxil (GVD).15-19 Although these traditional second-line chemotherapy-based regimens induce complete responses (CRs) in about 50%-60% of patients, modern regimens incorporating BV, programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) blockade, and/or bendamustine produce CR rates ranging from 67% to 75%.6,7,15,17,19-25

Data regarding the incorporation of PD-1 blockade into SLT are limited. The most established regimen is BV plus nivolumab, which has the advantage of outpatient administration and good tolerability. Importantly, it is highly effective, associated with a CR rate of 67% and a 3-year PFS of 77%.26 One disadvantage of this regimen is that it includes BV, which is increasingly being used in the frontline setting, making it less desirable for SLT.

Building upon the high activity observed with the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab in rel/ref cHL, we aimed to develop a novel immunotherapy-based SLT regimen for cHL.27,28 We sought to develop an SLT regimen that is well-tolerated, outpatient administrated, and associated with high CR rates. We chose the GVD regimen as the backbone for use in this study for its favorable toxicity profile and outpatient compatibility. GVD was first evaluated in a phase I or II multicenter study sponsored by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B in both transplant-naïve and previously transplanted patients. The overall response rate (ORR) by computed tomography (CT) alone was 70%.17 Each drug in the GVD regimen can potentially stimulate tumor-specific immune responses through various mechanisms, and thus, we hypothesized that the off-target immunologic effects of GVD would enhance the efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with cHL.29 In this phase II study, we aimed to establish the safety and efficacy of pre-HDT/AHCT pembrolizumab combined with GVD for rel/ref cHL.

Study Design

This was a multicenter, investigator-initiated, single-arm, phase II study conducted at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven rel/ref cHL following one line of multiagent chemotherapy. Patients age ≥ 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≤ 1 and adequate organ function (defined as an absolute neutrophil count ≥ 1,000/µL, platelets ≥ 50,000/µL, hemoglobin ≥ 8 g/dL, creatinine ≤ 1.5 × upper limit of normal (ULN), total bilirubin ≤ 1.5 × ULN or ≤ 3 × ULN if liver involvement is present, AST/ALT ≤ 2.5 × ULN or ≤ 5 × ULN if liver involvement is present, hemoglobin-adjusted diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide ≥ 50%, and a cardiac ejection fraction ≥ 45%) were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had autoimmune disease requiring immunosuppressive therapy within 2 years before enrollment, known active HIV, hepatitis B or C, or history of pneumonitis requiring steroid treatment. This study was approved by the institutional review boards at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03618550. All patients provided informed consent.


Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenous (IV) (flat) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 IV (days 1 and 8), vinorelbine 20 mg/m2 IV (days 1 and 8), and liposomal doxorubicin 15 mg/m2 IV (days 1 and 8) on 21-day cycles. Growth factor support with pegfilgrastim or equivalent was administered on day 9 of each cycle. To reduce the rate of liposomal doxorubicin infusion–related reactions on cycle 1, day 1, patients received premedication with diphenhydramine, famotidine, and dexamethasone and liposomal doxorubicin was administered over 2 hours.

Patients were assessed for response by FDG-PET/CT after two and four cycles of treatment. Patients with CR (defined as Deauville ≤ 3) after two cycles were eligible to proceed to HDT/AHCT. Patients with less than CR after two cycles of pembrolizumab-GVD received an additional two cycles followed by FDG-PET/CT and consideration for HDT/AHCT.

Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplant

Stem-cell mobilization and collection were performed as per institutional guidelines after 2-4 cycles of pembrolizumab-GVD. Conditioning for HDT/AHCT was as per treating physician preference and according to institutional guidelines. Initiation of high-dose chemotherapy occurred 3-6 weeks after the last cycle of pembrolizumab-GVD. Administration of pre-HDT/AHCT involved site radiation, or post-HDT/AHCT maintenance therapy with BV was at the discretion of the treating physician. Because of relatively high rates of engraftment syndrome (ES) previously observed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center following PD-1 blockade–containing salvage, there was a low threshold for diagnosing and treating ES in this study. ES was defined as high-grade noninfectious fever (> 38.5°C) and was typically treated with dexamethasone 0.2 mg/kg IV daily × 3 days (or longer for prolonged symptoms) followed by oral steroid taper.

