Category: 3. Business

Aurora Innovation (AUR) shares have edged slightly higher recently, following a modest uptick of about 2% in the last day and smaller gains over the past week. Investors seem to be weighing the company’s performance during the month, as Aurora continues its work in autonomous vehicle technology.

See our latest analysis for Aurora Innovation.

Zooming out, Aurora Innovation’s 1-year share price return is still down double digits, while its three-year total shareholder return remains notably positive. After a recent stretch of modest gains, momentum is still searching for its footing as investors gauge the company’s long-term roadmap and evolving risk profile.

If Aurora’s recent moves have you reflecting on shifts across the sector, now is the perfect time to explore innovation on a broader scale through the See the full list for free.

With shares trading well below analyst price targets and impressive long-term gains in the rearview, investors now face a critical question: Is Aurora a bargain poised for growth, or is the market already factoring in its future potential?

At a price-to-book ratio of 4.8x, Aurora Innovation trades below its peer average of 5.9x based on this valuation measure. This suggests the stock is relatively more attractively priced compared to similar companies. With the last close at $5.15, this indicates the market is discounting Aurora relative to its book value more than its immediate peer group.

The price-to-book ratio compares a company’s market value to its net asset value. This metric is particularly relevant for asset-light and high-growth sectors like software and autonomous vehicles. For Aurora, this ratio reflects what investors are willing to pay for the company’s equity compared to the book value recorded on its balance sheet.

This valuation suggests investors may be skeptical about Aurora’s path to profitability or are discounting near-term challenges, despite the sector’s broader appetite for growth. However, the company’s price-to-book still remains higher than the US Software industry average of 4x. This signals the market may still be assigning a premium for its technology or future prospects relative to the average US software company, though less so compared to its closest peers.

See what the numbers say about this price — find out in our valuation breakdown.

Result: Price-to-Book of 4.8x (UNDERVALUED compared to peers)

However, continued net losses and uncertainty around the company’s path to profitability remain challenges that could weigh on future share performance.

Find out about the key risks to this Aurora Innovation narrative.

While the price-to-book ratio offers one angle on Aurora’s value, the SWS DCF model provides a different perspective. According to our DCF analysis, Aurora shares are currently trading about 37.8% below our estimate of their fair value. This suggests a considerable undervaluation if you believe the model’s assumptions.

Look into how the SWS DCF model arrives at its fair value.

Simply Wall St performs a discounted cash flow (DCF) on every stock in the world every day (check out Aurora Innovation for example). We show the entire calculation in full. You can track the result in your watchlist or portfolio and be alerted when this changes, or use our stock screener to discover undervalued stocks based on their cash flows. If you save a screener we even alert you when new companies match – so you never miss a potential opportunity.

If you see the story differently or want to dig into the numbers yourself, you can craft your own take in just a few minutes with Do it your way.

A great starting point for your Aurora Innovation research is our analysis highlighting 2 key rewards and 2 important warning signs that could impact your investment decision.

Smart investors never settle for just one option. Supercharge your research by tapping into untapped potential, income opportunities, and innovation leaders before the crowd moves in.

• Uncover companies reshaping artificial intelligence and automation by reviewing these 27 AI penny stocks. These firms are disrupting industries with bold advancements and new business models.

• Generate steady income streams by assessing these 17 dividend stocks with yields > 3%. These options offer attractive yields and strong fundamentals for long-term growth.

• Capitalize on unique trends in decentralized finance by evaluating these 80 cryptocurrency and blockchain stocks. These selections are positioned at the frontier of digital finance and next-generation payment solutions.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Companies discussed in this article include AUR.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

Story Continues

• Bitdeer Technologies Group recently announced unaudited operating results for September 2025, reporting that it mined 452 Bitcoins, a rise of approximately 20.5% from August, driven by increased self-mining capacity following the energization of SEALMINERs.

• This operating update comes as sector optimism grows, with attention on data center demand and AI-driven computing partnerships possibly benefiting industry players like Bitdeer.

• With Bitdeer’s self-mining gains and momentum in high-performance computing demand, we’ll assess how these developments affect the company’s broader investment narrative.

AI is about to change healthcare. These 33 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part – they are all under $10b in market cap – there’s still time to get in early.

To be a shareholder in Bitdeer Technologies Group, one needs to believe in the company’s ability to scale its self-mining capacity and commercialize its proprietary ASIC technology amid rising demand for high-performance computing. The recent news of a 20.5% increase in Bitcoin mined boosts short-term confidence, but it does not materially change the core catalyst, growing revenue and margins from ASIC commercialization, nor does it reduce the key risk of persistent losses and high operating expenses.

The September operating update most directly ties to the recent launch of the SEALMINER A3 series, which underpins Bitdeer’s growth in self-mining hashrate and supports the narrative around technological advancement improving capital efficiency. As Bitdeer pushes further into ASIC development and ramp-up, this connection highlights how delivering on technical improvements remains intertwined with realizing forecast revenue growth and addressing margin pressures.

However, despite these production gains, investors should not overlook the risk stemming from high operating expenses and ongoing losses, especially if future ASIC sales do not keep pace with growing costs…

Read the full narrative on Bitdeer Technologies Group (it’s free!)

Bitdeer Technologies Group’s narrative projects $1.8 billion revenue and $343.9 million earnings by 2028. This requires 71.6% yearly revenue growth and a $664.2 million increase in earnings from the current -$320.3 million.

Uncover how Bitdeer Technologies Group’s forecasts yield a $28.05 fair value, a 21% upside to its current price.

Seven individual fair value estimates from the Simply Wall St Community for Bitdeer span US$18.55 to US$324.62, highlighting a broad spectrum of conviction. With high expenses a persistent concern, you can explore how fellow investors weigh these risks before forming your outlook.

Explore 7 other fair value estimates on Bitdeer Technologies Group – why the stock might be worth 20% less than the current price!

Disagree with existing narratives? Create your own in under 3 minutes – extraordinary investment returns rarely come from following the herd.

Every day counts. These free picks are already gaining attention. See them before the crowd does:

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Companies discussed in this article include BTDR.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

Introduction

Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is a germinal center B-cell cancer, as demonstrated by somatic hypermutation and clonal immunoglobulin gene alterations.^1,2 Clinical indications of a more advanced stage of the disease include enlarged lymph nodes and/or systemic symptoms, including high temperatures, sweats at night, or loss of body weight.³ It is classified into lymphocyte-rich variation, lymphocyte-deficient variant, mixed cellularity, and nodular sclerosis.⁴ The pathognomonic malignant cells linked to cHL, Reed-Sternberg cells, promote ongoing cell division by expressing the transcription component NF-kB.^5,6

Epstein-Barr virus is more frequently linked to cHL, which has a bimodal variation in age with an initial peak around age 20 to 30 years and a subsequent peak around age 50 to 70 years. Patients older than 75 years old may be diagnosed with cHL on occasion.⁷ Advanced-stage cHL (ASHL) stages III or IV are uniquely problematic due to the aggressiveness of the disease and the intensive treatments that need to be delivered. Prognosis in ASHL has undergone significant improvement in recent decades, with the current 5-year survival rate greater than 80%, which can be attributed almost exclusively to improvement in chemoimmunotherapy and radiotherapy.⁸

The therapy for HL has changed fundamentally since radiotherapy (RT) became the initial modality in the early 20th century. Although RT alone produced excellent cure rates in early-stage disease, it was less successful in advanced stages and was accompanied by considerable long-term toxicities such as secondary malignancies and cardiovascular difficulties.⁹ The MOPP treatment, which included mechlorethamine hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate (Oncovin), procarbazine, and prednisone, was developed by researchers from the National Cancer Institute in the US in the 1960s and was thought to be able to cure nearly half of patients who had terminal illness.¹⁰ Devita et al reported that in the 1970s, their experience with MOPP was 4 years of freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) of 47%.¹¹ MOPP was complicated by a high incidence of secondary malignancies, and the search for a better option continued.

