MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2531128131 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.3972.3972

Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation Improves Survival for Patients with Follicular Lymphoma in First or Second Relapse: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Instrumental Variable Analysis

2014· article· en· W2531128131 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Danielle H. Oh, Qiuli Duan, Anthea Peters, Neil Chua, Douglas A. Stewart

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensFoothills Medical CentreAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineChemoimmunotherapyRituximabFollicular lymphomaTransplantationInternal medicinePopulationAutologous stem-cell transplantationDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaOncologyChemotherapy regimenRadiation therapyCancerLymphomaSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The role of high dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) remains controversial, with lack of comparative studies in the Rituximab (R) era. We conducted a comparative effectiveness analysis to evaluate the use of ASCT at first or second (1st/2nd) relapse on survival outcome in two cancer centers in Alberta. Both centers treat a similar catchment population within the same government-funded health care system, providing simultaneous access to new cancer treatments. Treatment center A however, routinely offers ASCT at 1st/2nd FL relapse whereas treatment center B tends to offer ASCT later or never. Both centers occasionally offer allogeneic transplantation later in the disease course. Methods The Alberta Cancer Registry was interrogated to identify FL patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2010. Patients who were aged 18-60 years at initial diagnosis and experienced a relapse post initial chemotherapy treatment regardless of first-line management (watch and wait, chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy or radiation) were included in this analysis. Patients who had grade 3B or areas of concurrent diffuse large B-cell lymphoma at initial diagnosis were excluded. Results A total of 568 patients aged 18-60 years were diagnosed with FL during the 10 year study period in Alberta, and 180 patients meeting inclusion criteria experienced relapse from chemotherapy and received treatment at center A (n=96) or center B (n=84). There were no statistically significant differences in patient and disease characteristics at diagnosis or at relapse between the two centers. The median follow-up was 104.4 months (28.1-156.1) from diagnosis and 65.3 months (0.3-151.8) from first relapse post chemotherapy. The proportion of patients ever receiving ASCT was higher at center A compared to B (61.46% vs.16.67%, p<0.001) especially those receiving at 1st/2nd relapse (58.3% vs. 7.1%, p<0.001). Center A also utilized allogeneic transplantation more frequently (16.7% vs. 3.6%, p=0.004). The use of R-chemotherapy (89.6% vs. 82.1%, p=0.46), R-maintenance therapy (34.4% vs. 39.3%, p=0.50), Doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (60.4% vs. 61.9%, p=0.84), Fludarabine (19.8% vs. 29.8%, p=0.12) were similar for center A vs. B, respectively, although center A less commonly enrolled patients on clinical trials (12.5% vs. 39.3%, p<0.01). The projected 5-year overall survival (OS) from first relapse was significantly higher in center A vs. B (88.9% vs. 59.5%, HR 3.24, p<0.001) (Figure 1). For these 180 patients, the projected 10-year OS from initial diagnosis was 85.4% in center A vs. 60.5% in center B (HR 3.02, p=0.003). The factors associated with improved OS from relapse at univariate analysis were female gender (p=0.01), no co-morbidities (p=0.01), FLIPI score 0-2 at diagnosis (p<0.001) and TTP >1 year (p=0.002). Receiving ASCT was highly associated with improved OS (p=0.006) as well as timing of the ASCT (p<0.001). Patients receiving ASCT at 1st/2nd relapse had projected 5-year OS of 92.4% vs. 66.5% for no ASCT vs. 62.5% for ASCT beyond second relapse (p<0.001) (Figure 2). In contrast, allogeneic transplantation did not affect OS (p=0.62). In multivariate analysis, factors that were independently associated with improved OS were treatment center A (HR 3.16, p=0.001), FLIPI score 0-2 at diagnosis, no transformation, ever use of Rituximab with chemotherapy, and ever use of R-maintenance. Another multivariate model examining the OS of all patients without considering treatment center found that ASCT at 1st/2nd relapse was associated with improved OS (HR 4.55, p=0.002) independent of FLIPI score 0-2 at diagnosis, no transformation, ever use of Rituximab with chemotherapy, and ever use of R-maintenance. Because treatment center and use of ASCT at 1st/2nd relapse were highly correlated, they could not be combined within the same multivariate model. Conclusions This is the first study assessing the comparative effectiveness of different treatment approaches in FL patients in their first relapse post chemotherapy, in particular the use of ASCT. Our results illustrate significantly improved survival in patients treated with high dose therapy with ASCT as well as highlighting the importance of timing of ASCT. We therefore support the use of ASCT at 1st/2nd relapse in relapsed FL patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,070

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,004
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,227
Écart entre enseignants0,218 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→