Statistical Methods

To evaluate safety, an initial safety run-in was conducted with the first six patients. These patients were treated and observed for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) for a minimum of 5 weeks following initiation of cycle 2 of pembrolizumab-GVD. If not more than one patient experienced DLT, enrollment would continue to the two-stage design described below. Otherwise, dose modifications would have been considered before moving forward.

The primary objective of the study was to evaluate CR rate after treatment with pembro-GVD. Traditional second-line chemotherapy, such as ICE or GVD, produces CR rates of about 50%.15,17 Sample size calculation for this study was based on the assumption that a CR rate of at least 70% with pembro-GVD would be considered promising. To that end, we used Simon's two-stage minimax design. In the first stage, we enrolled 23 eligible patients and at least 12 patients were required to achieve CR to proceed to stage II. In stage II, an additional 16 patients were enrolled. Among the total 39 patients, if 24 or more patients achieved CR, this treatment regimen would be declared promising. This decision rule had a type I error rate of 0.10 and a type II error rate of 0.10.

By Protocol (online only), ORR (partial response [PR] or CR) is summarized along with 95% CIs. Predetermined secondary objectives included assessing PFS and overall survival (OS), with follow-up starting at the initiation of therapy. In the group of patients who went on to HDT/AHCT after the end of pembro-GVD, post-HDT/AHCT PFS and OS were assessed with follow-up starting after transplant. Exploratory current PFS and OS rates were calculated using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Patient characteristics were reported with median and range for continuous variables and counts and percentage for categorical variables. Associations between immune-related adverse events (AEs) and number of cycles, ES and immune-related AEs, and ES and sex were assessed with Fisher's exact test. Adverse events are reported for all patients accrued to this trial.

Patient Characteristics

Between August 2018 and October 2020, 39 patients were recruited into the study and their characteristics are shown in Table 1. In brief, the median age was 38 years (21-71 years), 41% had primary refractory disease (no CR to frontline therapy), and an additional 38% had relapsed within the first year of completing frontline therapy. Most patients received doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine as frontline therapy.


TABLE 1. Patient Characteristics

Overall AEs.

No DLT events were seen in the safety phase of the study. All 39 patients were evaluated for AEs related to pembro-GVD, and the data are shown in Table 2. Most AEs were grade 1 or 2. The few grade 3 AEs included rash (n = 1), elevated AST/ALT (n = 4), mucositis (n = 2), neutropenia (n = 4), and hyperthyroidism (n = 1). All eight infusion-related reactions were related to liposomal doxorubicin. They occurred with the first dose only and improved with administration of additional diphenhydramine and slowing the rate of liposomal doxorubicin. There was one serious AE in a patient admitted for nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea because of thyroiditis.


TABLE 2. Adverse Events Observed in 5% or More Patients and All Grade 3 Events

Immune-related AEs.

Immune-related AEs included hyperthyroidism (n = 5), transaminitis (n = 16), and rash (n = 19). Hyperthyroidism developed within the first two cycles of treatment for all five patients. Two patients recovered, and the other three subsequently developed hypothyroidism and remained stable on levothyroxine. With regard to transaminitis and rash, grade 3 events were typically treated with steroids and/or treatment delays. Although the package insert for pembrolizumab recommends permanent discontinuation of pembrolizumab for AST or ALT elevations > 8× the upper limit of normal, we did not permanently discontinue pembrolizumab following grade 3 transaminitis because we assumed that gemcitabine was likely contributing to this toxicity. Overall, 5 (13%) patients received systemic steroids (prednisone) for transaminitis (n = 4) or grade 3 rash (n = 1); the median prednisone dose was 50 mg/day (range 40-80 mg/day), given for a median of 8 days (range 4-14 days). There was no significant difference in the frequency of immune-related events in patients receiving two versus four cycles of pembro-GVD (P = .2). All events of hepatitis and rash resolved upon completion of pembro-GVD.

Dose delays and reductions.

