Elderly patients make up a significant number of cases of newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma. However, unlike in young patients, the outcomes of elderly patients are poor, and they are under-represented in phase III trials. Prior to treatment initiation, geriatric assessment should ideally be performed to address the patient’s fitness and decide whether to pursue a curative or palliative approach. The ABVD regimen is poorly tolerated in unfit patients, with high treatment-related mortality. Alternative chemotherapy approaches have been explored, with mixed results obtained concerning their feasibility and toxicity in phase II trials. The introduction of brentuximab vedotin-based regimens led to a paradigm shift in first- and further-line treatment of elderly Hodgkin lymphoma patients, providing adequate disease control within a broader patient population. As far as checkpoint inhibitors are concerned, we are only just beginning to understand the role in the treatment of this population. In relapsed/refractory settings there are few options, ranging from autologous stem cell transplantation in selected patients to pembrolizumab, but unfortunately, palliative care is the most common modality. Importantly, published studies are frequently burdened with numerous biases (such as low numbers of patients, selection bias and lack of geriatric assessment), leading to low level of evidence. Furthermore, there are few ongoing studies on this topic. Thus, elderly Hodgkin lymphoma patients are hard to treat and represent an unmet need in hematologic oncology. In conclusion, treatment needs to be personalized and tailored on a case-by-case basis. In this article, we outline treatment options for elderly Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

Background and Objectives: eBEACOPP is the most effective chemotherapy regimen for younger patients with early unfavorable (EU) and advanced-stage (AS) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), albeit with significant toxicities. The 14-day/cycle prednisone course contributes to side effects, including osteoarticular events like avascular bone necrosis (AVN). Our center has been using eBEACOPP since 2009 for AS and 2014 for EU patients. In 2016, we reduced prednisone treatment to 7–10 days to lessen AVN risk. We analyzed the effects of this approach. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients who received at least two cycles of eBEACOPP for first-line HL treatment. Results: A total of 162 patients (33 EU, 129 AS) were included. Their median age was 31 (range 19–59 years), and 88 were males. A total of 94 patients received full corticosteroid courses, and 68 received reduced corticosteroid courses. The overall response rate (ORR) was 98%. Different corticosteroid dosings had no significant effect on ORR, febrile neutropenia episodes, or hospital admissions. After a median follow-up (mFU) of 58 months, the 5yPFS for the entire cohort was 98% vs. 95% for the standard course vs. the short corticosteroids course, respectively (p = 0.37), while the 5yOS was 98% vs. 99% for the standard course vs. short corticosteroids course, respectively (p = 0.87). In AS patients intended to be treated with six eBEACOPP cycles, 5yPFS and 5yOS were 100% vs. 97% and 100% vs. 99% for standard vs. short corticosteroid courses, respectively (p = 0.56 and p = 0.17). In EU patients, 5yPFS was 97% (standard) vs. 95% (short) (p = 0.98) and 5yOS 100% vs. 93.3% (p = 0.87). Osteoarticular events were numerically lower in patients receiving the shorter prednisone course, both in the whole cohort and in the subgroup of patients treated with six cycles of eBEACOPP, but this difference failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions: eBEACOPP provides excellent and durable first-line disease control. Shortening the corticosteroid course does not compromise efficacy, potentially reducing toxicity. However, longer follow-ups and larger studies are needed for confirmation.