In 1975, Bonadonna et al compared MOPP with drugs including doxorubicin (Adriamycin), bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in 45 patients and found no difference in complete remission induction, with much less toxicity with ABVD.¹² ABVD gained wide acceptance and became the standard treatment for ASHL. In the 1980s, a regimen called Stanford V was developed and was later compared with ABVD but failed to show superiority.^13,14 In 1990, the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) developed baseline bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine (Oncovin), procarbazine, and prednisolone (BEACOPP) (BB) and escalated BEACOPP (EB).¹⁵ GHSG’s first major study in ASHL, HD9, was run between 1993 and 1998 and showed that both BB and EB were more effective than COPP/ABVD, with 10-year FFTF for EB vs COPP/ABVD of 82% vs 64% respectively, with an overall survival (OS) difference of 11% in favor of EB.¹⁶

The introduction of functional imaging, specifically fluorodeoxyglucose-PET (FDG-PET), has transformed the treatment of HL. Interim PET, done after 2 cycles of chemotherapy (PET2), has become an effective predictor of early response to treatment. PET2 negativity, as a Deauville score of 1 to 3, is predictive of much-improved outcomes in comparison with PET2 positivity (Deauville 4-5).¹⁷ For example, in the RATHL trial, patients with negative PET2 had a 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 85.7% compared with 67.5% for those with positive PET2.¹⁸

The prognostic value of PET2 has been validated in a number of randomized trials and is now a foundation stone in current treatment schemes for ASHL. By identifying those patients who will respond to optimal therapy and those requiring escalated treatment, PET2 allows the treatment approach to become more individualized. PET-adapted approaches are founded on the risk stratification principle. Patients who are low-risk who have a negative PET2 can be de-escalated, thereby minimizing long-term toxicities. Patients who are PET2 positive are high-risk and can be considered for intensification of treatment to enhance outcomes. This strategy not only maximizes therapeutic benefit but also avoids exposing patients to toxic agents unnecessarily, as those patients are likely to go into remission with less intensive therapy.

For example, the HD12 study aimed to reduce EB from 8 cycles (8EB) to 4EB + 4BB and to omit RT because 70% of patients in the HD9 study got RT. HD12 found that a reduction in chemotherapy dose did not reduce toxicity substantially but caused some decrease in efficacy.¹⁹ The HD15 study proved 6EB to be more effective and less toxic than 8EB and limited RT to PET-positive residual lesions of more than 2.5 cm.²⁰ Moreover, in the HD18 trial, those with a negative PET2 after 2 escalated BEACOPP cycles were randomly assigned to treatment with 6 or 8 cycles. It was seen that de-escalation to 4 cycles did not undermine results, with 5-year PFS at 92.2% in the de-escalated arm.²¹ Similarly, in the phase 3 AHL2011 trial (NCT01358747), patients who were PET2 negative were de-escalated to ABVD and attained a 5-year PFS of 85.4% with less toxicity than with standard BEACOPP.²²

While GHSG studies reported both PFS and OS benefits of EB compared with ABVD, other studies did not find an OS benefit and even questioned EB’s PFS benefit, and were more concerned about its toxicity.^23-25 After Ganesan et al published their phase 2 study results,²⁶ many other randomized studies were published.

PET-adapted randomized studies aimed to find the best first-line regimen and to adjust treatment after 2 cycles according to PET results to maximize efficacy in patients who are less responsive while reducing toxicity in patients with satisfactory responses. Thus, the objective of this review was to assess the role of PET-adapted treatments in improving outcomes in patients with ASHL. By summarizing important randomized trials and discussing their implications, this review seeks to offer an overview of current treatment paradigms and underscore directions for the future management of this disease.

Materials and Methods

Search Strategy

This review aimed to provide an answer to this question: How have PET-adapted treatment strategies advanced the treatment of advanced-stage cHL, and what treatment algorithms have been established based on randomized trials? To answer this question, this review performed an extensive search of existing research studies, clinical trials, and systematic reviews on PET-adapted treatment approaches in ASHL. In this study, electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were used to search for relevant data. This research was designed to examine the use, effectiveness, and future perspectives of PET-adapted approaches in ASHL with the goal of maximizing treatment effects while reducing toxicity. The search terms used included the following: “Hodgkin lymphoma,” “advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma,” “PET-adapted treatment,” “interim PET,” “PET2,” “ABVD,” “BEACOPP,” “Deauville score,” “treatment escalation,” “treatment de-escalation,” “progression-free survival,” “overall survival,” “randomized controlled trials,” “biomarkers in Hodgkin lymphoma,” “FDG-PET,” and “risk-adapted therapy.” Boolean operators (AND, OR) and proximity operators (NEAR, NEXT, WITHIN) were applied to narrow down the search. The search was restricted to articles published between 2000 and 2024 to guarantee the inclusion of the latest and most applicable studies. Table 1 summarizes the search terms and databases utilized.

Search Process

The search methodology used for this review included structured phases to provide a thorough and systematic process. A general search was first done across chosen databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, using defined keywords such as “Hodgkin lymphoma,” “PET-adapted treatment,” “interim PET,” and “BEACOPP.” Titles, abstracts, and index keywords were filtered to assess the relevance of the articles. After the first search, a secondary search that was more specific to identify keywords, Medical Subject Headings terms, and MEDLINE index phrases was conducted.

More studies were drawn from the included articles’ reference lists to guarantee that no important studies were excluded. Articles with titles and abstracts considered to be relevant were obtained for full-text assessment, and those satisfying the eligibility criteria were included in the review. Key data, including study design, patient population, treatment regimens, PET2 results, PFS, OS, and toxicity profiles, were taken from the chosen studies. This review was performed by one author, and although all possible efforts were made to incorporate the most important and pertinent studies, it should be noted that this article is a review and possibly does not include all the complexities of PET-adapted treatment approaches in ASHL.

Eligibility Criteria

The studies were selected using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:

Inclusion Criteria

• Studies that focused on PET-adapted treatment approaches in ASHL were selected.
• Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials, phase 2/3 clinical trials, or systematic reviews.
• Studies that had reported outcomes of PFS, OS, and toxicity profiles were selected.
• Studies that used PET2 as a predictive measure of treatment response were included.
• Studies that reported PET2-guided treatment escalation or de-escalation were included.
• Studies published between 2000 to 2024 and written in English were selected.

Exclusion Criteria

• Studies were excluded if any of the following were true:
• They were published in languages other than English.
• They did not include PET-adapted approaches or advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma.
• They did not provide adequate data or evidence to warrant their conclusions.
• They were editorials, opinion pieces, or case reports with no original data.
• They were entirely about early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma or non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Results

In the literature, some randomized controlled trials have evaluated PET-adapted treatment strategies in advanced-stage cHL, with the resultant treatment algorithms that maximize outcomes (Table 2). The findings from the important trials are detailed below.

