Andreas Engert

Recombinant human erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUNDnErythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer.nnnMETHODSnData for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups.nnnFINDINGSnData from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (1.06, 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 for mortality during the active study period, and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1.10 (0.98-1.24), and 1.04 (0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0.42).nnnINTERPRETATIONnTreatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits.nnnFUNDINGnGerman Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).

Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer

BACKGROUNDnAnaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) and red blood cell transfusions.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the effects of ESAs to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients.nnnSEARCH METHODSnThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE and other databases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review, 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the first update and to November 2011 for the current update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients receiving or not receiving anti-cancer therapy that compared the use of ESAs (plus transfusion if needed).nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnSeveral review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. One review author assessed quality assessment and extracted data, a second review author checked for correctness.nnnMAIN RESULTSnThis update of the systematic review includes a total of 91 trials with 20,102 participants. Use of ESAs significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.68, 70 trials, N = 16,093). On average, participants in the ESAs group received one unit of blood less than the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.98; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.78, 19 trials, N = 4,715). Haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving ESAs (RR 3.93; 95% CI 3.10 to 3.71, 31 trials, N = 6,413). There was suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve Quality of Life (QoL). There was strong evidence that ESAs increase mortality during active study period (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.29, 70 trials, N = 15,935) and some evidence that ESAs decrease overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11, 78 trials, N = 19,003). The risk ratio for thromboembolic complications was increased in patients receiving ESAs compared to controls (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 57 trials, N = 15,498). ESAs may also increase the risk for hypertension (fixed-effect model: RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.56; random-effects model: RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33, 31 trials, N = 7,228) and thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42; 21 trials, N = 4,507). There was insufficient evidence to support an effect of ESA on tumour response (fixed-effect RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06, 15 trials, N = 5,012).nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnESAs reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions but increase the risk for thromboembolic events and deaths. There is suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve QoL. Whether and how ESAs affects tumour control remains uncertain. The increased risk of death and thromboembolic events should be balanced against the potential benefits of ESA treatment taking into account each patients clinical circumstances and preferences. More data are needed for the effect of these drugs on quality of life and tumour progression. Further research is needed to clarify cellular and molecular mechanisms and pathways of the effects of ESAs on thrombogenesis and their potential effects on tumour growth.

Dendritic Cell Based Tumor Vaccination in Prostate and Renal Cell Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUNDnMore than 200 clinical trials have been performed using dendritic cells (DC) as cellular adjuvants in cancer. Yet the key question whether there is a link between immune and clinical response remains unanswered. Prostate and renal cell cancer (RCC) have been extensively studied for DC-based immunotherapeutic interventions and were therefore chosen to address the above question by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.nnnMETHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGSnData was obtained after a systematic literature search from clinical trials that enrolled at least 6 patients. Individual patient data meta-analysis was performed by means of conditional logistic regression grouped by study. Twenty nine trials involving a total of 906 patients were identified in prostate cancer (17) and RCC (12). Objective response rates were 7.7% in prostate cancer and 12.7% in RCC. The combined percentages of objective responses and stable diseases (SD) amounted to a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 54% in prostate cancer and 48% in RCC. Meta-analysis of individual patient data (nu200a=u200a403) revealed the cellular immune response to have a significant influence on CBR, both in prostate cancer (OR 10.6, 95% CI 2.5-44.1) and in RCC (OR 8.4, 95% CI 1.3-53.0). Furthermore, DC dose was found to have a significant influence on CBR in both entities. Finally, for the larger cohort of prostate cancer patients, an influence of DC maturity and DC subtype (density enriched versus monocyte derived DC) as well as access to draining lymph nodes on clinical outcome could be demonstrated.nnnCONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCEnAs a proof of principle a statistically significant effect of DC-mediated cellular immune response and of DC dose on CBR could be demonstrated. Further findings concerning vaccine composition, quality control, and the effect of DC maturation status are relevant for the immunological development of DC-based vaccines.

Granulopoiesis‐stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma

BACKGROUNDnGranulopoiesis-stimulating factors, such as granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infection in patients undergoing treatment for malignant lymphoma. The question of whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose intensity, tumour response, and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was undertaken.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma with respect to preventing neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection; improving quality of life, adherence to treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) and overall survival (OS); and adverse effects.nnnSEARCH STRATEGYnWe searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and other relevant literature databases; Internet databases of ongoing trials; and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 - 2007). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTrial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done by two reviewers independently. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included 13 eligible randomised controlled trials with 2607 randomised patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09) or FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). Prophylaxis significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.73), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89) and infection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). There was no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF reduced the number of patients requiring intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.82; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.18); lowered infection related mortality (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.71); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10).One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnG-CSF and GM-CSF, when used as a prophylaxis in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the randomised trials currently available, there is no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF or OS.