Overall, 9 of 39 (23%) patients required a treatment delay lasting a median of 6 days (range 4-14 days). Reasons for treatment delays included transaminitis (n = 4), rash (n = 1), mucositis (n = 1), neutropenia (n = 1), and upper respiratory infection (n = 2). Only two patients had dose reductions; one had a 20% dose reduction of gemcitabine on cycle 2, day 8 for transaminitis, and the other had a 25% dose reduction of GVD on cycle 4, day 8 for grade 3 mucositis. No patient required treatment delay or reduction on more than one occasion.

Efficacy of pembrolizumab plus GVD.

One patient was excluded from the efficacy analysis because of the presence of composite lymphoma (transformed follicular lymphoma along with cHL, see the footnote of Table 3 for details). Among 38 patients eligible for response assessment, 35 (92%) achieved CR after two cycles of pembro-GVD and three (8%) achieved PR (Table 3). Eight patients (of which seven were evaluable) received two additional cycles of pembro-GVD (including three patients with initial PR and four patients with initial CR requiring delay of HDT/AHCT because of COVID [n = 3] or personal reasons [n = 1]). Following four cycles of pembro-GVD, one response improved from PR to CR, two patients remained with PR, and the other four patients had sustained CR. In summary, the overall CR rate and ORR after salvage therapy with pembro-GVD were 95% (95% CI, 82 to 99) and 100% (95% CI, 91 to 100), respectively.


TABLE 3. Efficacy

Autologous hematopoietic cell transplant.

Among 38 evaluable patients, 36 (95%) proceeded to HDT/AHCT following two (n = 30) or four (n = 6) cycles of pembro-GVD (Fig 1). Two patients received pre-HDT/AHCT involved site radiation, including one patient with initially bulky disease and CR after two cycles of pembro-GVD and a second patient with PR after four cycles of pembro-GVD. Details regarding mobilization, conditioning, engraftment, and post-AHCT immune–related events, including ES, are provided in the Data Supplement (online only).

Following HDT/AHCT, 13 (33%) patients received maintenance with brentuximab vedotin (n = 12) or brentuximab vedotin plus nivolumab (n = 1, on a clinical trial) for a median of five cycles (range, 1-11 cycles).

Of the two patients who did not proceed to HDT/AHCT, one withdrew from the study for personal reasons after achieving a CR to two cycles of pembro-GVD; the other patient declined HDT/AHCT and instead received treatment with single-agent pembrolizumab (off-study). That individual remains on pembrolizumab and in remission 16 months after completion of pembro-GVD.


With a median follow-up of 13.5 months (2.66-27.06 months) after HDT/AHCT, all patients are alive and in remission (Appendix Fig A1, online only). Five patients developed FDG-avid abnormalities after HDT/AHCT; however, biopsies did not demonstrate cHL. Details regarding the false-positive FDG-PET findings are discussed in the Data Supplement.

This phase II study of SLT with pembrolizumab plus GVD for rel/ref cHL showed high efficacy, good tolerability, and high rate of HDT/AHCT completion. In particular, 95% of patients achieved CR (92% after only two cycles) and all but two patients (because of patient preference) proceeded to HDT/AHCT. Efficacy was observed across rel/ref risk groups as 41% of patients had primary refractory disease, another 38% relapsed within their first year of treatment, and 59% had advanced-stage disease upon enrollment. Furthermore, remissions appear durable as no relapses have occurred to date after a median follow-up of 13.5 months (range: 2.66-27.06 months) post-HDT/AHCT. This compares favorably with our previous study evaluating PET-adapted second-line therapy with BV and augmented ICE in which the 6-year PFS was 73% and 80% of lymphoma-related events occurred within 1 year of HDT/AHCT.30 In addition to its high efficacy, pembro-GVD was associated with fairly good tolerability. Notable toxicities, including rash and transaminitis, were manageable, reversible, and resulted in few treatment delays or reductions.