PET-Guided Treatment De-Escalation

RATHL (2016, Updated 2022)

The phase 3 RATHL trial (NCT00678327) enrolled 1203 patients with stage III/IV cHL between 2008 and 2012. All patients underwent 2 cycles of ABVD and PET2, 83.7% of whom were PET2 negative (Deauville 1-3) and 16.3% of whom were PET2 positive (Deauville 4-5). Patients who were PET2 negative were randomly assigned to receive either 4 cycles of ABVD or AVD (ABVD without bleomycin), and patients who were PET2 positive were randomly assigned to receive 6 cycles of baseline BB or 4 cycles of escalated EB. The 3-year PFS was 85.7% in patients who were PET2 negative receiving ABVD and 84.4% in those receiving AVD, with no difference in efficacy. The PFS at 3 years for patients who were PET2 positive was 67.5%, with no difference between EB and BB. These findings were confirmed by long-term follow-up in 2022, underlining the lessened lung toxicity of AVD.^27,28

Key findings: AVD is equivalent to ABVD in patients who are PET2 negative with less lung toxicity. Patients who are PET2 positive are improved by escalation of treatment, although more optimization for this high-risk subgroup remains desirable.

AHL2011 (2018, Updated 2022)

Casasnovas et al enrolled 823 patients with advanced-stage cHL from 2011 through 2014 on either 6 cycles of escalated BEACOPP (EB) or a PET-adapted arm.^22,29 In the PET-adapted arm, patients received 2 cycles of EB followed by PET2. Patients who were PET2 negative were de-escalated to 4 cycles of ABVD, and patients who were PET2 positive were given 4 more cycles of EB. A total of 87% of the patients were PET2 negative, and 13% were PET2 positive. The 5-year PFS was comparable in the standard EB arm (86.7%) and PET-adapted arm (85.4%). Follow-up in 2022 reinforced the long-term efficacy and safety of the PET-adapted approach.

Key findings: PET2-directed de-escalation to ABVD in early responders preserves activity with less toxicity. It can be an active alternative to normal EB, especially in PET2-negative patients.

PET-Guided Treatment Escalation

HD0801 (2016)

Zinzani et al conducted a phase 2 trial (NCT00784537) in 512 patients with advanced-stage cHL from 2008 to 2013. All were given 2 cycles of ABVD and PET2. Among these, 80% were PET2 negative (Deauville 1-2) and 20% were PET2 positive (Deauville 3-5). Patients who were PET2 negative were given 4 further cycles of ABVD, while those who were PET2 positive were changed to 4 cycles of ifosfamide, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine (IGEV) with the possibility of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).³⁰ The 2-year PFS was 81% for patients who were PET2 negative and 74% for PET2 positive treated with IGEV. The trial proved that treatment intensification early on with ASCT is in favor of patients who were PET2 positive, and it underscores the value of PET2 in determining therapy.

Key findings: Patients who werePET2 positive have improved outcomes with early intensification of treatment, eg, ASCT. PET2-guided therapy enables individualized treatment, maximizing efficacy with minimal unnecessary toxicity in PET2-negative patients.

SWOG 0816 (2016, Updated)

Press et al assessed 336 patients in this phase 2 trial (NCT00822120) with high-stage cHL from 2009 through 2012. Two cycles of ABVD were followed by PET2 in patients.³¹ Patients who were PET2 negative were continued with an additional 4 cycles of ABVD, and patients who were PET2 positive (Deauville 4-5) were escalated to 6 cycles of escalated BEACOPP (EB). Out of all patients, 82% were PET2 negative and 18% were PET2 positive. The PFS at 2 years was 82% in patients who were PET2 negative and 64% in PET2 positive. A reanalysis reported 5-year PFS of 76% and 66%, respectively.³²

Key findings: EB escalation is beneficial for patients who are PET2 positive vs continuation of ABVD. PET2-guided escalation is an important strategy for patients who are high-risk, but improvement is still required for this subgroup.

HD18 (2017, Updated 2021)

Borchmann et al evaluated 1945 patients in a phase 3 trial (NCT00515554) with advanced-stage cHL between 2008 and 2014. Patients were administered 2 cycles of escalated BEACOPP (EB) plus a PET2 scan.²¹ Patients who were positive on the PET2 scan were assigned to 6 or 8 cycles of EB or 6 cycles of EB with rituximab. Patients who were PET2 negative were assigned randomly to receive either 4 or 6 cycles of EB. Five years later, survival rates in patients who were PET2 positive and PET2 negative who received 4 cycles were 89.7% and 92.2%, respectively. The efficacy and safety of the shorter 4-cycle EB regimen were reaffirmed by a 2021 follow-up.³³

Key findings: Four cycles of EB can be safely administered to patients who are PET2 negative instead of 6 cycles without sacrificing efficacy, but lowering toxicity. Rituximab does not enhance outcomes in patients who are PET2 positive.

HD0607 (2018)

In this phase 2 trial (NCT00795613), Gallamini et al studied 782 patients with advanced-stage cHL from 2008 to 2014. Patients were treated with 2 cycles of ABVD and PET2. Patients who were PET2 negative received 4 more cycles of ABVD, and those who were PET2 positive were escalated to 4 cycles of escalated BEACOPP (EB) with or without rituximab. Among the patients, 81% were PET2 negative and 19% were PET2 positive. The 3-year PFS was 87% and 60%, respectively.³⁴

Key findings: Escalation from PET2 to EB is effective and possible for patients who are high-risk. Yet, outcomes in patients who are PET2 positive remain poor, suggesting the urgent need for new treatments.

Novel Therapeutic Approaches

ECHELON-1 Trial (2018, Updated 2022)

Despite the fact that the phase 3 ECHELON-1 (NCT01712490) trial was not a PET-adapted treatment study, it is judicious to mention it here. It was published in 2018.³⁵ The study was run between 2012 and 2016 and included 1334 patients with ASHL, and they were assigned to either ABVD or brentuximab-vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A-AVD). The 3-year PFS was 83.1% with A-AVD and 76.0% with ABVD (P = .005). Researchers did not adjust treatment after PET2, but they reported that more patients treated with A-AVD than those treated with ABVD had negative results at PET2 (89% vs 86%) and that 3-year PFS rates in patients who were PET2 negative and younger than 60 years were 87.2% for A-AVD vs 81.0% for ABVD. A beneficial trend in patients who were PET2positive and younger than 60 years on A-AVD was also observed, with a 3-year PFS rate of 69.2% vs 54.7% with ABVD.³⁶ An updated analysis of ECHELON-1 at a median follow up of 6 years estimated OS to be 93.9% and 89.4% for A-AVD and ABVD, respectively, demonstrating a clear OS benefit with A-AVD vs ABVD, which is why many consider A-AVD as the standard of care for patients with ASHL.³⁷

Key findings: A-AVD is superior in efficacy over ABVD, especially in patients who are PET2 positive, and is an increasingly popular first-line treatment choice.

HD21 Trial (2023, ASCO Update)

The phase 3 HD21 trial (NCT02661503) used brentuximab vedotin (BV) in up-front treatment. It was run between July 2016 and August 2020.^38,39 A total of 1482 patients were treated with either EB or brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone (BrECADD)—a modified EB incorporating BV—which was found to be effective and safer compared with EB, with 3-year PFS of 92.3% for EB and 94.9% for BrECADD. The latest data presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting confirmed the superiority of BrECADD over EB with a 4-year PFS of 94.3 vs 90.9 and a 4-year OS of 98.5 vs 98.2, respectively. Most importantly, treatment-associated toxicity was significantly reduced when using BrECADD, evidenced by less gonadal toxicity and fewer infections.⁴⁰

Key findings: BrECADD is safer and more effective than BEACOPP and can be a potential alternative for advanced-stage cHL.

SWOG1826 Trial (2023, ASCO Update)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have also been evaluated in first-line treatments: The phase 3 SWOG S1826 study (NCT03907488) assessed 976 patients with ASHL from July 9, 2019, to October 5, 2022, to receive either nivolumab (N)-AVD or BV-AVD. The 1-year PFS was 94% for patients treated with N-AVD and 86% for those who received BV-AVD. With a median follow-up of 2.1 years, the 2-year PFS was 92% with N-AVD, compared with 83% with BV+AVD (HR, 0.45).^41,42

Key findings: Nivolumab-based treatment can outperform BV-AVD as a standard of care by providing better PFS for advanced-stage cHL.

