MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2989608063 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-128722

Long-Term Follow-up of a PET-Guided Approach to Treatment of Limited-Stage Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) in British Columbia (BC)

2019· article· en· W2989608063 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Laurie H. Sehn, David W. Scott, Diego Villa, Alina S. Gerrie, Ciara L. Freeman, Christina Parsons, Tom Pickles, Andrea Lo, Pedro Farinha, Graham W. Slack, Don Wilson, R. Petter Tonseth, Joseph M. Connors, Kerry J. Savage

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer AgencySpinal Cord Injury BC
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Diffuse large B-cell lymphomaLymphomaPopulationNuclear medicineInternal medicineCancerOncology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Treatment practices for patients with limited-stage DLBCL are varied and include combined-modality treatment (3 cycles immunochemotherapy + radiation therapy) or immunochemotherapy alone. Since 2005, patients (pts) in BC with limited-stage DLBCL (stage I/II, no B-symptoms, mass < 10cm) have been treated according to a PET-guided algorithm. Following 3 cycles of R-CHOP, pts undergo FDG-PET/CT scan; PET-negative pts receive one additional cycle of R-CHOP, while PET-positive pts receive involved-site radiation therapy (RT). We present long-term follow-up of this population-based experience. Methods: Using the BC Cancer Lymphoid Cancer Database we identified all pts who were diagnosed with limited-stage DLBCL from Mar 2005 to February 2019 and underwent a PET/CT after 3 cycles of curative-intent R-CHOP, in keeping with the PET-guided policy. Pts with primary CNS, primary testicular, PMBCL, PTLD, and transformed/discordant/composite lymphoma were excluded. Pts with evidence of progressive disease prior to or on mid-treatment PET/CT were also excluded. All PET/CT scans were performed and reviewed centrally. Prior to 2014, interpretation was based on the International Harmonization Project (IHP) criteria, and subsequently according to Deauville criteria. Importantly, uptake greater than the mediastinal blood pool was consistently used to determine PET-positivity (ie. PET-positive by IHP, or D3-5 by Deauville). Results: Clinical characteristics of the 319 pts identified are as follows: median age, 68 y (range 19-92); 48%, male; 59%, stage I; 41%, stage II; 8%, PS>1; 13%, elevated LDH; 52%, at least 1 extranodal site; 37%, mass size ≥ 5cm. Stage-modified IPI risk score: 19%, 0; 45%, 1; 27%, 2; 9%, 3-4. Median follow-up is 6.25 yrs (range 0.42-14.25). After 3 cycles of R-CHOP: 254 pts (80%) were PET-negative; 59 pts (18%) were PET-positive; and 6 pts (2%) were considered PET-indeterminate (by IHP). Elevated serum LDH (p<0.001), mass size ≥ 5cm (p=0.008) and stage-adjusted IPI (p=0.025) were predictive of PET-positive status. Of the 254 PET-negative pts, 234 (92%) completed treatment with one additional cycle of R-CHOP, 7 (3%) stopped treatment after 3 cycles R-CHOP and 13 (5%) received RT due to poor chemotherapy tolerance or physician choice. 21/254 PET-negative pts have relapsed and 2/254 died of treatment-related toxicity. 8/21 (38%) PET-negative relapses were late, occurring more than 4 years post initial diagnosis. 55/59 (93%) PET-positive pts received RT, 2 pts refused RT and received only 3 cycles R-CHOP, and 2 pts received 1 additional cycle of R-CHOP alone due to physician preference. 13/59 PET-positive pts have relapsed, only 2/13 (15%) relapses were late >4 years from diagnosis. Of the 6 PET-indeterminate patients, 2 received RT and 3/6 have relapsed. Overall 5-year time-to-progression (TTP) censoring deaths from unrelated causes is 89% (92% for PET-negative and 80% for PET-positive pts). Overall 5-year PFS is 84% (88% for PET-negative and 74% for PET-positive pts) and 5-year OS is 87% (90% for PET-negative and 77% for PET-positive pts). On univariate analysis, age>60, PS>1, stage-modified IPI, and PET status were significant predictors of TTP. On multivariate analysis controlling for age>60, stage, PS, LDH, presence of extranodal involvement, mass size ≥ 5cm, and PET status, only age (p=0.002) and PET status (p=0.004) remained independent predictors of TTP. Conclusion: Using a PET-guided approach to treatment, the majority of patients with limited-stage DLBCL have negative PET scans after 3 cycles of R-CHOP. Patients with negative PET scans have an excellent outcome when treated with 4 cycles of R-CHOP alone, without exposure to radiation. Patients with a positive PET scan who complete treatment with radiation therapy have a slightly less favorable outcome, and may be appropriate for alternative approaches. A detailed analysis of patterns of relapse, as well as efforts to identify clinical factors, PET parameters and biomarkers associated with poor outcome and delayed relapse are ongoing. Figure Disclosures Sehn: Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria. Scott:NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Gerrie:Lundbeck, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Freeman:Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pickles:TarSera: Honoraria, Other: Participated in advisory board meeting; Abbvie, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas Inc.: Research Funding. Savage:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS, Merck, Novartis, Verastem, Abbvie, Servier, and Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, 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 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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
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 enseignants0,633
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,729

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · 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

Citations25
Publié2019
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207