Erythropoietin or Darbepoetin for patients with cancer--meta-analysis based on individual patient data

BACKGROUNDnErythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce anemia in cancer patients and may improve quality of life, but there are concerns that ESAs might increase mortality.nnnOBJECTIVESnOur objectives were to examine the effect of ESAs and identify factors that modify the effects of ESAs on overall survival, progression free survival, thromboembolic and cardiovascular events as well as need for transfusions and other important safety and efficacy outcomes in cancer patients.nnnSEARCH STRATEGYnWe searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and conference proceedings for eligible trials. Manufacturers of ESAs were contacted to identify additional trials.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin or darbepoetin plus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) versus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) alone, to prevent or treat anemia in adult or pediatric cancer patients with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapy.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin alpha, epoetin beta or darbepoetin alpha plus red blood cell transfusions versus transfusion alone, for prophylaxis or therapy of anemia while or after receiving anti-cancer treatment. Patient-level data were obtained and analyzed by independent statisticians at two academic departments, using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were according to the intention-to-treat principle. Primary endpoints were on study mortality and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, regardless of anticancer treatment, and in patients receiving chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of ESAs on mortality across pre-specified subgroups. The present review reports only the results for the primary endpoint.nnnMAIN RESULTSnA total of 13933 cancer patients from 53 trials were analyzed, 1530 patients died on-study and 4993 overall. ESAs increased on study mortality (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (cHR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33, respectively). Thirty-eight trials enrolled 10441 patients receiving chemotherapy. The cHR for on study mortality was 1.10 (95% CI 0.98-1.24) and 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients receiving different cancer treatments (P for interaction=0.42).nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnESA treatment in cancer patients increased on study mortality and worsened overall survival. For patients undergoing chemotherapy the increase was less pronounced, but an adverse effect could not be excluded.

Effect of initial treatment strategy on survival of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDnSeveral treatment strategies are available for adults with advanced-stage Hodgkins lymphoma, but studies assessing two alternative standards of care-increased dose bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPPescalated), and doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD)-were not powered to test differences in overall survival. To guide treatment decisions in this population of patients, we did a systematic review and network meta-analysis to identify the best initial treatment strategy.nnnMETHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, and conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials published between January, 1980, and June, 2013, that assessed overall survival in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkins lymphoma given BEACOPPbaseline, BEACOPPescalated, BEACOPP variants, ABVD, cyclophosphamide (mechlorethamine), vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (C[M]OPP), hybrid or alternating chemotherapy regimens with ABVD as the backbone (eg, COPP/ABVD, MOPP/ABVD), or doxorubicin, vinblastine, mechlorethamine, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone combined with radiation therapy (the Stanford V regimen). We assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed their quality. We then pooled the data and used a Bayesian random-effects model to combine direct comparisons with indirect evidence. We also reconstructed individual patient survival data from published Kaplan-Meier curves and did standard random-effects Poisson regression. Results are reported relative to ABVD. The primary outcome was overall survival.nnnFINDINGSnWe screened 2055 records and identified 75 papers covering 14 eligible trials that assessed 11 different regimens in 9993 patients, providing 59u2008651 patient-years of follow-up. 1189 patients died, and the median follow-up was 5·9 years (IQR 4·9-6·7). Included studies were of high methodological quality, and between-trial heterogeneity was negligible (τ(2)=0·01). Overall survival was highest in patients who received six cycles of BEACOPPescalated (HR 0·38, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 0·20-0·75). Compared with a 5 year survival of 88% for ABVD, the survival benefit for six cycles of BEACOPPescalated is 7% (95% CrI 3-10)-ie, a 5 year survival of 95%. Reconstructed individual survival data showed that, at 5 years, BEACOPPescalated has a 10% (95% CI 3-15) advantage over ABVD in overall survival.nnnINTERPRETATIONnSix cycles of BEACOPPescalated significantly improves overall survival compared with ABVD and other regimens, and thus we recommend this treatment strategy as standard of care for patients with access to the appropriate supportive care.

High‐dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation in the first line treatment of aggressive Non‐Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) in adults

