MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2558396912 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.3655.3655

First-Line Treatment and Outcome of Elderly Patients with Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma (PCNSL) – A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

2012· review· en· W2558396912 sur OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Kasenda, Andrés J.M. Ferreri, Emerenziana Maturano, Jacoline J.E.C. Bromberg, Hervé Ghesquières, Céline Ferlay, Jean‐Yves Blay, Khê Hoang‐Xuan, Yasushi Okoshi, Shigeru Chiba, Kristina Fritsch, Antonio Omuro, Brian Patrick O’Neill, Osnat Bairey, Viktoria Gloy, Neera Bhatnagar, Stefan Haug, Susanne Rahner, Gerald Illerhaus, Matthias Briel

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2012
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePrimary central nervous system lymphomaPerformance statusObservational studyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialOncologyLymphomaPediatricsChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3655 Background Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is an aggressive lymphoma with devastating prognosis. High-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in combination with HD-cytarabine builds the backbone of current treatments. Elderly patients constitute 45% of cases, exhibit poor outcome and frequent iatrogenic toxicity. However, research efforts to optimize therapy in this subgroup have been neglected. On this background, we conducted a systematic review (SR) and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to provide comprehensive evidence-based management strategy for elderly patients with PCNSL. Patients and Methods SR: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE without language restriction. Eligibility criteria were prospective/retrospective observational studies or randomized trials (RCT) (all N>=10) that exclusively focused on first-line therapy/outcomes in immunocompetent PCNSL patients ≥60 years. Eligible studies were evaluated for methodological quality and reporting of the following baseline characteristics: Age, performance status (PS), involvement of deep brain structures (IDB), serum LDH at baseline, cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) protein concentration elevation, neurotoxicity (as reported), specific co-morbidity indices, and functional status. For the IPDMA, investigators of eligible studies were asked to provide individual patient data. Minimal eligibility criteria: Age at baseline, details about first-line therapy, and follow-up information. If no data were available, studies were included in the SR, but not in the IPDMA. To maximize statistical power and generalizability, published/unpublished data from other international collaborators were included. Impact of different first-line treatments on overall survival (OS) was investigated using time dependent mixed effects multivariable Cox regression models (age and PS as fixed effects, study/database as random effect). Results SR: We identified 13 eligible studies including 583 patients in total, median age 68–76, published from 1996–2011. Design of studies: prospective (3 multicenter [1 RCT]; 2 single center), retrospective (4 multicenter and single-center, respectively). Accrual of the RCT was recently finished, but publication is pending. From published studies, information about age and therapy was given throughout, for clinical performance in 77%, for LDH and CSF protein in 15%, and IDB in 38%. Functional status was reported in only one study. From the identified 13 studies, 261 individual patient data were available for our IPDMA and pooled with 408 patients from other databases; altogether 669 patients diagnosed from 1977–2011. Preliminary results IPDMA: 50% were male, median age 68 (60–70 [N=431], 70–80 [N=211], >80 [N=22]); median KPS was 60% (10–100%). Therapy regimens widely varied. Overall response to first-line treatment was 65% (45% CR, 19% PR). After a median follow-up of 23 months (1–171), 44% were still alive, with a 3-year OS of 32% [95%CI, 29–37%]. Grouping by time of diagnosis revealed improvement for patients diagnosed after 1997 (N=462) (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, MTX-based poly-chemotherapy (CT) (N=474) was associated with improved OS (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.52–0.91) compared to non-MTX regimens (N=195); this was consistent among patients who received consolidating WBRT (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01–0.66) and those who did not (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23–0.89). In patients who received any MTX-based poly-CT, addition of CHOP-like components (N=90) was not associated with improved OS (HR 0.98, 95% 0.65–1.48). Although any WBRT showed an overall trend for superior OS, it was associated with a 4-fold risk increase for neurotoxicity (Odds Ratio 4.21, 95% CI 2.23–8.21). Further results of treatment patterns and explorative comparisons will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion This international meta-analysis revealed widely varying treatment approaches and demonstrates that prognosis for elderly PCNSL patients is still poor. However, improvement over the last decades was observed. MTX-based poly-CT was associated with better outcome compared to non-MTX containing approaches. The addition of CHOP-like regimens to HD-MTX did not improve outcome. WBRT was associated with better outcome, but also clearly increased risk of neurotoxicity. Prospective trials designed ad hoc for elderly PCNSL patients are promptly needed. 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)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: Méta-analyse
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,054

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0140,029
Bibliométrie0,0050,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,119
Tête enseignante GPT0,305
Écart entre enseignants0,185 · 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'étudeMéta-analyse
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
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207