MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2556671040 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.3069.3069

Outcome in Unselected Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Following R-CHOP When Stem Cell Transplantation Is Not Feasible

2014· article· en· W2556671040 sur OpenAlexaff
Roopesh Kansara, Kerry J. Savage, Diego Villa, Tamara Shenkier, Alina S. Gerrie, Richard Klasa, Felicitas Hitz, David W. Scott, Graham W. Slack, Randy D. Gascoyne, Joseph M. Connors, Laurie H. Sehn

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BCBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaTransplantationOncologyPopulationCHOPSalvage therapySurgeryChemotherapy regimenRituximabLymphomaCancerChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: While R-CHOP has improved survival for DLBCL, outcome in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory disease remains dismal and may have worsened since the introduction of immunochemotherapy. High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation (SCT) offers the best chance of secondary cure, but the majority of patients are ineligible due to age, co-morbidities or disease refractory to salvage chemotherapy. Novel agents will address this unmet medical need; however, their impact is difficult to assess without a reliable historical comparator. Herein, we evaluate the outcome in an unselected population with relapsed/refractory DLBCL following R-CHOP in whom SCT is not feasible. Methods: The BC Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer Database was used to identify all pts diagnosed with de novo DLBCL between Dec 2000 to Jan 2013 who were treated with curative intent R-CHOP and subsequently progressed or relapsed. Patients were excluded if they were HIV positive, had CNS involvement at diagnosis, PMBCL, composite/discordant histology or transformed lymphoma. Clinical information at baseline and at relapse/progression was compiled. Overall survival (OS) from relapse was calculated from the date of 1st relapse/progression to death or last follow-up. Progression-free survival (PFS) from relapse was defined as interval from 1st relapse/progression to the date of 2nd relapse, initiation of next line of therapy, death or last follow-up. Results: 379 pts with relapsed/refractory DLBCL were identified. 53 underwent SCT and were excluded from analysis. The remaining 326 (274 SCT-ineligible and 52 SCT-eligible pts who did not receive SCT due to toxicity or chemo-refractoriness) were analyzed. Response to primary treatment was: 44% CR; 20% PR; 2% SD; 34% PD. 174 (53%) were primary refractory (progression during or within 3 mos of primary R-CHOP). Median time from diagnosis to first recurrence was 7.8 mos (range 0 – 116). Patient characteristics at relapse: median age 70 y (range 21-93); 55% male; 59% elevated LDH; 58% ECOG PS >1; 55% stage III/IV; 18% >1 extra-nodal site; 53% IPI score at relapse > or = 3. 14 (4%) relapsed with an indolent histology only and 74 (23%) exhibited CNS involvement at relapse (54 isolated, 20 concurrent systemic). Treatment at initial relapse: 78 supportive care; 77 radiotherapy (RT) alone; 2 single agent rituximab (for indolent relapse); 168 (R)-chemo +/- RT (79 single agent, 89 multi-agent). (R)-GDP was the most commonly used multi-agent regimen (75%). 1 pt had missing information. Median follow-up for living pts from the time of first relapse was 3 y. Median OS and PFS from relapse for the entire cohort were 3.9 and 2.1 mos, respectively. Outcome was worse for pts with primary refractory disease (median OS 2.5 mos, median PFS 1.7 mos). On multivariate analysis elevated LDH, ECOG PS >1, Stage III/IV and primary refractory status were independent predictors of OS and PFS from relapse. Pts who relapsed > 2 y from diagnosis had a better median OS and PFS from relapse (11 mos and 5.7 mos, respectively). Excluding pts with CNS involvement, pts who received chemo +/- RT (median OS 6.1, median PFS 3.1 mos) or RT alone (median OS 5.7, median PFS 3.3 mos) had a marginally better outcome. Disease control was similar between pts who received multi-agent vs single agent chemotherapy (median PFS 3.3 vs 2.9 mos). Median OS and PFS from relapse for the 74 pts with CNS involvement were 3.3 mos and 2.2 mos, respectively; this was similar compared to the entire cohort. Outcome was also similar between those with isolated CNS recurrence and concurrent systemic disease but 10 pts with isolated CNS relapse survived > 2 yrs. The 14 pts with indolent histology-only relapse had a significantly better outcome (median OS 36 mos, median PFS 12 mos). Conclusion: The outcome in pts who relapse or progress following R-CHOP is exceedingly poor with standard therapy, with median OS less than 4 mos. Pts who receive treatment at initial relapse fare slightly better, but this may reflect more favorable pt characteristics. Disease control was equivalent for multi-agent vs single agent treatment. While CNS relapse is a rare event in DLBCL, a high proportion of relapsed/refractory pts have CNS disease. The presence of CNS disease did not negatively impact outcome, as outcome was dismal in the entire cohort. Novel treatments are greatly needed and these survival estimates may serve as a comparator to assess their benefit. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures Savage: F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research funding to support BCCA Lymphoid Cancer Database Other. Villa:F Hoffmann-La Roche: Other. Shenkier:F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research funding to support BCCA Lymphoid Cancer Database Other. Gerrie:F Hoffmann-La Roche: Other. Klasa:F Hoffmann-La Roche: Other. Connors:F Hoffmann-La Roche: Other. Sehn:F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research funding to support BCCA Lymphoid Cancer Database Other.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
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 enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,217
Écart entre enseignants0,208 · 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

Citations9
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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