Addition of Rituximab to Salvage Chemotherapy in Aggressive CD20+ Lymphoma Prior to Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT): A Cohort Comparison from the NCIC CTG Study LY.12
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The addition of rituximab (R) to salvage chemotherapy has been shown to improve response rates and proportion of patients subsequently transplanted with Aggressive CD 20+ Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma who were previously R naïve. It is unknown if this benefit would be seen in the era of patients requiring ASCT who had previously been treated with R + chemotherapy. Methods: The NCIC CTG study LY.12 is a phase III study that evaluated gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin (GDP) as a salvage regimen compared with dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin (DHAP), and demonstrated that GDP was non-inferior with respect to response rate and showed similar results for rates of transplantation and event-free survival (Crump et al, ASH 2012; in press JCO 2014). In addition GDP resulted in less toxicity and was highly cost effective compared to DHAP. Between Aug 2003 and Oct 2011, 619 patients (pts) were accrued; 414 had CD 20+ lymphoma and received R with their initial treatment. Ninety six pts were accrued between 2003-05 and received GDP or DHAP without R; following a protocol amendment in 2005, 318 pts received R on day 1 of each cycle of salvage chemotherapy. We compared these two cohorts to determine whether there is a benefit to adding R to DHAP or GDP in those pts who have relapsed or are refractory (stable disease or progressive disease) after R containing first-line treatment. Response assessment by CT scan was performed following two cycles of salvage treatment. Subsequent mobilization, choice of high-dose chemotherapy regimen and use of post-transplant radiation were at investigator discretion. Results: Of the 414 pts in this analysis, median age was 55.7 years (range 18-71); 78% had diffuse large B cell lymphoma and 14.5% transformed from indolent lymphoma; 35% were refractory to first line treatment and 46.9% had relapsed within 1 year; 34.5% had IPI score 3 or higher at study enrolment. 41.3% of pt had an elevated LDH and 33.1% had B symptoms prior to salvage therapy. Most had no prior radiation treatment (78.7%). Equal number of pts in the R+ and R- groups received DHAP as GDP as salvage chemotherapy. The R- group was slightly younger (53.7 vs 56 years, P=0.03), had a higher ECOG Performance status >1 (19.8% vs 11.6%, P=0.041) and a higher proportion of pts relapsing within 1 year of R-CHOP (59.4% vs 43.1%, P=0.002). The rate of CR/Cru (15.7% vs 4.2%, p = 0.0032) and overall RR (45.6% vs 25%, P=0.0003) were significantly better in the R+ group. The transplantation rate was significantly greater in the R+ group 165/318 versus the R- group 30/96 (51.9% vs. 31.3%; P=0.0004). Multivariate analysis revealed that response rate was significantly higher in those receiving R with salvage, longer remission after primary therapy and without B symptoms at relapse. We were unable to detect differences in EFS and OS between the groups who received or did not receive R (4 year EFS 22 vs. 20%, HR = 0.85, P=0.26; 4 year OS 35 vs 31%, HR = 0.83, P=0.18). Conclusion: Although this is a retrospective analysis, these data suggest that in patients with relapsed/refractory CD20+ aggressive lymphoma, the addition of rituximab to subsequent salvage treatment improves RR and the proportion of patients proceeding to ASCT. Additional strategies are required to improve outcomes post-ASCT. Disclosures Baetz: Roche: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Meyer:Celgene: Honoraria.
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 | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 ».