The CR rate observed with frontline administration of single-agent pembrolizumab is 37%, whereas CR rates with GVD alone are not higher than 50%.15,17,31 We hypothesize that the high CR rate associated with pembro-GVD observed in this study is due to immune modulation by one or more drugs within GVD, working to enhance the impact of pembrolizumab. In particular, preclinical data demonstrated that gemcitabine could enhance cell immunity through increasing cross-presentation of antigen to CD8 cells following apoptosis, increasing major histocompatibility complex-1 expression on tumor cells, and augmenting dendritic cell maturation and function. Furthermore, gemcitabine was shown to reduce myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME).32 Doxorubicin has been shown to enhance the proliferation of tumor antigen–specific CD8+ T cells in tumor-draining lymph nodes and promote tumor infiltration by IL-17–secreting γδ T cells and activated IFNγ-secreting CD8+ T cells. Finally, although enhanced antitumor immunity has not specifically been shown with vinorelbine, another vinca alkaloid (vincristine) has been shown to stimulate dendritic cell–mediated antigen presentation.29 It is unknown whether one or all of the drugs in GVD are needed for the efficacy we observed with pembro-GVD; however, similarly, high overall efficacy was observed with frontline sequential therapy with pembrolizumab and AVD31 and with frontline nivolumab given sequentially or concomitantly with AVD,33 suggesting that AVD may enhance the activity of PD-1 blockade as well.

A fascinating story is developing regarding the mechanism of PD-1 blockade in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with cHL. The phase II randomized study of frontline treatment with either sequential or concomitant treatment with nivolumab and AVD for early-stage unfavorable cHL by Bröckelmann and colleagues showed high rates of CR after single-agent nivolumab (51%) and following completion of chemoimmunotherapy (83%-84%).33 Analysis of pretreatment and on-treatment biopsies from patients initially treated with single-agent nivolumab demonstrated early changes in the TME, suggesting that response to therapy occurred as a result of withdrawal of critical survival factors from the TME rather than induction of antitumor immunity.34,35 In particular, reduction in type I T-regulatory cells and PD-L1–positive macrophages accompanied the disappearance of Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg cells 2-15 days following treatment initiation with single-agent nivolumab, whereas no evidence of an adoptive cytotoxic immune response was observed. Interestingly, markedly different findings in patients with rel/ref cHL indicate a distinct mechanism of action in this patient population. In the CheckMate-205 study, which evaluated single-agent nivolumab in rel/ref patients, the mechanism of action appeared dependent on an antitumor immune response characterized by expansion of CD4+ cytotoxic T cells.36 This was evident by the finding of greater baseline T-cell receptor diversity among complete responders, coupled with treatment-associated expansion of T-cell receptor diversity and circulating CD4+ T cells in patients with the deepest response to therapy. The patients analyzed from the CheckMate-205 study had all received prior HDT/AHCT and thus were more heavily treated than the patients with rel/ref enrolled in our study. We suspect that the patients enrolled in our study are more immunologically similar to the untreated patients with cHL from Bröckelmann's nivolumab-AVD study and Allen's pembrolizumab-AVD study and that the high rate of brisk CRs we observed with pembro-GVD may similarly be a result of elimination of prosurvival immune cells (perhaps further aided by one of the chemotherapy agents in GVD).31,33

Frontline treatment of cHL has undergone significant modifications throughout the past 30 years. The initial approach was to optimize frontline therapy with intensive, full-course combination chemotherapy and, in many cases, radiation. With time, interim FDG-PET emerged as an important predictor of outcome and we learned that treatment can be modified on the basis of interim FDG-PET response.37,38 This has led to elimination of radiation for patients with bulky disease who achieve PET CR, reduced exposure to bleomycin for PET-2–negative advanced-stage patients, and significantly reduced use of radiation for early-stage patients.3,38,39 Likewise, the length of treatment can be reduced to as little as three cycles for the most favorable early-stage patients who achieve PET CR.40 Following frontline treatment failure, high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplant have been our best tool for improving the chance of cure. Given the high efficacy of pembro-GVD, we now face similar questions previously asked for frontline therapy. In particular, does every patient require aggressive therapy with HDT/AHCT? Can we now consider less-intensive approaches in the second-line setting and shift HDT/AHCT to the third-line setting for those who still need it? In the future, perhaps a regimen such as pembro-GVD could provide a path toward reducing the need for HDT/AHCT in the second-line setting; however, this question will need to be answered through a randomized study. In the meantime, consolidation with HDT/AHCT remains standard of care and the optimal pre-HDT/AHCT second-line therapy is the one that is well-tolerated and associated with a high rate of CR. Given the increasing use of BV in the frontline setting, SLT options that do not contain BV are needed. Pembro-GVD represents a highly active option for patients requiring SLT and is reasonable to consider for patients without contraindications for PD-1 blockade. To further define the role of PD-1 blockade in SLT, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group group is currently developing a randomized study of second-line chemotherapy with or without PD-1 blockade before HDT/AHCT.

