MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3096113916 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-141183

Hodgkin Variant of Richter's Transformation (HvRT) Among Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (SLL) Patients in British Columbia (BC), Canada

2020· article· en· W3096113916 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Kai Zhu, Andrew Jamroz, Steven J.T. Huang, Diego Villa, Ciara L. Freeman, David W. Scott, Graham W. Slack, Laurie H. Sehn, Joseph M. Connors, Cynthia L. Toze, Kerry J. Savage, Alina S. Gerrie

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer AgencyVancouver General HospitalSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésChronic lymphocytic leukemiaMedicineInternal medicineLymphomaDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaPopulationIncidence (geometry)Hodgkin lymphomaGastroenterologyOncologyLeukemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Richter transformation (RT) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a well-known complication of CLL/SLL, occurring in 2-10% of patients (pts); however, a minority transform to Hodgkin lymphoma, termed Hodgkin variant of RT (HvRT). Because of the rarity of HvRT, there is limited information regarding prognostic factors and treatment approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical characteristics, treatment and survival of HvRT in a population based cohort of CLL/SLL pts in BC. Methods: Provincial databases were retrospectively reviewed from Jan. 1994 - Feb. 2020 to identify all CLL/SLL pts in BC with histologically proven HvRT using central pathology review. Overall survival (OS) was defined from HL diagnosis to death/last follow-up (f/u); progression-free survival (PFS) was defined from HL diagnosis to lymphoma progression, death or last f/u. Results: 32 pts with HvRT from CLL (N=18) or SLL (N=14) were identified. Median f/u for living pts from CLL/SLL diagnosis was 129 months (mos) (range, 25-504). Most pts were male (87%) with median age at CLL/SLL and HL diagnoses of 64 years (y) (range, 35-83) and 71 y (range, 51-86), respectively. Median interval from CLL/SLL diagnosis to HvRT was 67 mos (range, 0-403), with composite CLL/SLL and HL diagnosed in 5 pts (16%). At CLL/SLL diagnosis, 50% (15/30) had Rai or Ann Arbor stage 3-4; 7% (1/14) had del(17p), 29% (4/14) del(13q), 0% (0/14) del(11q), 29% (4/14) trisomy 12 and 50% (7/14) had no abnormalities. Most pts (80%; 24/30) had treatment for CLL/SLL prior to HvRT: purine analogues (PA) in 67% (20/30), alkylators in 50% (15/30), rituximab in 60% (18/30) and ibrutinib in 17% (5/30%). Median number of treatment lines prior to HvRT was 2 (range, 0-4) and median time from last CLL/SLL therapy to HvRT was 15 mos (range, 1-107). HvRT was characterized by Ann Arbor stage 3-4 in 87% (25/29) of cases, B symptoms in 67% (18/27), International Prognostic Score (IPS) ≥ 4 in 67% (18/27), and Epstein Barr virus (EBV) positivity in 59% (13/22). Richter Prognosis Score (RPS) was low risk (RPS 0-1) in 48% (10/21 pts), low-intermediate (RPS 2) in 33% (7/21) and high-int/high (RPS 3-5) in 19% (4/21). ABVD (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine) or ABVD-like therapy (AVD or modified ABVD dose/regimen) was the most common primary HL therapy, used in 65% (20/31). Others were alkylator-based regimens in 13% (4/31); brentuximab, ibrutinib and cyclosporine in 1 case each, and local excision in 1 case. 4 pts had radiotherapy for primary (N=2) or relapsed HL (N=2). No pts had autologous stem cell transplant (SCT); however, 1 had a reduced intensity allogeneic SCT 10.8 mos after HvRT. 3 pts (10%) had no HL therapy due to frailty. Median f/u for living pts from HvRT was 25 mos (range, 4-100). 18 pts (56%) experienced lymphoma progression: 5 CLL/SLL, 8 HL, 1 with a second RT to DLBCL and 4 with unknown subtype. One pt, who first progressed with CLL after HvRT, subsequently developed a second RT to DLBCL. At time of last f/u, 75% of pts (24/32) died. Cause of death was lymphoma in 14 pts (3 CLL/SLL; 7 HL; 2 DLBCL; 2 unknown subtype), treatment-related toxicity in 5, secondary malignancy in 2, other causes in 2 and unknown cause in 1. The 2 y OS and PFS from HvRT were 55% (95% CI: 36-71%) and 46% (95% CI: 28-62%), respectively, Fig. 1A-B. Factors at HvRT significantly affecting OS included low hemoglobin (< 120 vs ≥ 120 x 109/L, P=.02), elevated lactate dehydrogenase (elevated vs normal, P=.04), high IPS (IPS ≥ 4 vs < 4, P=.04), and, among pts who received chemotherapy (N=27), primary HL therapy (non-ABVD vs ABVD/ABVD-like, P=.048). The only factor significantly associated with PFS was primary HL treatment (P<.001). 2 y OS and PFS for those who received ABVD/ABVD-like regimens (N=20) were 74% (95% CI: 49-89%) and 70% (95% CI: 45-85%), respectively. Time from last CLL therapy to HvRT (≤ 12 vs >12 mos, P=.72), prior treatment for CLL (P=0.15), prior PA therapy (P=.14), B symptoms at HvRT (P=0.12), EBV positivity (P=.24) and RPS (0-2 vs 3-5, P=.85) did not significantly impact OS or PFS. Conclusion: In this real-world population-based cohort of CLL/SLL pts, HvRT was associated with poor clinical outcomes, with a median OS less than 3 y from time of HvRT. This may be in part due to the older age of HvRT diagnosis, which limits the ability to give curative therapy with ABVD. Further biological and clinical investigation of this rare entity, particularly in the era of novel agents, is warranted to improve outcomes. Disclosures Villa: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AZ: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Nano String: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria; Immunovaccine: Consultancy, Honoraria; Purdue Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Scott:NIH: Consultancy, Other: Co-inventor on a patent related to the MCL35 assay filed at the National Institutes of Health, United States of America.; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Sehn:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apobiologix: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Connors:Seattle Genetics: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations; Takeda: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations. Toze:Janssen: Consultancy. Savage:Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Servier: Consultancy; BeiGene: Other: Steering Committee; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche (institutional): Research Funding. Gerrie:Roche: Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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 enseignants0,145
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,292

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
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,202
Écart entre enseignants0,193 · 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

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207