Discussion

cHL has previously been managed using standardized chemotherapy protocols, eg, ABVD and BEACOPP, irrespective of response in individual patients.^17,43,44 Although these regimens have produced high rates of survival, they are related to considerable toxicity and late complications, such as secondary malignancies, cardiopulmonary disease, and infertility.⁴³

PET-adapted strategies have transformed the treatment of advanced-stage cHL by allowing personalized treatment adjustment according to early response evaluation. PET2 response assessment, undertaken after 2 cycles of chemotherapy, has been confirmed as an excellent prognostic indicator.^17,45 Patients with a negative PET2 result (Deauville score 1-3) have outstanding survival rates, permitting treatment reduction with a view to reducing toxicity. On the other hand, patients with positive PET2 scans (Deauville score 4-5) are at increased risk of treatment failure, and, thus, treatment intensification is required to enhance disease control.²⁷

Some randomized controlled trials have addressed the effectiveness of PET-adapted approaches, optimizing treatment pathways to optimize efficacy and toxicity. This review interprets the outcomes from major trials and assesses the effect of de-escalation, escalation, and innovative therapeutic strategies on patient outcomes.

PET-Guided Treatment De-Escalation

One of the most important advantages of PET-adapted therapy is the potential to de-escalate the treatment in patients who are PET2 negative without affecting survival. Various important trials, such as RATHL, AHL2011, and HD18, have proven de-escalation to be a safe strategy for these patients.

The RATHL trial evaluated whether bleomycin could be safely omitted in PET2-negative patients to reduce lung toxicity.^27,28 Among 1203 patients, 83.7% were PET2 negative and randomly assigned to ABVD or AVD after 2 initial ABVD cycles. Three-year PFS was equivalent (85.7% vs 84.4%), but AVD resulted in fewer severe lung toxicities.

In the AHL2011 trial, 823 patients received 2 cycles of escalated BEACOPP (EB) followed by PET2.^22,30 Patients with negative scans (87%) switched to ABVD, while positive scans (13%) continued EB. Five-year survival was comparable between PET-adapted and standard EB (85.4% vs 86.7%), showing PET2-negative patients can safely transition to ABVD.

The HD18 trial studied 1945 patients, with PET2-negative individuals assigned to 4 or 6 cycles of BEACOPP.^21,34 Five-year PFS was 92.2% for 4 cycles and 90.8% for 6, confirming that reducing treatment did not compromise survival but lowered toxicity. These observations make PET-directed de-escalation a normative treatment method, minimizing the toxicity of chemotherapy while preserving cure rates in PET2-negative individuals.

PET-Guided Treatment Escalation

In patients who are PET2 positive, who have a greater chance of relapse, escalation of treatment is necessary to enhance survival. Treatment escalation has been proven to improve the control of disease through several trials, such as SWOG0816, HD0607, and HD18.

The SWOG0816 trial included 336 patients treated with 2 ABVD cycles followed by PET2.^32,33 PET2-negative patients (82%) continued ABVD, while PET2-positive patients (18%) escalated to BEACOPP. At 5 years, disease-free survival was 76% vs 66%, showing escalation improves outcomes in high-risk patients.

In addition, the HD0607 trial of 782 patients, PET2 after 2 ABVD cycles guided treatment.³⁵ PET2-negative patients (81%) remained on ABVD, while PET2-positive patients (19%) received BEACOPP ± rituximab. Three-year disease-free survival was 87% for PET2-negative vs 60% for PET2-positive, underscoring the value of early intensification for high-risk patients.

However, a critical subgroup of patients who are PET2 positive, known as slow responders, has been recognized in AHL2011 and HD0801. In AHL2011, 62 patients who were PET2 positive following 2 escalated BEACOPP (EB) cycles became PET2 negative following 2 further escalated BEACOPP (EB) cycles, with no modification of treatment.²² Likewise, 15 patients who were PET2 positive in HD0801 remained on ABVD without regimen change, and 73% attained complete remission.³⁰ This indicates that a proportion of patients who were PET2 positive might later respond without escalation, with issues surrounding overtreatment risk to some patients. With these findings, the issue of how best to modify PET2-based escalation criteria to minimize unnecessary toxicity to patients who will ultimately remain responsive with continued therapy is critical.

Emerging Therapeutic Paradigms: Novel Agents and Immunotherapy

Although PET-adapted chemotherapy continues to be the standard of treatment, new targeted agents and immunotherapy are altering first-line management strategies. The ECHELON-1 trial showed substituting bleomycin with brentuximab vedotin (BV-AVD) improved 3-year PFS (83.1% vs 76.0% for ABVD).^36,37 BV-AVD has become an alternate standard of treatment in patients with newly diagnosed cHL.

The HD21 trial brought forth BrECADD, a BEACOPP variant that includes brentuximab vedotin.⁴¹ This regimen was more effective, with a 4-year PFS of 94.3% vs 90.9% for BEACOPP, with much less toxicity.

The SWOG1826 trial discovered that N-AVD was superior to BV-AVD, as 92% of patients were still cancer-free at 2 years, vs 83% with BV-AVD.^42,43 This indicates that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be an optimal therapy for cHL.

In addition to efficacy, cost and long-term adverse effects are the most important considerations in treatment selection. A comparison of regimens placed AHL2011 at the top in terms of cost-effectiveness, weighing efficacy and safety.⁴⁶ Because BEACOPP has severe adverse effects, more recent treatments such as brentuximab vedotin and immune checkpoint inhibitors are considered safer alternatives.

The SWOG1826 study proved that the nivolumab-based treatments are capable of outclassing BV-AVD in first-line treatment. Apart from this, Allen et al claimed 100% PFS and OS for first-line sequential pembrolizumab-AVD following a 33.1-month follow-up.⁴⁷

Combination regimens have also been explored, such as brentuximab vedotin, nivolumab, doxorubicin, and dacarbazine (AN-AD). A phase 2 trial found an 88.3% 2-year PFS in patients who were treatment-naive with cHL, which indicates that BV plus immune checkpoint inhibitors may be an emerging first-line treatment option.⁴⁸ These data further indicate the expanding use of immunotherapy in optimizing cHL treatment with reduced toxicity.

Strengths and Limitations

PET-adapted therapy approaches have optimized the treatment of stage III/IV cHL by allowing for tailoring therapy. Treatment de-escalation in patients who are PET2 negative can be performed safely, with minimal unnecessary toxicity and still high survival rates, as shown in the RATHL, AHL2011, and HD18 trials.^21,22,27 At the same time, treatment intensification favors patients who are PET2 positive, achieving better disease control and survival benefits, as documented in SWOG0816 and HD0607.^31,34 PET-adapted treatment has been consistently proven in a series of randomized controlled trials, and it has become a robust and evidence-supported standard of treatment for cHL.

Though it has many benefits, PET-adapted therapy also has some disadvantages. First, the PET scan interpretation inter-reader variability could result in variable treatment plans.⁴⁴ Second, 10% to 20% of patients who are PET2 negative eventually relapse, thus necessitating further biomarkers such as TARC and gene expression profiling for better risk stratification.^48,49 Lastly, patients who are positive on PET2 scans are still at risk, even for more intensive therapy like BEACOPP. This points to the necessity of novel treatment modalities like brentuximab vedotin and immune checkpoint inhibitors.⁴¹ There is a potential for future research to address more effective methods for evaluating risk and utilizing biomarkers to make informed treatment choices so that Hodgkin lymphoma management can be more specific and effective.

