Cytarabine and Etoposide (CYVE) as First-Line Therapy for Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 4895 Background: The treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is characterized by high rates of toxicity and intracranial relapse despite initial response. High-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), with or without cranial irradiation, has become the standard of care; combining this with other chemotherapeutic agents has improved complete remission rates but at the expense of increased treatment-related adverse events, particularly haematologic and neurologic toxicity. Cytarabine has been used in combination with etoposide (CYVE) as a salvage therapy for patients who have been refractory to or relapsed after HD-MTX-based regimens (Soussain C et al, J. Clin. Oncol. 2001; Soussain C et al, J. Clin. Oncol. 2008). In these studies, cytarabine was given as an infusion at a dose of 50mg/m2/d over 12 hours on days 1–5, and at a dose of 2g/m2/d over 3 hours on days 2–5 with etoposide at 200mg/m2/d on days 2–5. Both responders and non-responders were eligible to proceed to autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT) using a conditioning regimen of thiotepa 250mg/m2/d on days -9 to -7, busulfan 10mg/kg total dose po or 8mg/kg total dose iv over days -6 to -4, and cyclophosphamide 60 mg/m2/d on days -3 to -2. Median OS was 58.6 months in patients able to undergo autoSCT, but with significant neurotoxicity that may have been related in part to prior therapies. Methods and Results: Given its excellent CNS penetration, CYVE may be an effective regimen in previously untreated patients, with lower risk of neurotoxicity. We have used CYVE as a first-line therapy for patients with PCNSL who are potentially eligible for subsequent autoSCT. Between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2009, 7 patients with a diagnosis of PCNSL were treated with first-line CYVE using the regimen described above. All were HIV negative, showed no disease outside of the CNS on bone marrow biopsy and staging CT or PET scan, and had biopsy-proven PCNSL with diffuse large B-cell histology. Median age was 55 (42-61) with 4 female and 3 male patients. Median International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group Prognostic Index score was 2 (0-2), although in actuality may have been higher, as 4 patients were not able to undergo lumbar puncture at diagnosis. ECOG status was < 2 in 3 patients, ≥ 2 in 3 patients, and not documented in 1 case. Patients received a median of 2 cycles of CYVE (1-3), with 2 receiving concurrent rituximab and the 1 patient with intra-ocular lymphoma receiving post-adjuvant orbital radiation. No cranial radiation was administered. Five patients achieved CR and proceeded to autoSCT. Two patients had a PR but later died of progressive disease at day +48 and day +117, respectively. In both cases, however, the patients were suspected of having disease long before they were treated with CYVE. The first had presented 3 years prior to the diagnosis with a solitary brain lesion that resolved with decadron monotherapy before pathologic documentation. The second had had a brain biopsy that failed to show malignant disease 4 months before the PCNSL diagnosis was confirmed and treatment initiated. Median OS and PFS for the group have not yet been reached with mean follow-up of 657 days. Among the 5 patients who achieved CR, all patients remain alive in CR with a mean follow-up of 841 days (320-1262 days), or 28 months. Toxicities included at least 1 episode of febrile neutropenia in all 7 patients, 2 possible but unconfirmed cases of pulmonary aspergillosis, 2 cases of drug-induced hepatitis (with ALT > 3x ULN), 1 case of toxic epidermal necrolysis secondary to imipenem use during an episode of febrile neutropenia, 1 small bowel obstruction requiring surgical intervention, and 1 case of late grade 2 neurotoxicity presenting 3 years after treatment. Conclusions: In this small cohort of patients, first-line CYVE has shown to be highly effective (ORR 100%, CR 71%) with minimal long-term toxicity compared to that which is seen using it as a salvage therapy. When followed by autoSCT, long-term survival with preserved quality of life may be possible. A prospective study would be necessary to confirm these initial results in practice. 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».