CC chemokines and the receptors CCR3 and CCR5 are differentially expressed in the nonneoplastic leukocytic infiltrates of Hodgkin disease

Lymph nodes with Hodgkin disease (HD) harbor few neoplastic cells in a marked leukocytic infiltrate. Since chemokines are likely to be involved in the recruitment of these leukocytes, the expression of potentially relevant chemokines and chemokine receptors were studied in lymph nodes from 24 patients with HD and in 5 control lymph nodes. The expression of regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (RANTES), monocyte chemotactic protein (MCP)-1, macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1alpha, and MIP-1beta was analyzed by in situ hybridization and that of CCR3 and CCR5 by immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry. It was found that, overall, the expression of all 4 chemokines was markedly enhanced, but the cellular source was different. RANTES was expressed almost exclusively by T cells whereas the expression of MCP-1, MIP-1alpha, and MIP-1beta was confined largely to macrophages. In control lymph nodes, chemokine expression was low, with the exception of MIP-1alpha in macrophages. CCR3 and CCR5 were highly expressed in T cells of HD involved but not of control lymph nodes. CCR3 was equally distributed in CD4+ and CD8+ cells, but CCR5 was associated largely with CD4+ cells. In HD lymph nodes, CCR3 and CCR5 were also expressed in B cells, which normally do not express these receptors. All these chemokines and receptors studied, by contrast, were absent in the neoplastic cells. It was concluded that chemokines are involved in the formation of the HD nonneoplastic leukocytic infiltrate. Expression of CCR3 and CCR5 appears to be characteristic of HD, but the roles of these receptors' up-regulation for the disease process remain unclear.

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: prognostic features and outcomes

Between January 1990 and April 2001, 115 patients received high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). With a median follow-up of 58 months (range, 1 - 175 months), 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 46% and 58%, respectively. Twelve patients with primary refractory disease had a 5-year PFS of 41% and OS of 58%, not significantly different from those of the remaining cohort. Early and overall regimen related mortality were 7% and 16%, respectively. Male gender (P = 0.04) and a time to relapse (TTR) < 12 months (P = 0.03) were associated with decreased OS by univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, TTR < 12 months remained statistically significant (P = 0.04). We have confirmed that HDT and ASCT result in long-term survival for a proportion of patients with relapsed or refractory HL. All patients, including those with primary refractory disease, benefited from HDT and ASCT.

Novel radiotherapy techniques for involved-field and involved-node treatment of mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma: when should they be considered and which questions remain open?

PURPOSE Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease. Reducing late complications and second malignancies has become increasingly important. Radiotherapy target paradigms are currently changing and radiotherapy techniques are evolving rapidly. DESIGN This overview reports to what extent target volume reduction in involved-node (IN) and advanced radiotherapy techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton therapy-compared with involved-field (IF) and 3D radiotherapy (3D-RT)- can reduce high doses to organs at risk (OAR) and examines the issues that still remain open. RESULTS Although no comparison of all available techniques on identical patient datasets exists, clear patterns emerge. Advanced dose-calculation algorithms (e.g., convolution-superposition/Monte Carlo) should be used in mediastinal HL. INRT consistently reduces treated volumes when compared with IFRT with the exact amount depending on the INRT definition. The number of patients that might significantly benefit from highly conformal techniques such as IMRT over 3D-RT regarding high-dose exposure to organs at risk (OAR) is smaller with INRT. The impact of larger volumes treated with low doses in advanced techniques is unclear. The type of IMRT used (static/rotational) is of minor importance. All advanced photon techniques result in similar potential benefits and disadvantages, therefore only the degree-of-modulation should be chosen based on individual treatment goals. Treatment in deep inspiration breath hold is being evaluated. Protons theoretically provide both excellent high-dose conformality and reduced integral dose. CONCLUSION Further reduction of treated volumes most effectively reduces OAR dose, most likely without disadvantages if the excellent control rates achieved currently are maintained. For both IFRT and INRT, the benefits of advanced radiotherapy techniques depend on the individual patient/target geometry. Their use should therefore be decided case by case with comparative treatment planning.