In conclusion, for rel/ref cHL, second-line therapy with pembrolizumab plus GVD is highly effective and serves to efficiently bridge patients to consolidation with HDT/AHCT. The tolerability of pembro-GVD is acceptable, it is compatible with outpatient administration, and its efficacy compares favorably with other SLT regimens used in cHL. Furthermore, pembro-GVD as SLT is a promising option for patients previously treated with BV. The most important test of this regimen will be durability of response, and longer follow-up is needed to determine whether disease remissions are sustained and whether risk factors emerge as predictive of outcome.

© 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

See accompanying Oncology Grand Rounds on page 3097


The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.


Presented in part at the American Society of Hematology meetings of 2019 (December 7-10, 2019, Orlando, FL) and 2020 (Virtual).


Supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. A.J.M. is a Scholar in Clinical Research of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.



Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center supports the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the ethical obligation of responsible sharing of data from clinical trials. The protocol summary, a statistical summary, and informed consent form will be made available on ClinicalTrials.gov when required as a condition of Federal awards, other agreements supporting the research, and/or as otherwise required. Requests for deidentified individual participant data can be made beginning 12 months after publication and for up to 36 months after publication. Deidentified individual participant data reported in the manuscript will be shared under the terms of a Data Use Agreement and may only be used for approved proposals. Requests may be made to .

Conception and design: Alison J. Moskowitz, Heiko Schöder, Helen Hancock, Paul Hamlin, David J. Straus, Gottfried von Keudell

Administrative support: Alison J. Moskowitz, Heiko Schöder, Nivetha Ganesan, Samia Sohail, Natasha Galasso, Rachel Neuman, Gilles Salles, Craig H. Moskowitz

Provision of study materials or patients: Alison J. Moskowitz, Heiko Schöder, Nivetha Ganesan, Helen Hancock, Connie L. Batlevi, Paul Hamlin, Philip Caron, Andrew M. Intlekofer, Audrey Hamilton, Steven M. Horwitz, Erel Joffe, Ariela Noy, Santosha Vardhana, Beatriz Wills Sanin, Gottfried von Keudell, Joachim Yahalom, Ahmet Dogan, Andrew D. Zelenetz

Collection and assembly of data: Alison J. Moskowitz, Gunjan Shah, Heiko Schöder, Nivetha Ganesan, Helen Hancock, Theresa Davey, Leslie Perez, Sunyoung Ryu, Samia Sohail, Alayna Santarosa, Natasha Galasso, Rachel Neuman, Brielle Liotta, William Blouin, Oscar Lahoud, Connie L. Batlevi, Ildefonso Rodriguez-Rivera, Colette Owens, Philip Caron, Andrew M. Intlekofer, Audrey Hamilton, Erel Joffe, Christina Lee, M. Lia Palomba, Georgios Pongas, Santosha Vardhana, Beatriz Wills Sanin, Gottfried von Keudell, Joachim Yahalom, Ahmet Dogan, Craig H. Moskowitz

Data analysis and interpretation: Alison J. Moskowitz, Gunjan Shah, Heiko Schöder, Esther Drill, Brielle Liotta, Anita Kumar, Oscar Lahoud, Connie L. Batlevi, Paul Hamlin, David J. Straus, Colette Owens, Steven M. Horwitz, Lorenzo Falchi, William Johnson, Ariela Noy, Matthew J. Matasar, Gilles Salles, Joachim Yahalom, Ahmet Dogan, Andrew D. Zelenetz, Craig H. Moskowitz

Manuscript writing: All authors

Final approval of manuscript: All authors

Accountable for all aspects of the work: All authors

Phase II Trial of Pembrolizumab Plus Gemcitabine, Vinorelbine, and Liposomal Doxorubicin as Second-Line Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma

The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.

Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).