Future Directions

Future developments in PET-adapted therapy need to be directed toward more accurately pinpointing high-risk patients through combining PET2 imaging with other biomarkers such as TARC, CD68, CD163, and IL-10.^48,49 Because PET2 is not always a useful marker, some of these additional markers can make treatment decisions more precise. High levels of TARC (> 800 pg/mL) were associated with worse outcomes independently of PET2 status in the HD0607 trial.⁴⁹ Other candidate markers, such as patterns of gene expression, soluble CD68, CD163, and IL-10, are being explored in an attempt to enhance the earlier detection of patients at risk.^50,51 Future trials must incorporate biomarker-directed treatment algorithms with PET to maximize patient selection for de-escalation or escalation.

New treatments like nivolumab, brentuximab vedotin, and combination immunotherapy must be tested to optimize outcomes in PET2-positive patients. Lastly, long-term follow-up is crucial to evaluate late toxicities of PET-adapted de-escalation so that modification of treatment will not compromise long-term survival or enhance risks of secondary malignancies.

Conclusion

PET-adapted therapy has improved the management of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma through individualized treatment. Individuals with an excellent initial response (PET2 negative) can be treated with reduced intensity to avoid adverse effects, while those with a poor initial response (PET2 positive) are treated with intensified therapy for better outcomes. Research such as RATHL, AHL2011, and HD18 corroborates this, but there are issues, including relapse and accuracy of the scan. New blood tests and new drugs could further tailor treatment options. Long-term monitoring is essential to prevent a reduction in treatment intensity from leading to increased risk factors such as later health issues.

Author Information

Wael Abdulla Moh Khair, MD

Phone: +966 12 731 0800

Email: alhajyousif@gmail.com

Statements and Declarations

Funding

The author did not receive any funding.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Acknowledgments

