MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2979308051 · doi:10.1182/blood.v118.21.1645.1645

Lymphopenia and EBER-Negativity Predict Poor Survival in Patients with Post-Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder (PTLD) Treated in the Rituximab Era

2011· article· en· W2979308051 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Anthea Peters, Carolyn Owen, Karen Doucette, Jutta K. Preiksaitis

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueViral-associated cancers and disorders
Établissements canadiensUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRituximabMedicineInternal medicinePost-transplant lymphoproliferative disorderLymphoproliferative disordersImmunosuppressionGastroenterologyLymphomaOncology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1645 Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) are an important complication of solid organ transplant (SOT) with a high mortality rate. PTLD represents a spectrum of disease thought to be driven by Epstein Barr virus (EBV) and ranges from indolent polyclonal lymphoproliferation to aggressive lymphoma. Therapeutic options include reduction of immunosuppression (RIS), antiviral therapy, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab, and combination chemotherapy, but no previous studies have reliably determined a risk-stratified approach. Several prognostic factors have been reported previously but are not well-defined in patients treated with rituximab. The objective of this study was to analyze a cohort of patients diagnosed with PTLD in the rituximab era to determine clinical and laboratory prognostic factors and survival outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of all adult patients who developed PTLD after 1998 following SOT at the University of Alberta (n=52). Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the logrank test. The median age at PTLD diagnosis was 52 years (range 19–74) and the median time from SOT to PTLD diagnosis was 4.7 years (109 days-20.9 years). Other patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. The majority of patients had PTLD over 1 year post-SOT (75%), monomorphic histology (69%) and were CD20 positive (63%). All patients were treated with RIS and antivirals if EBV viremia was detected by PCR. The majority of patients (n=34, 65%) received first-line rituximab at 375 mg/m2 IV with 4 weekly doses planned; 6 of these patients (12%) required further chemoimmunotherapy progressed or died before completing 4 doses, and 13 patients (38%) progressed and required further therapy after completing 4 doses. Sixteen patients (47%) achieved at least a partial response (PR) to rituximab monotherapy. Of the 18 patients who did not receive rituximab monotherapy, 3 received first-line chemoimmunotherapy, 5 received chemotherapy alone, and 10 had an unknown history of therapy. All patients who did not receive rituximab were CD20 negative.Table 1Patient characteristicsn=52Patient characteristicsn=52Organ transplantedPTLD ≤ 1 yr post-SOT13 Kidney19EBV serology mismatch12 Lung17CMV serology mismatch12 Liver9EBV viremia (at dx)10 Heart5EBER+28 Pancreas1CD20+33 >1 SOT pre-PTLD12Monomorphic histology36Tumour histologyIPI score 3–520 Diffuse large B cell lymphoma23Age >6015 B cell lymphoma4ECOG >216 Primary CNS lymphoma1>1 extranodal site21 Intravascular B cell lymphoma1LDH elevated18 Burkitt lymphoma1Hemoglobin <120 g/L29 Hodgkin lymphoma4Lymphs <1.2x109/L26 T cell lymphomas6Allograft involvement9 Polymorphic PTLD4CNS involvement6 Unknown8BM involvement6 The median OS of the whole cohort was 1.99 years (range 3 days to 12 years), with 44% of patients remaining alive at 5 years. Thirty patients have died, and 17 deaths were attributed to PTLD. The median follow up of the surviving patients was 4.7 years. The patient characteristics listed in Table 1, as well as rituximab monotherapy, were tested in univariate analyses for their potential to predict OS. The factors significantly associated with worse prognosis were EBER negativity (p=0.017, HR=2.76 [1.10 to 6.90]), no EBV serology mismatch at SOT (p=0.0499, HR=2.44 [1.12 to 5.26]), IPI 3–5 (p=0.009, HR=2.78 [1.15 to 6.72]), ECOG >2 (p=0.047, HR=2.26 [0.91 to 5.58]), lymphocyte count < 1.2 × 109/L (p=0.012, HR=5.05 [2.03 to 12.59]), and no front-line rituximab monotherapy (p=0.001, HR=3.33 [1.16 to 9.52]). In the cohort that received front-line rituximab monotherapy (n=34), EBER negativity (p=0.002, HR=4.61 [1.33 to 15.87]) and less than PR to rituximab monotherapy (p=0.006, HR=4.37 [1.47 to 12.99]) were significantly associated with worse survival. In conclusion, even in the rituximab era, the 5 year median OS for patients with PTLD was poor at 44%, indicating the need for improved therapeutic strategies. However, patients who received front-line rituximab and those who responded had significantly improved outcomes. We showed that EBER negativity and lack of EBV serostatus mismatch at the time of transplant as well as poor performance status predicted a worse prognosis. Finally, we demonstrated that lymphopenia, a novel prognostic marker, has a strong negative impact on survival in PTLD. 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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,199
Écart entre enseignants0,192 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetViral-associated cancers and disordersTravaux en français237 207