Alison J. Moskowitz

Honoraria: Seattle Genetics

Consulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Imbrium Therapeutics, Merck, Janpix, Kyowa Kirin International, miRagen, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb

Research Funding: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, miRagen, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene

Gunjan Shah

Research Funding: Janssen, Amgen

Anita Kumar

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Bridgebio

Consulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Kite, a Gilead company, AstraZeneca/MedImmune

Research Funding: AbbVie/Genentech, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Pharmacyclics

Oscar Lahoud

Consulting or Advisory Role: MorphoSys

Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MorphoSys

Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/225358/summary

Connie L. Batlevi

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Moderna Therapeutics, Novavax, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Viatris

Honoraria: DAVAOncology

Consulting or Advisory Role: Lifesci Capital, GLG, Juno Therapeutics, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite, a Gilead company, TG Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics

Research Funding: Janssen Biotech, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomic Pharma, Bayer, Roche, Autolus

Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/2778694

Paul Hamlin

Consulting or Advisory Role: Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene, Sandoz, AstraZeneca/Merck

Research Funding: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Portola Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Molecular Templates, Incyte

David J. Straus

Consulting or Advisory Role: Takeda, Seagen, Epizyme

Research Funding: Takeda

Ildefonso Rodriguez-Rivera

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer

Philip Caron

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva

Steven M. Horwitz

Consulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Millennium, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Seattle Genetics, ADC Therapeutics, Verastem, Takeda, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, C4 Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Trillium Therapeutics, Vividion Therapeutics, Myeloid Therapeutics, Ono Pharmaceutical, Secura Bio, Shoreline Biosciences Inc, Tubulis

Research Funding: Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Aileron Therapeutics, ADC Therapeutics, Verastem, 47, Trillium Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Affimed Therapeutics, Secura Bio

Lorenzo Falchi

Consulting or Advisory Role: Genmab

Research Funding: Roche, Genmab

Erel Joffe

Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Epizyme

Christina Lee

Honoraria: WebMD

Consulting or Advisory Role: Intellisphere LLC

M. Lia Palomba

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Seres Therapeutics

Honoraria: Flagship Biosciences, Evelo Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Therakos, Amgen, Merck, Seres Therapeutics

Consulting or Advisory Role: Flagship Biosciences, Novartis, Evelo Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Therakos, Amgen, Merck, Seres Therapeutics, Kite, a Gilead company, Novartis, BeiGene

Research Funding: Seres Therapeutics

Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Intellectual Property Rights, Juno intellectual property rights

Ariela Noy

Consulting or Advisory Role: MorphoSys, Janssen Biotech, Prime Oncology

Research Funding: Pharmacyclics, Rafael Pharmaceuticals

Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pharmacyclics, Janssen Oncology

Matthew J. Matasar

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Merck

Honoraria: Genentech, Roche, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Immunovaccine, ADC Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics

Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Bayer, Merck, Juno Therapeutics, Roche, Teva, Rocket Medical, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda

Research Funding: Genentech, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Rocket Medical, Seattle Genetics, Immunovaccine, IGM Biosciences

Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Bayer

Georgios Pongas

Honoraria: Atara Biotherapeutics, Curio Science, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences

Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Atara Biotherapeutics

Gilles Salles

Honoraria: Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, AbbVie, MorphoSys

Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, MorphoSys, Epizyme, Alimera Sciences, Genmab, Debiopharm Group, Velosbio, BMS, BeiGene, Incyte, Miltenyi Biotec, Ipsen

Santosha Vardhana

Honoraria: Agios

Consulting or Advisory Role: Immunai, ADC Therapeutics

Gottfried von Keudelll

Honoraria: Pharmacyclics

Consulting or Advisory Role: Pharmacyclics, Merck, Incyte

Ahmet Dogan

Consulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Takeda, EUSA Pharma, AbbVie, Peerview, Physicans' Education Resource

Research Funding: Roche/Genentech

Andrew D. Zelenetz

Honoraria: NCCN, Clinical Care Options, Oncology Information Group, PER, Plexus

Consulting or Advisory Role: Gilead Sciences, Amgen, Genentech/Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, DAVAOncology, MorphoSys, BeiGene, MEI Pharma, Vaniam Group, Verastem, Pharmacyclics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Seattle Genetics, Quant Health Ltd, Kite, a Gilead company, Curis, Coherus Biosciences, Juno/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Curio Science

Research Funding: Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, MEI Pharma, BeiGene

Craig H. Moskowitz

Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Molecular Templates, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Incyte

Research Funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme

No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.