None

References

1. Küppers R, Rajewsky K, Zhao M, et al. Hodgkin disease: Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells picked from histological sections show clonal immunoglobulin gene rearrangements and appear to be derived from B cells at various stages of development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Nov 8 1994;91(23):10962-6. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.23.10962
2. Lim SH, Johnson PWM. Optimizing therapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2018;131(15):1679-1688. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-09-772640
3. Gini G, Cimminiello M, Galieni P, et al. Advanced Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma: Patient Management. Acta Biomed. May 25 2020;91(S-5):5-12. doi:10.23750/abm.v91iS-5.9913
4. Wang HW, Balakrishna JP, Pittaluga S, Jaffe ES. Diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma in the modern era. Br J Haematol. Jan 2019;184(1):45-59. doi:10.1111/bjh.15614
5. Greaves P, Clear A, Coutinho R, et al. Expression of FOXP3, CD68, and CD20 at diagnosis in the microenvironment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma is predictive of outcome. J Clin Oncol. Jan 10 2013;31(2):256-62. doi:10.1200/jco.2011.39.9881
6. Liu Y, Abdul Razak FR, Terpstra M, et al. The mutational landscape of Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines determined by whole-exome sequencing. Leukemia. Nov 2014;28(11):2248-51. doi:10.1038/leu.2014.201
7. Brice P, de Kerviler E, Friedberg JW. Classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Lancet. Oct 23 2021;398(10310):1518-1527. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32207-8
8. Eichenauer DA, Aleman BMP, André M, et al. Hodgkin lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. Oct 1 2018;29(Suppl 4):iv19-iv29. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy080
9. Patel CG, Michaelson E, Chen Y-H, et al. Reduced Mortality Risk in the Recent Era in Early-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients Treated With Radiation Therapy With or Without Chemotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2018;100(2):498-506. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.09.048
10. Dann EJ, Casasnovas R-O. Treatment Strategies in Advanced-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma. Cancers. 2024;16(11):2059.
11. Devita VT, Jr., Serpick AA, Carbone PP. Combination chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Intern Med. Dec 1970;73(6):881-95. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-73-6-881
12. Bonadonna G, Zucali R, Monfardini S, De Lena M, Uslenghi C. Combination chemotherapy of Hodgkin’s disease with adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and imidazole carboxamide versus MOPP. Cancer. Jul 1975;36(1):252-9. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(197507)36:1<252::aid-cncr2820360128>3.0.co;2-7
13. Gordon LI, Hong F, Fisher RI, et al. Randomized phase III trial of ABVD versus Stanford V with or without radiation therapy in locally extensive and advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: an intergroup study coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (E2496). J Clin Oncol. Feb 20 2013;31(6):684-91. doi:10.1200/jco.2012.43.4803
14. Supit T, Amin Z. A Case Report: ABVD versus Stanford V Regimen in Unfavorable Classical Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Indonesian Journal of Cancer. 10/01 2013;7:159-166.
15. Diehl V, Behringer K. Could BEACOPP be the new standard for the treatment of advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma? Cancer Invest. Jun-Jul 2006;24(4):461-5. doi:10.1080/07357900600705789
16. Engert A, Diehl V, Franklin J, et al. Escalated-dose BEACOPP in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: 10 years of follow-up of the GHSG HD9 study. J Clin Oncol. Sep 20 2009;27(27):4548-54. doi:10.1200/jco.2008.19.8820
17. 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. Aug 20 2007;25(24):3746-52. doi:10.1200/jco.2007.11.6525
18. Johnson P, Federico M, Kirkwood A, et al. Adapted Treatment Guided by Interim PET-CT Scan in Advanced Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;374(25):2419-2429. doi:doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1510093
19. Borchmann P, Haverkamp H, Diehl V, et al. Eight cycles of escalated-dose BEACOPP compared with four cycles of escalated-dose BEACOPP followed by four cycles of baseline-dose BEACOPP with or without radiotherapy in patients with advanced-stage hodgkin’s lymphoma: final analysis of the HD12 trial of the German Hodgkin Study Group. J Clin Oncol. Nov 10 2011;29(32):4234-42. doi:10.1200/jco.2010.33.9549
20. Engert A, Haverkamp H, Kobe C, et al. Reduced-intensity chemotherapy and PET-guided radiotherapy in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HD15 trial): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. May 12 2012;379(9828):1791-9. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61940-5
21. Borchmann P, Goergen H, Kobe C, et al. PET-guided treatment in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HD18): final results of an open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial by the German Hodgkin Study Group. Lancet. Dec 23 2017;390(10114):2790-2802. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32134-7
22. Casasnovas RO, Bouabdallah R, Brice P, et al. PET-adapted treatment for newly diagnosed advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (AHL2011): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. Feb 2019;20(2):202-215. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30784-8
23. Carde P, Karrasch M, Fortpied C, et al. Eight Cycles of ABVD Versus Four Cycles of BEACOPPescalated Plus Four Cycles of BEACOPPbaseline in Stage III to IV, International Prognostic Score ≥ 3, High-Risk Hodgkin Lymphoma: First Results of the Phase III EORTC 20012 Intergroup Trial. J Clin Oncol. Jun 10 2016;34(17):2028-36. doi:10.1200/jco.2015.64.5648
24. Merli F, Luminari S, Gobbi PG, et al. Long-Term Results of the HD2000 Trial Comparing ABVD Versus BEACOPP Versus COPP-EBV-CAD in Untreated Patients With Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Study by Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. J Clin Oncol. Apr 10 2016;34(11):1175-81. doi:10.1200/jco.2015.62.4817
25. Viviani S, Zinzani PL, Rambaldi A, et al. ABVD versus BEACOPP for Hodgkin’s lymphoma when high-dose salvage is planned. N Engl J Med. Jul 21 2011;365(3):203-12. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1100340
26. Ganesan P, Rajendranath R, Kannan K, et al. Phase II study of interim PET-CT-guided response-adapted therapy in advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. Jun 2015;26(6):1170-1174. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv077
27. Johnson P, Federico M, Kirkwood A, et al. Adapted Treatment Guided by Interim PET-CT Scan in Advanced Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. N Engl J Med. Jun 23 2016;374(25):2419-29. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1510093
28. Luminari S, Fosså A, Trotman J, et al. Long Follow-up of the Response-Adjusted Therapy for Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma (RATHL) Trial (CRUK/07/033) Confirms the Safety of Both De-Escalation and Intensification of Chemotherapy. Blood. 11/15 2022;140:766-767. doi:10.1182/blood-2022-162780
29. Casasnovas R-O, Bouabdallah R, Brice P, et al. Positron Emission Tomography–Driven Strategy in Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma: Prolonged Follow-Up of the AHL2011 Phase III Lymphoma Study Association Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 01/06 2022;40doi:10.1200/JCO.21.01777
30. Zinzani PL, Broccoli A, Gioia DM, et al. Interim Positron Emission Tomography Response-Adapted Therapy in Advanced-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma: Final Results of the Phase II Part of the HD0801 Study. J Clin Oncol. Apr 20 2016;34(12):1376-85. doi:10.1200/jco.2015.63.0699
31. Press OW, Li H, Schöder H, et al. US Intergroup Trial of Response-Adapted Therapy for Stage III to IV Hodgkin Lymphoma Using Early Interim Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography Imaging: Southwest Oncology Group S0816. J Clin Oncol. Jun 10 2016;34(17):2020-7. doi:10.1200/jco.2015.63.1119
32. Stephens DM, Li H, Schöder 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. Oct 10 2019;134(15):1238-1246. doi:10.1182/blood.2019000719
33. Kreissl S, Goergen H, Buehnen I, et al. PET-guided eBEACOPP treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HD18): follow-up analysis of an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. Jun 2021;8(6):e398-e409. doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(21)00101-0
34. Gallamini A, Tarella C, Viviani S, et al. 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. Feb 10 2018;36(5):454-462. doi:10.1200/jco.2017.75.2543
35. Connors JM, Jurczak W, Straus DJ, et al. Brentuximab Vedotin with Chemotherapy for Stage III or IV Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. N Engl J Med. Jan 25 2018;378(4):331-344. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1708984
36. Straus DJ, Długosz-Danecka M, Alekseev S, et al. Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma: 3-year update of the ECHELON-1 study. Blood. Mar 5 2020;135(10):735-742. doi:10.1182/blood.2019003127
37. Graham P. C, Stephen M. A, David J. S, et al. Improved overall survival in stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma: An updated analysis of ECHELON-1. 2023:
38. Eichenauer DA, Plütschow A, Kreissl S, et al. Incorporation of brentuximab vedotin into first-line treatment of advanced classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma: final analysis of a phase 2 randomised trial by the German Hodgkin Study Group. The Lancet Oncology. 2017;18(12):1680-1687. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30696-4
39. Borchmann P, Moccia A, Greil R, et al. Treatment Related Morbidity in Patients with Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: Results of the Ongoing, Randomized Phase III HD21 Trial By the German Hodgkin Study Group. Blood. 2022;140(Supplement 1):771-773. doi:10.1182/blood-2022-165917
40. Borchmann P, Moccia AA, Greil R, et al. BRECADD IS NON-INFERIOR TO EBEACOPP IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED STAGE CLASSICAL HODGKIN LYMPHOMA: EFFICACY RESULTS OF THE GHSG PHASE III HD21 TRIAL. Hematological Oncology. 2023;41(S2):881-882. doi: 10.1002/hon.3196_LBA5
41. Herrera AF, LeBlanc M, Castellino SM, et al. NIVOLUMAB(N)-AVD IMPROVES PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL COMPARED TO BRENTUXIMAB VEDOTIN(BV)-AVD IN ADVANCED STAGE (AS) CLASSIC HODGKIN LYMPHOMA (HL): RESULTS OF SWOG S1826. Hematological Oncology. 2023;41(S2):33-35. doi: 10.1002/hon.3163_5
42. Herrera AF, LeBlanc M, Castellino SM, et al. Nivolumab+AVD in Advanced-Stage Classic Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2024;391(15):1379-1389. doi:doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2405888
43. Oki Y, Chuang H, Chasen B, et al. The prognostic value of interim positron emission tomography scan in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol. Apr 2014;165(1):112-6. doi:10.1111/bjh.12715
44. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. Jan 1 2006;107(1):52-9. doi:10.1182/blood-2005-06-2252
45. Moghbel MC, Mittra E, Gallamini A, et al. Response Assessment Criteria and Their Applications in Lymphoma: Part 2. J Nucl Med. Jan 2017;58(1):13-22. doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.184242
46. Vijenthira A, Chan K, Cheung MC, Prica A. Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment options for patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: a modelling study. Lancet Haematol. Feb 2020;7(2):e146-e156. doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(19)30218-2
47. Allen PB, Lu X, Chen Q, et al. Sequential pembrolizumab and AVD are highly effective at any PD-L1 expression level in untreated Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood Adv. Jun 27 2023;7(12):2670-2676. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2022008116
48. Viviani S, Mazzocchi A, Pavoni C, et al. Early serum TARC reduction predicts prognosis in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with a PET-adapted strategy. Hematol Oncol. Oct 2020;38(4):501-508. doi:10.1002/hon.2775
49. Khair W. Is thymus and activation-regulated chemokine a forgotten diagnostic and minimal residual disease marker in classical Hodgkin lymphoma? memo – Magazine of European Medical Oncology. 2021/12/01 2021;14(4):406-411. doi:10.1007/s12254-021-00753-x
50. Hsi ED, Li H, Nixon AB, et al. Serum levels of TARC, MDC, IL-10, and soluble CD163 in Hodgkin lymphoma: a SWOG S0816 correlative study. Blood. Apr 18 2019;133(16):1762-1765. doi:10.1182/blood-2018-08-870915
51. Steidl C, Diepstra A, Lee T, et al. Gene expression profiling of microdissected Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg cells correlates with treatment outcome in classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. Oct 25 2012;120(17):3530-40. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-06-439570

By the time you’ve exited the plane, edged through passport control and endured the baggage claim wait, your only thought may be of home or a hotel bed. But passengers at Australia’s major airports have recently noticed some changes as they contemplate the final leg of their journey.

Since Friday, in a bid to deter illegal touts, a new taxi booking trial at Melbourne airport has allowed some passengers to pay a fixed fare upfront. And next month, Sydney airport will begin its own one-year trial of a $60 flat fare for the 13-km journey to the CBD.

The changes, supported by the taxi industry, are a sign of its struggle to remain competitive with the rideshare companies – especially Uber. They also come amid a crackdown on rogue taxi drivers and operators.

This month, the New South Wales government approved making a 12-month Uber PIN trial outside Sydney airport’s international terminal fully permanent. The trial let riders match with a first-available driver already waiting in the zone, rather than waiting for a pre-assigned driver. It follows Melbourne, which become the first Australian airport to introduce kerbside Uber pickups in 2021.

Some argue the Uber PIN kerbside pickup zones risk favouring the rideshare giant to the point of being anticompetitive.

Here’s what the battle between taxis and Uber means for your airport trip.

What changes are airport taxi drivers making?

Flat airport taxi fares already exist in cities such as New York and Paris. At Sydney, a $60 fare – or $80 for a larger Maxi-taxi – will be implemented for all trips to the CBD as part of a 12-month trial from 3 November.