BACKGROUNDnHigh-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support (HDT) has been proven effective in relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, conflicting results of HDT as part of first-line treatment have been reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of such treatment.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine whether high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation as part of first-line treatment improves survival in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma.nnnSEARCH STRATEGYnMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancer Lit, the Cochrane Library and smaller databases, Internet-databases of ongoing trials, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology were searched. We included full-text, abstract publications and unpublished data.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised controlled trials comparing conventional chemotherapy versus high-dose chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of adults with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma were included in this review.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnEligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. All authors were contacted to obtain missing data and asked to provide individual patient data.nnnMAIN RESULTSnFifteen RCTs including 3079 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. Overall treatment-related mortality was 6.0% in the HDT group and not significantly different compared to conventional chemotherapy (OR 1.33 [95% CI 0.91 to 1.93], P=0.14). 13 studies including 2018 patients showed significantly higher CR rates in the group receiving HDT (OR 1.32, [95% CI 1.09 to 1.59], P=0.004). However, HDT did not have an effect on OS, when compared to conventional chemotherapy. The pooled HR was 1.04 ([95% CI 0.91 to 1.18], P=0.58). There was no statistical heterogeneity among the trials. Sensitivity analyses underlined the robustness of these results. Subgroup analysis of prognostic groups according to IPI did not show any survival difference between HDT and controls in 12 trials (low and low-intermediate risk IPI: HR 1.41[95% CI 0.95 to 2.10], P=0.09; high-intermediate and high risk IPI: HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.83 to 1.13], P=0.71. Event-free survival (EFS) also showed no significant difference between HDT and CT (HR 0.93, [95% CI 0.81 to 1.07], P=0.31). Other possible risk factors such as the proportion of patient with diffuse large cell lymphoma, protocol adherence, HDT strategy, response status before HDT, conditioning regimens and methodological issues were analysed in sensitivity analyses. However, there was no evidence for an association between these factors and the results of our analyses.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSn. Despite higher CR rates, there is no benefit for high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation as a first line treatment in patients with aggressive NHL.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G‐CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUNDnFebrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factors (GM-CSF); and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Important current guidelines recommend the use of colony stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20% but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo compare the effectiveness of G-CSF or GM-CSF with antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy with respect to preventing fever, febrile neutropenia, infection, infection-related mortality, early mortality and improving quality of life.nnnSEARCH STRATEGYnWe searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to 2007). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus antibiotics in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy or bone marrow or stem cell transplantation were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTrial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included two eligible randomised controlled trials with 195 patients. Due to differences in the outcomes reported, the trials could not be pooled for meta-analysis. Both trials showed non-significant results favouring antibiotics for the prevention of fever or hospitalisation for febrile neutropenia.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThere is no evidence for or against antibiotics compared to G(M)-CSFs for the prevention of infections in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for early stage Hodgkin lymphoma

BACKGROUNDnCombined modality treatment (CMT) consisting of chemotherapy followed by localised radiotherapy is standard treatment for patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). However, due to long term adverse effects such as secondary malignancies, the role of radiotherapy has been questioned recently and some clinical study groups advocate chemotherapy only for this indication.nnnOBJECTIVESnWe performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy alone with CMT in patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma with respect to response rate, progression-free survival (alternatively tumour control) and overall survival (OS).nnnSEARCH STRATEGYnWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL as well as conference proceedings from January 1980 to November 2010 for randomised controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone to the same chemotherapy regimen plus radiotherapy.xa0nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone with CMT in patients with early stage HL. Trials in which the chemotherapy differed between treatment arms were excluded. Trials with more than 20% of patients in advanced stage were also excluded.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnEffect measures used were hazard ratios (HR) for tumour control and OS as well as relative risks for response rates. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. Since none of the trials reported progression-free survival according to our definitions, all similar outcomes were evaluated as tumour control.nnnMAIN RESULTSnFive RCTs involving 1245 patients were included. The HR was 0.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.66) for tumour control and 0.40 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61) for OS for patients receiving CMT compared to chemotherapy alone. Complete response rates were similar between treatment groups. In sensitivity analyses another six trials were included that did not fulfil the inclusion criteria of our protocol but were considered relevant to the topic. These trials underlined the results of the main analysis.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnAdding radiotherapy to chemotherapy improves tumour control and overall survival in patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma.

Comparison of chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP versus chemotherapy including ABVD for patients with early unfavourable or advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma.

BACKGROUNDnThere are two different international standards for the treatment of early unfavourable and advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): chemotherapy with escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin/etoposide/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/procarbazine/prednisone) regimen and chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine) regimen.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo provide an evidence-based answer regarding the advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP compared to chemotherapy including ABVD.nnnSEARCH STRATEGYnWe searched for randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings (January 1985 to November 2010) and EMBASE (1985 to November 2008).nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included randomised controlled trials examining chemotherapy including at least two cycles of escalated BEACOPP regimens compared to chemotherapy including at least four cycles of ABVD regimens as first-line treatment for patients with early unfavourable stage or advanced stage HL.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnEffect measures used were hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and freedom from first progression. Relative risks were used to analyse complete response rate, treatment-related mortality and adverse events. Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed quality of trials.nnnMAIN RESULTSnA total of 790 records were screened. Five eligible trials (four published, one ongoing), were identified. These trials included only adult patients (16 to 60 years of age). Four trials with 2868 patients were included in the meta-analyses: the HD9 and HD14 trials from Germany, the HD2000 and GSM-HD trials from Italy. All trials reported results for PFS and OS. PFS was statistically significantly longer for escalated BEACOPP: HR was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.64, I(2) = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the comparators: HR was 0.80 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.09, I(2) = 0%). Three trials reported adverse events: the escalated BEACOPP regimens caused statistically significantly more haematological toxicities WHO grade III or IV (anaemia P < 0.00001, neutropenia P = 0.007, thrombocytopenia P < 0.00001), infections (P < 0.00001)) and occurrence of myeloid dysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (P = 0.05). There were no differences between both regimens for secondary malignancies, treatment-related mortality or infertility.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThis meta-analysis showed that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable or advanced stage HL benefited from chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP regarding PFS, but there was no significant difference in OS. Longer follow-up and the inclusion of the EORTC 20012 trial will lead to a more definitive answer with respect to OS.