We are grateful for support from the Adam R. Spector Foundation.

1. Connors JM, Jurczak W, Straus DJ, et al: Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage III or IV Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med 378:331-344, 2018 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Stephens DM, Li H, Schoder H, et al: Five-year follow-up of SWOG S0816: Limitations and values of a PET-adapted approach with stage III/IV Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 134:1238-1246, 2019 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Straus DJ, Jung SH, Pitcher B, et al: CALGB 50604: Risk-adapted treatment of nonbulky early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma based on interim PET. Blood 132:1013-1021, 2018 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Schmitz N, Pfistner B, Sextro M: Aggressive conventional chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy with autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for relapsed chemosensitive Hodgkin's disease: A randomised trial. Lancet 359:2065-2071, 2002 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Linch DC, Winfield D, Goldstone AH: Dose intensification with autologous bone-marrow transplantation in relapsed and resistant Hodgkin's disease: Results of a BNLI randomised trial. Lancet 341:1051-1054, 1993 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Kersten MJ, Driessen J, Zijlstra JM, et al: Combining brentuximab vedotin with dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine and cisplatin as salvage treatment in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: The phase II HOVON/LLPC transplant BRaVE study. Haematologica 106:1129-1137, 2021 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Santoro A, Mazza R, Pulsoni A, et al: Five-year results of the BEGEV salvage regimen in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood Adv 4:136-140, 2020 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Moskowitz AJ, Yahalom J, Kewalramani T, et al: Pretransplantation functional imaging predicts outcome following autologous stem cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 116:4934-4937, 2010 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Gentzler RD, Evens AM, Rademaker AW, et al: F-18 FDG-PET predicts outcomes for patients receiving total lymphoid irradiation and autologous blood stem-cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol 165:793-800, 2014 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Akhtar S, Al-Sugair AS, Abouzied M, et al: Pre-transplant FDG-PET-based survival model in relapsed and refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma: Outcome after high-dose chemotherapy and auto-SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant 48:1530-1536, 2013 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Devillier R, Coso D, Castagna L, et al: Positron emission tomography response at the time of autologous stem cell transplantation predicts outcome of patients with relapsed and/or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma responding to prior salvage therapy. Haematologica 97:1073-1079, 2012 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Smeltzer JP, Cashen AF, Zhang Q, et al: Prognostic significance of FDG-PET in relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma treated with standard salvage chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 17:1646-1652, 2011 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Mocikova H, Pytlik R, Markova J, et al: Pre-transplant positron emission tomography in patients with relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 52:1668-1674, 2011 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Jabbour E, Hosing C, Ayers G, et al: Pretransplant positive positron emission tomography/gallium scans predict poor outcome in patients with recurrent/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer 109:2481-2489, 2007 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Moskowitz CH, Matasar MJ, Zelenetz AD, et al: Normalization of pre-ASCT, FDG-PET imaging with second-line, non-cross-resistant, chemotherapy programs improves event-free survival in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 119:1665-1670, 2012 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Josting A, Rudolph C, Reiser M, et al: Time-intensified dexamethasone/cisplatin/cytarabine: An effective salvage therapy with low toxicity in patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 13:1628-1635, 2002 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Bartlett N, Niedzwiecki D, Johnson J, et al: Gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (GVD), a salvage regimen in relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma: CALGB 59804. Ann Oncol 18:1071-1079, 2007 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Baetz T, Belch A, Couban S, et al: Gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin is an active and non-toxic chemotherapy regimen in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s disease: A phase II study by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Ann Oncol 14:1762-1767, 2003 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Santoro A, Magagnoli M, Spina M, et al: Ifosfamide, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine: A new induction regimen for refractory and relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma. Haematologica 92:35-41, 2007 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Moskowitz A, Schoder H, Gerecitano J, et al : PET adapted sequential salvage therapy with brentuximab vedotin and augmented ICE for transplant eligible patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Haematologica 98:44-45, 2013 Google Scholar