A NSW government spokesperson said while “there is always a risk of non-compliance”, on-street inspectors will actively monitor the trial.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News email}

The Melbourne trial is slightly different. Passengers can book a fixed – rather than flat – fare to their destination from one of three kiosks in the Qantas domestic terminal.

After entering an address to secure a quote and pay, they are issued with a receipt showing the guaranteed price. They are then directed to a bay to meet a driver from one of four taxi companies: Silver Service, Black and White, 13cabs and Silver Top.

Under the Uber pickup system, which operates at Sydney international and Melbourne’s T2 domestic and international terminals, passengers receive a PIN when booking a ride through the app. They then provide the PIN to a waiting driver in the designated pickup zone.

What’s at stake?

The battle is on for lucrative fares from the tens of millions of passengers moving annually through Sydney and Melbourne airports.

Data of journeys from Sydney airport’s international terminal shows the ground Uber has won since 2015. Taxis accounted for more than half of fares from the terminal in 2019, with Uber making up 35%. But five years later – even before the introduction of the trial – they had swapped, with Uber making up 50% of fares in 2024.

In the Uber PIN trial’s first year, that shot up even further. In the year to date Uber contributed 73% of pickups from the terminal, while taxis have dropped to 27%. In the 12 months of the trial, the rideshare company clocked more than 300,000 trips from the new pickup zone.

Across Melbourne airport – which has Uber PIN pickup zones outside terminals 2 and 4 – about 60% of passengers now use Uber for pickups and dropoffs, 20% use taxis, and the remainder use other services including the Skybus.

Hussein Dia, professor of future urban mobility at Swinburne University, views the taxi trials as an “useful experiment” but a “symbolic move” that is up against the ease of Uber’s app interface, ratings and complaints system.

“The taxi industry, in its older service model, has just lost ground. It’s not really in touch with what people want as well.”

Nick Abrahim, the chief executive of the NSW Taxi Council, said the “majority” of the industry welcomed the flat fare in NSW. The council lobbied for the change, initially asking for $75, although the state’s independent price regulator settled on $60.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

But Abrahim said Sydney’s soon-to-be-permanent Uber PIN trial, under which the company was granted an exemption to operate the rank usually reserved for taxis, did not “sit well at all”.

“This gives Uber an upper hand. It gives them another free kick.”

Asked if making the trial permanent created an anti-competitive environment, the NSW transport minister, John Graham, said it “addressed a specific problem at the airport – a lack of choice and convenience for those people who prefer rideshare”.

Sydney airport said bringing Uber kerbside had “made it easier and more convenient” for travellers to access both taxis and rideshare services.

Geoffrey Clifton, a senior lecturer in transport management at the University of Sydney, said flat and fixed fare trials were a “reasonable compromise” to respond to distrust in the taxi industry.

In NSW, fines for a first offence for taxi drivers are tripling to $3,000 after the prosecution of a driver who charged a $189 fare from Sydney airport to the CBD. This month, the Victorian government introduced a bill which includes a “two strikes and out” rule, banning drivers who repeatedly overcharge.

So how much will my trip cost?

The Melbourne fixed-fare kiosks use the same technology as the 13Cabs app, based on the meter amount for a trip between the airport and the CBD.

Guardian Australia checked taxi fares from Melbourne’s Qantas domestic terminal to Southern Cross station – where the Skybus also terminates – in the morning during peak hour and in the evening after peak hour, and was offered journeys of $78 and $79 respectively. The equivalent Uber fare was $57 in the morning, and $65 in the evening.

The $60 flat taxi fare at Sydney airport is exactly that: Under the trial, a taxi from any terminal will cost you $60 to any location in the CBD. Clifton said taxi drivers wary of the fixed fare may still stick around for suburban passengers.

“There’s still a lot of people traveling from the airport to other suburbs. It’s not just just the city centre.”

When Guardian Australia checked Uber fares from the international terminal to Central station, the app offered journeys of $45 in morning peak hour and $46 in the later evening.

But Abrahim said there may be times when taxi journeys to the northern end of the CBD, to areas such as the Rocks, could be cheaper under the flat fare, including during Uber surge pricing events (which the NSW government does not regulate).

When we checked Uber fares to the Rocks during morning peak hour, the app offered a fare of $55, but in the evening the price was $66 – meaning the flat taxi fare would offer a modest saving.

Weiterlesen

DIC (TSE:4631) shares have shown some steady gains recently, with the stock climbing over 3% in the past week. Investors seem to be taking a closer look as the company’s returns have outpaced the broader market this month.

See our latest analysis for DIC.

Momentum appears to be building for DIC, with its share price up 24.8% over the past quarter and a strong 17.7% one-year total shareholder return, reinforcing long-term confidence. Recent price gains suggest investors are warming up to its growth story and shifting risk outlook.

If DIC’s recent gains have sparked your curiosity, this could be the perfect moment to discover fast growing stocks with high insider ownership.

But is DIC still undervalued compared to its potential, or are these recent gains a sign that investors have already priced in the company’s future? There may still be a buying opportunity to consider.

DIC is currently trading at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 12.5x, which puts the stock below industry and peer averages based on the last close of ¥3,700. This suggests the market is discounting the company’s earning power compared to similar businesses.

The P/E multiple reflects how much investors are willing to pay for a yen of earnings, making it a key benchmark for mature businesses like DIC. In this case, the relatively low P/E could indicate undervaluation, especially since recent profitability has improved after a challenging period.

Significantly, DIC’s P/E of 12.5x is well under both the peer average of 23x and the JP Chemicals industry standard of 13.3x. This further highlights a value gap in the company’s shares. Compared to our estimated fair P/E of 14.8x, this valuation could move higher if market sentiment turns more optimistic.

Explore the SWS fair ratio for DIC

Result: Price-to-Earnings of 12.5x (UNDERVALUED)

However, sluggish annual revenue growth and a still modest net income margin may pressure DIC’s valuation if market sentiment reverses unexpectedly.

Find out about the key risks to this DIC narrative.

To challenge the low price-to-earnings perspective, let’s look at valuation from another angle. The SWS DCF model suggests DIC’s shares are trading 23% below our estimate of their fair value. This reinforces the sense of a potential opportunity, but also raises the question: is the market missing something, or is there a reason for caution?

Look into how the SWS DCF model arrives at its fair value.

Simply Wall St performs a discounted cash flow (DCF) on every stock in the world every day (check out DIC for example). We show the entire calculation in full. You can track the result in your watchlist or portfolio and be alerted when this changes, or use our stock screener to discover undervalued stocks based on their cash flows. If you save a screener we even alert you when new companies match – so you never miss a potential opportunity.

If you like to question the consensus or want to explore the numbers on your own, you can craft your personal view just as quickly. Do it your way

A great starting point for your DIC research is our analysis highlighting 4 key rewards and 2 important warning signs that could impact your investment decision.

There’s a world of smart opportunities beyond DIC. See what other investors are finding. These handpicked ideas could give your portfolio the edge you need.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Companies discussed in this article include 4631.T.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

By Britney Nguyen

Western Digital and Seagate were once sleepy cyclical stocks. But storage technology is now at the heart of the AI boom, and analysts see no signs of a slowdown ahead.

Western Digital and Seagate are among the top performers in the S&P 500 so far this year.

This year’s best technology stocks don’t belong to companies building artificial-intelligence chips. Rather, they’re plays on memory and storage components that are becoming all the more critical in the current boom.

