Chemoresistance Can Be Reliably Overcome with High-Dose Therapy and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (HDT/ASCT) for Relapsed and Refractory Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 2022 Background: HDT/ASCT is the preferred treatment for relapsed and refractory HL patients (pts) with chemosensitive disease, with cure rates approximating 40–60%. The role for HDT/ASCT in chemoresistant HL is less well defined and many centers do not offer this treatment to such patients. Since 1985, HDT/ASCT has been recommended in British Columbia (BC) for all HL pts with progressive disease despite primary ABVD-type therapy, irrespective of response to salvage therapy. We sought to evaluate the long-term outcomes of HL pts whose disease was resistant to chemotherapy preceding HDT/ASCT. Methods: We reviewed all HL pts who underwent HDT/ASCT for primary progression (PP) or first relapse (1REL) after initial treatment with chemotherapy +/− radiation. Primary progression (PP) was defined as progression during or within 3 months of completion of initial therapy. Pts were considered to have: chemoresistant (R) disease = stable disease or progression on chemotherapy preceding HDT/ASCT; chemosensitive (S) disease = clinical and/or radiographic response to chemotherapy preceding HDT/ASCT; or untested (U) if no salvage chemotherapy was given. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from the BC Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer Database, the Leukemia/BMT Program of BC Database and from hospital, clinic, and physician records. Results: 251 pts underwent HDT/ASCT for PP (n=90 36%) or 1REL (n=161 64%) between 1985–2011: male 53%; median age at diagnosis 28 y (range 16–59 y), at HDT/ASCT 31 y (range 31–62 y). Characteristics at diagnosis were: advanced stage(stage IIB, II bulky, III or IV) 94%; stage 3–4 60%; B symptoms 57%; bulk (≥10 cm) 42%; primary therapy: ABVD/ABVD-like, 95%; MOPP-like 5%; combined modality therapy 31%. Salvage therapy prior to HDT/ASCT included MVPP (28%); COP/COPP (22%); GDP (27%); no chemotherapy (13%); other (11%). RT was given with salvage therapy in 19%: alone, 27%; with chemotherapy, 73%. Conditioning regimen was with CBV/CBVP in the majority of cases (88%); BEAM (11%); other (1%). At a median follow-up for living pts of 8 y (range 0.2 – 25 y), 136 pts (54%) were alive free of HL; 89 pts (35%) have relapsed. For all pts, median overall (OS) and progression free survivals (PFS) were 21.7 y (95% CI 16.0–27.5) and 17.3 y (95% CI 9.8–24.8), respectively. 13 pts (5%) died of complications related to or within 1 month of HDT/ASCT, 6 (2%) from secondary malignancies, 7 (3%) from unrelated causes. 199 pts (56 PP, 143 1REL) had information available regarding response to salvage therapy. Of the 56 PP pts, 14 (25%) had chemoresistant disease (PP/R); 21 (38%) did not receive salvage therapy and thus were untested (PP/U); 21 (38%) had chemosensitive disease (PP/S). 10-y PFS for PP/R, PP/U, and PP/S groups were 27%, 24%, and 40%, respectively; 10-y OS were 53%, 27%, and 53%, respectively. Of the 143 1REL pts, 26 (18%) had chemoresistant disease (1REL/R); 12 (8%) did not receive salvage therapy (1REL/U); 105 (73%) had chemosensitive disease (1REL/S). 10-y PFS for 1REL/R, 1REL/U, and 1REL/S groups were 49%, 57%, and 58%, respectively; 10-y OS were 55%, 65%, 69%, respectively. OS and PFS for the chemoresistant groups (PP/R, PP/U, 1REL/R) and 1REL/U are shown in Figures 1A and 1B respectively. To evaluate impact of chemoresistance on outcomes, PP/R (pts resistant to both primary and salvage therapy, “double-resistant”) and PP/U pts (resistant to primary therapy, “single-resistant”) were grouped together (n=35) and compared to PP/S pts. There was a significant difference in OS (P =.05) but not PFS (P =.12). When pts with 1REL/R were compared to 1REL/S, there was no significant difference in OS (P =.25) or PFS (P =.26). Conclusion: In this large uniformly treated cohort of HL pts with long-term follow-up, chemoresistance preceding HDT/ASCT was identified as a poor prognostic factor, particularly for PP pts; however, this poor prognostic factor could be partially overcome by HDT/ASCT, resulting in cure in 25–50% of pts across all chemoresistant groups. Importantly, even pts who were double-resistant to both primary and salvage therapy were cured in 27% of cases. HDT/ASCT should therefore be considered in all transplant eligible pts, regardless of responsiveness to salvage chemotherapy. 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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».