21. Chen R, Palmer JM, Martin P, et al: Results of a multicenter phase II trial of brentuximab vedotin as second-line therapy before autologous transplantation in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Biology of blood and marrow transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21:2136-2140, 2015 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. LaCasce AS, Bociek G, Sawas A, et al: Brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine: A highly active salvage treatment regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 126:3982, 2015 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
23. Garcia-Sanz R, Sureda A, Gonzalez AP, et al: Brentuximab vedotin plus ESHAP (BRESHAP) is a highly effective combination for inducing remission in refractory and relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma patients prior to autologous stem cell transplant: A trial of the Spanish Group of Lymphoma and Bone Marrow Transplantation (GELTAMO). Blood 128:1109, 2016 Google Scholar
24. Cole PD, McCarten KM, Pei Q, et al. Brentuximab vedotin with gemcitabine for paediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma (AHOD1221): A Children's Oncology Group, multicentre single-arm, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol 19:1229-1238, 2018 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Herrera AF, Moskowitz AJ, Bartlett NL, et al: Interim results of brentuximab vedotin in combination with nivolumab in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 131:1183-1194, 2018. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Advani R, Moskowitz AJ, Bartlett NL, et al: Brentuximab vedotin in combination with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: 3-Year study results. Blood 138:427-438, 2021 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Younes A, Santoro A, Shipp M, et al: Nivolumab for classical Hodgkin's lymphoma after failure of both autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin: A multicentre, multicohort, single-arm phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 17:1283-1294, 2016 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Armand P, Shipp M, Ribrag V, et al: Pembrolizumab in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma after brentuximab vedotin failure: Long-term efficacy from the phase 1b Keynote-013 study. Blood 128:1108, 2016 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
29. Galluzzi L, Senovilla L, Zitvogel L, et al: The secret ally: Immunostimulation by anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov 11:215-233, 2012 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Moskowitz AJ, Schoder H, Lee J, et al: Long-term follow-up confirms durability of single-agent brentuximab vedotin as pre-transplant salvage for classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 134:1555, 2019. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
31. Allen PB, Savas H, Evens AM, et al: Pembrolizumab followed by AVD in untreated early unfavorable and advanced-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 137:1318-1326, 2021 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Duffy AG, Greten TF: Immunological off-target effects of standard treatments in gastrointestinal cancers. Ann Oncol 25:24-32, 2014 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Brockelmann PJ, Goergen H, Keller U, et al: Efficacy of nivolumab and AVD in early-stage unfavorable classic Hodgkin lymphoma: The randomized phase 2 German Hodgkin Study Group NIVAHL trial. JAMA Oncol 6:872-880, 2020 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Reinke S, Brockelmann PJ, Iaccarino I, et al: Tumor and microenvironment response but no cytotoxic T-cell activation in classic Hodgkin lymphoma treated with anti-PD1. Blood 136:2851-2863, 2020 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Younes S, Natkunam Y: Elusive sentinels at the Hodgkin checkpoint. Blood 136:2841-2842, 2020 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Cader FZ, Hu X, Goh WL, et al: A peripheral immune signature of responsiveness to PD-1 blockade in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Nat Med 26:1468-1479, 2020 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, et al: Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: A report from a joint Italian-Danish study. J Clin Oncol 25:3746-3752, 2007 LinkGoogle Scholar
38. Johnson P, Federico M, Fossa A, et al: Response-adapted therapy based on interim FDG-PET scans in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma: First analysis of the safety of de-escalation and efficacy of escalation in the international RATHL study (CRUK/07/033). Hematol Oncol 33, 2015 (abstr 8). MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Gallamini A, Tarella C, Viviani S, et a.: Early chemotherapy intensification with escalated BEACOPP in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma with a positive interim positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan after two ABVD cycles: Long-term results of the GITIL/FIL HD 0607 trial. J Clin Oncol 36:454-462, 2018 LinkGoogle Scholar
40. Radford J, Illidge T, Counsell N, et al: Results of a trial of PET-directed therapy for early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med 372:1598-1607, 2015 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar


DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.01056 Journal of Clinical Oncology 39, no. 28 (October 01, 2021) 3109-3117.

Published online June 25, 2021.

PMID: 34170745

ASCO Career Center