Outcome of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas (DLBCL) Receiving Initial Therapy in Hospital Compared with An Out-Patient Setting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 4944 Background: DLBCL is the most common form of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Despite its aggressive nature, the majority of patients are diagnosed and managed in an out-patient setting and only minority of patients require hospital admission, for symptom control or management of associated co-morbid conditions. The outcomes of patients admitted to hospital with newly diagnosed DLBCL, though presumed to be inferior to patients managed in an outpatient setting, due to advanced disease or poorer performance status is presently unknown. The aims of this study were to identify predictors of treatment location (in-patient vs. out-patient), and assess the survival of patients according to treatment location (in-hospital or out-patient). Methods: Retrospective chart review over 5 years (January 2005 to December 2009) of newly diagnosed patients with DLBCL in Winnipeg, Canada. These patients were treated either in a teaching hospital, at Health Sciences Center, or in the out-patient setting, at CancerCare Manitoba. Clinical predictors of treatment setting were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Survival at one and three years was assessed with Kaplan-Meier statistics. Results: We included140 patients (46 in-patients and 96 outpatients). The mean age of the in-patient population was 68.3 (SD 14.2); while for the out-patient group it was 65.2 (SD 15.3). The in-patient group was comprised of 47.8% female, with the outpatient having 52.1%. Fifty percent of the in-patient group came from a rural residence, while only 28.1% of the out-patient group was from a rural residence. Of the in-patient group 21.7% had a favorable IPI (0-2), compared with 70.8% of the out-patient population. Of the 46 in-patients, 28 (60.9%) received R-CHOP, compared with 69 (71.9%) from the out-patient group. Four (8.7%) in-patients received an alternate form of chemotherapy (e.g. R-CVP), compared with 18 (18.8%) outpatients. Fourteen (30.4%) in-patients received no chemotherapy, compared with 9 (9.4%) in the out-patient group. Patients with an IPI of 3 or higher at diagnosis were significantly more likely to require hospital admission for initial treatment [Odds ratio (OR) = 8.43; (95% CI 2.55–19.30), p-value <0.01]. Patients living in rural setting were more likely to be hospitalized compared to those who resided in Winnipeg [OR = 2.34; (95% CI 0.86–6.46), p-value = 0.04]. Overall survival at one and three year was 50.0% and 38.8% for the in-patient group, compared with 85.3% and 69.3 for the out-patient group (p<0.01). In a subgroup of patients who received R-CHOP, survival for in-patients compared with out-patients was 71.4%% vs. 89.7%% at one year, and 57.7% vs. 76.8% (p=0.03) at three years respectively. Survival of in-patients with a low IPI (0-2) that completed R-CHOP (six cycles) therapy was 100% at one year, compared with 97.7% in the out-patient group (p=0.10). Survival of in-patients with high IPI (≥3) that completed R-CHOP was 68.2% at one year, compared to 66.7% in the out-patient group (p=0.51). Conclusions: The overall survival of patients with DLBCL that require hospital admission to receive their first cycle of chemotherapy is inferior to patients who can be treated in the out-patient setting. Observed differences in survival may relate to the decreased administration of chemotherapy among in-patients, which may further relate to patient co-morbidity and functional status. Among patients who receive a full course of chemotherapy, the location of treatment initiation does not appear to impact survival. Factors found to be associated with in-patient treatment initiation include high IPI and rural status. Initial in-patient treatment is not a necessarily associated with poor prognosis if a complete course of chemotherapy can be delivered and to better inform prognosis, further studies are needed to predict which patients will ultimately not be able to tolerate a full course of chemotherapy and thus be at high risk for death. Disclosures: Rubinger: Roche Canada: Consultancy.
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) | 0,001 | 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 ».