Maintenance Rituximab Following R-CHOP Chemotherapy in Patients with Composite or Discordant, Indolent and Aggressive, B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who achieve a complete (CR) or partial (PR) response to rituximab-containing chemotherapy followed by maintenance rituximab (MR) experience improved progression-free survival (PFS). In contrast, MR does not improve outcomes in chemo-sensitive patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). There are no published data describing the impact of MR in patients presenting with indolent and aggressive histology lymphoma simultaneously in the same biopsy (composite, COM) or two separate sites (discordant, DIS). Methods: Patients with newly-diagnosed COM/DIS lymphomas composed of an indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (excluding CLL/SLL, mantle cell lymphoma, and grade 3B FL) and DLBCL were identified in the British Columbia Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer Database. All patients received first-line chemotherapy with R-CHOP. In early 2006, a treatment policy was introduced recommending MR 375 mg/m2 IV every 3 months for 2 years in patients with COM/DIS lymphomas achieving a CR/PR to R-CHOP induction. PFS, time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the time of diagnosis and compared between treatment groups. Results: 98 patients with COM/DIS lymphomas were identified between January 2001 and December 2013: median age 64 y (range 22 - 86), 56% male, 48% elevated LDH, 30% performance status ≥ 2, 87% stage III/IV, and 51% high-intermediate or high IPI. 58 (59%) and 40 (41%) patients had COM and DIS lymphoma, respectively. FL was the indolent component in 65% of all cases. 35/40 patients with DIS had low-grade histology in the bone marrow. Following R-CHOP, 77 (79%) and 21 (21%) patients achieved CR and PR, respectively. 43 patients were treated with R-CHOP alone before the MR policy introduction, and 55 were treated with R-CHOP+MR; the latter group received a median of 8 (range 1 - 8) MR doses. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or response rates between the two groups with the exception of a higher proportion of patients with poor performance status in the group not given MR. With a median follow-up of 10y (range 1.5 - 13.6) in living patients treated with R-CHOP and 6y (range 0.9-9.5) in patients treated with R-CHOP+MR, there were 20 (47%) and 15 (27%) relapses, respectively (p=0.26). Of these, 11 relapsed with indolent histology, 11 relapsed with DLBCL, 3 relapsed in the central nervous system (CNS), and 10 had no biopsy at relapse (8 had aggressive and 2 indolent clinical behavior on review of medical records). There were 6 (30%) indolent and 14 (70%) aggressive relapses in patients treated with R-CHOP, while there were 7 (47%) indolent and 8 (53%) aggressive relapses in patients treated with R-CHOP+MR (p=0.31). 19 patients eventually died from lymphoma (8 with DLBCL relapse, 5 without a biopsy at relapse, and all 3 with CNS recurrence). The 6-y PFS was 60% (standard error [SE] 5%) with no difference between patients treated with or without MR (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 - 1.37, p= 0.33). The 6-year TTP was 64% (SE 5%), again with no differences between the two groups (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 - 1.33, p= 0.25). The 6-year OS was similar between the two groups (p= 0.89). In the subgroup of patients with FL (21 R-CHOP and 43 R-CHOP+MR) the addition of MR did not impact PFS (p= 0.90), TTP (p= 0.99), or OS (p=0.55). An additional 52 patients were diagnosed after the treatment policy introduction in 2006, but did not receive MR for several reasons including physician non-adherence, progressive disease on R-CHOP, toxicity from R-CHOP or patient refusal. In an intent-to-treat analysis (43 pre-policy and 107 post-policy) there were no differences in outcomes. In a per-protocol analysis (95 R-CHOP and 55 R-CHOP+MR), there were no significant differences in outcomes. Conclusion: The addition of MR does not appear to improve PFS, TTP or OS in patients with COM/DIS lymphomas achieving CR/PR to R-CHOP, although comparisons are likely underpowered and 6-year median length of follow-up in the MR group may not be sufficient. However, the majority (63%) of relapses are aggressive and unlikely to be impacted by MR. The role of MR in these uncommon lymphomas requires further exploration. Disclosures Connors: Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Savage:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria; Infinity: Honoraria; Roche: Other: Institutional research funding. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Inventor on a patent that NanoString has licensed. Gerrie:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory board. Villa:Roche: Research Funding.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».