As hardware companies ramp up storage requirements in the AI era, it’s driven up demand for products from Western Digital Corp. (WDC) and Seagate Technology Holdings PLC (STX) – which are now the second- and third-best performers in the S&P 500 so far this year, up 189% and 173%, respectively. Both companies produce hard-disk drives and solid-state drives which are needed to store the growing amounts of data being processed by AI models.

That Western Digital and Seagate have become Wall Street’s hottest tech plays is notable because the stocks had been seen as cyclical commodities for more than two decades, according to Morgan Stanley analysts. AI, however, has unlocked a new pathway to growth, and one that’s put the stocks on pace for their best year since 2009.

“Data is the oil that will keep AI running, and it’s become increasingly clear that HDDs are the oligopoly that will benefit from the vast amounts of data storage needed to power AI,” the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a recent note to clients.

Fundamentally, the stocks are doing well because Seagate and Western Digital have limited capacity to avoid the boom-to-bust volatility that is typical in the memory market when suppliers add capacity to meet demand, according to Mizuho desk-based analyst Jordan Klein. If companies add too much capacity, they then have to deal with oversupply when demand slows or falls quickly due to macroeconomic trends or the cyclical nature of the industry. When there’s oversupply, pricing collapses.

“These markets are fairly mature, and the biggest variable has always been these cloud hyperscalers that tend to purchase on unpredictable or more lumpy patterns – where they buy a bunch and then deploy and digest, and then they don’t buy for a period of time until they need more capacity,” Klein told MarketWatch.

With AI, the storage companies have a new end market because cloud hyperscalers are buying more disk drives to support the massive amounts of content being generated by AI models.

All of the data that are processed for AI-generated images and videos, for example, needs to be uploaded somewhere, according to Ray Wang, lead semiconductor analyst at the Futurum Group – and that is on the HDDs and SSDs made by companies such as Western Digital and Seagate.

HDDs are in a shortage, Wang told MarketWatch, leading to long lead times and pushing customers toward a type of SSD called embedded solid-state drives, or eSSDs. While HDDs are generally cheaper and can handle more capacity, SSDs are much faster.

Wang expects the demand trends to continue, given more complex AI models with video and audio capabilities that will require more memory and storage.

The expansion of multimodal AI models such as OpenAI’s Sora 2 video generator and Google’s (GOOGL) (GOOG) Veo3 mean “longer context windows,” or the amount of information being processed by an AI model at one time, according to a recent note from Mizuho analyst Vijay Rakesh. The context window is measured in tokens, or the pieces of information being processed, and the Mizuho team sees context windows exceeding 2 million tokens. Rakesh estimates those workloads will drive a seven- to 11-times increase in demand for eSSDs per AI server through the end of the decade.

“HDD supply remains tight, with lead times exceeding one year,” Rakesh said – adding that the trend is also leading to stronger demand for eSSDs and nearline HDDs, or hard drives that are used to keep large amounts of data that are infrequently accessed, but that still need to be available quickly.

Don’t miss: Intel earnings aren’t swaying the skeptics: ‘This fight is far from over.’

Klein said he doesn’t see Seagate or Western Digital adding more capacity, as the companies are rather letting pricing go up. They’re currently selling forward capacity, meaning they are entering into longer-term supply agreements.

“It’s great for them because it gives them valuable revenue visibility,” Klein said. “They want better visibility, the ability to raise prices, and I think that they’re very content to see this all is additive to their margins and cash flow.”

From Seagate’s and Western Digital’s perspectives, there’s no telling when demand could slow or change, Klein said. Instead of adding capacity, the companies are releasing higher-density storage products that also have higher margins.

Morgan Stanley’s Erik Woodring said in a note to clients earlier this month that the HDD cycle is expected to be “stronger for longer” – a reflection of “strengthening cloud-infrastructure spending” that is projected to total $3 trillion through 2028.

The HDD market is up to 10% undersupplied, Woodring’s team said, citing checks with suppliers and vendors. Therefore, prices for nearline HDD are firming, the analysts said.

By locking in prices, there’s more visibility into when the HDD cycle could peak, which Morgan Stanley thinks won’t be until at least 2028.

The enthusiasm over Western Digital and Seagate may raise questions about sustainability, the analysts said – both because the stocks are historically cyclical plays, and because some investors are becoming increasingly worried about how long momentum in the broader AI trade will last if enterprises are slow to adopt the technology.

Although the Morgan Stanley team acknowledged those fears, the analysts were still upbeat about the stocks in light of improved profitability and growth trends.

A memory boom

Micron Technology Inc. (MU) capitalizes on the AI frenzy in a slightly different way, through providing the high-performance memory chips that are crucial to AI training and even more so for inferencing, or running AI models. As AI chips from companies like Nvidia Corp. (NVDA) become more powerful, they require higher memory capacity to process complex data. In a chip package, a memory chip sits next to a graphics processing unit on a layer called the silicon interposer, which allows them to communicate.

Shares of Micron are up 160% so far this year, ranking fourth among the S&P 500’s best performers in 2025. Memory chips are in short supply and high demand, which has boosted prices and could fuel further stock gains, according to Morgan Stanley analysts led by Joseph Moore.

See also: Micron’s stock has doubled this year. Why Morgan Stanley is finally upgrading it.

Buyers of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) and NAND flash memory are “showing anxiety about availability” through the entirety of 2026, Moore and his team noted, as demand for server chips and storage components that require memory products continues to be strong from increasing data-center buildouts. The better pricing for DRAM is also helping to ease near-term pricing concerns given negotiations around the current-generation HBM3e, a type of high-bandwidth memory, Moore added. HBM chips are made by stacking multiple DRAM dies together.

The leader in HBM is South Korea’s SK Hynix Inc. (KR:000660), which Klein said started the manufacturing process before other chip makers and, in his view, has perfected it. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (KR:005930) is a close second to its fellow South Korean rival, Klein said, but it has struggled with developing high-performance components for HBM – as evidenced by its difficulties in passing Nvidia’s qualification tests for use of its HBM3e in the Blackwell platform.

Samsung’s lagging status has been surprising, Klein noted, considering it has historically been the front-runner in memory. “That’s left the door open for Micron, who’s jumped in and taken a lot of market share in HBM because their execution has been very good,” Klein said.

The current problem for the memory-chip players is that it takes more wafers to manufacture and produce HBM, which is eating into the supply, Klein said. Chip-making facilities are also running out of space in the clean room to make more HBM, and “because it’s a more complex and involved process,” it can take 18 months to get one up and running, he added.

Klein sees more constraints for the memory market, which is seeing “a brand-new demand driver that wasn’t there” just a few years ago, as chip makers try to lock in supply to support further AI development.

At the same time, Nvidia is launching more powerful chips on an annual cadence, and major tech firms such as Google are working on custom silicon, leading to “more and more memory density” because the higher performance depends on HBM for faster training and inferencing speeds, Klein said.

“So the writing’s kind of on the wall – the higher the performance specs go, the more consumption of memory,” he said. “This all drives kind of this virtuous cycle where, unless someone’s just creative or adding a bunch of new memory capacity, there’s going to be shortages or tightness.”

Futurum’s Wang said it’s key for Samsung to make its HBM more competitive because it could put pressure on pricing for other memory makers – a trend he said investors will be paying attention to.

Going into next year, Wang said there is some concern that ramps of HBM capacity could lead to oversupply. But he thinks those worries are overstated for now, given the amount of demand for chips driven by AI inference and reasoning AI models.

The main driver for memory stocks is gross margins, which are impacted by forward pricing changes, Klein noted.

(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires

10-26-25 0900ET

Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

CPI(M) State secretary V. Srinivasa Rao, along with party leaders, releasing the copies of the letter addressed to the Chief Minister, at a media conference in Visakhapatnam on Sunday.
| Photo Credit: V. RAJU