MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3212456862 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-146352

Outcome of Relapsed and Refractory Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma (PTCL) with Intention for Curative Therapy Incorporating High Dose Chemotherapy and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant (HDC/SCT)

2021· article· en· W3212456862 sur OpenAlexaff
Henry S. Ngu, Stephen Parkin, David W. Scott, Diego Villa, Alina S. Gerrie, Cynthia L. Toze, Maryse Power, Graham W. Slack, Joseph M. Connors, Kevin Song, Laurie H. Sehn, Kerry J. Savage

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensVancouver General HospitalBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British ColumbiaSpinal Cord Injury BC
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineChemotherapyOncologyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationRefractory (planetary science)Progression-free survivalLymphomaPeripheral T-cell lymphomaGastroenterologyTransplantationChemotherapy regimenSalvage therapyAnthracyclineCancerT cellImmunologyBreast cancerImmune system

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Salvage therapy with high dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HDC/SCT) is recommended for eligible patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) PTCL. The majority of studies have reported outcomes from the point of SCT, with limited data available in those where there is an 'intention to transplant' (ITT). We evaluated the outcomes of R/R PTCL from the time of first relapse/progression in patients intended for SCT. Methods The BC Cancer Lymphoid Cancer Database was reviewed and pts ≥ 18 years with relapsed or refractory nodal PTCLs (R/R PTCLs) including systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) and PTCL-not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS). ITT was assessed from documentation in clinical records. Outcomes were assessed from the time of first relapse or progressive disease (PD) and from the time of SCT. Results A total of 114 pts with ITT R/R PTCL were identified (original PTCL diagnosis between 1981-2020, 85% > 2000). 68 (60%) had refractory disease (PD on primary therapy or progression < 3 months (m) from treatment completion) and 46 (40%) had relapsed disease. Those with refractory disease were more likely to have secondary IPI (sIPI) score of ≥ 2 (79% vs. 52%, p = 0.01), poor performance status (PS) >2 (46% vs. 19%, p = 0.003) or advanced stage disease (94% vs. 78%, p = 0.02) at the time of first relapse/progression. Most pts had received anthracycline based chemotherapy as part of first line treatment (94%) including 3 pts who received consolidative auto-. For second-line therapy, the majority received multi-agent chemotherapy (n = 83, 73%) with GDP (gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin) the most commonly used regimen (n = 59, 52%); 10 pts received single agent high dose cyclophosphamide in the earlier era; and 15 pts (13%) received novel agents (brentuximab vedotin [BV] = 12: ALK-negative ALCL [8], ALK-positive ALCL [3], AITL [1]; romidepsin = 2: AITL [1], PTCL-NOS [1]; pralatrexate = 1: PTCL-NOS). 6 pts did not receive any intervening salvage and proceeded directly to HDC/SCT (n=3 auto; n=3 allo). (Table 1) For those that received systemic therapy, the overall response rate (ORR) to second-line therapy was 61% (24% CR; 37% PR). The ORR to GDP was 61% (17% CR; 44% PR) with higher responses observed in relapsed versus refractory pts (81% vs. 41%, p=0.002). The ORR to BV was 75% (25% CR; 50% PR). Ultimately, 73 R/R PTCL pts (63%) received HDC/SCT (50/68 [74%] relapsed; 23/46 [50%] refractory) of which 39 pts, underwent auto-SCT and 34 pts had an allo-SCT (myeloablative n=25, 74%). AITL pts were more likely to receive an allo-SCT than other subtypes (71% vs. 41%, p = 0.04). Those who underwent allo-SCT were younger (median age of 47 y) and more likely to have refractory disease (50% vs. 16%, p = 0.001) compared to those that underwent auto-SCT. PD was the main reason for not proceeding to HDC/SCT (76%) and for the remainder the reason was, pts choice (12%), chemotherapy toxicity (5%), poor PS/comorbidities (5%) and lack of donor (2%). In total, 50/67 (75%) received only second-line therapy prior to SCT, most commonly GDP (23/50, 46%). 17/67(25%) required additional third-line therapy, including novel agents in 9 cases prior to SCT. The median follow up for living pts from time of relapse/progression was 6.8 years (y) (range 0.3 to 30.7). The 5 y progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of first relapse/progression for the ITT population was 28% and 38% respectively, and was inferior in those with refractory vs relapsed disease (5 y PFS 23% vs 32%, p=0.01; 5 y OS 27% vs 46% p<0.01). (Fig. A) The 5 y PFS from auto and allo-SCT were 37% and 55% (p = 0.3) and 5 y OS was 44% and 67% (p = 0.5) respectively. Considering pts who received GDP(n=59) as second-line therapy, the 5 y PFS and OS was 21% and 35% from first relapse/progression, and 39% and 48% from SCT (auto n=21; allo n=14). Outcome was similar amongst the PTCL subtypes. (Fig. B) Conclusion Overall, outcomes in the ITT R/R PTCLs remain suboptimal with long-term survival in about only 1/3 of pts, but over half are alive at 5 years if they are able to receive a SCT, with similar results in the modern era using second-line GDP chemotherapy. A third line of therapy may be a successful bridge to SCT and novel agents should be considered in this setting. Despite higher proportion of refractory pts, results are encouraging for pts able to receive an allo-SCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Scott: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling.; Abbvie: Consultancy; BC Cancer: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing assigning DLBCL COO by gene expression profiling--licensed to NanoString Technologies. Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling. ; Rich/Genentech: Research Funding. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Gerrie: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Slack: Seagen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Song: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria. Sehn: Novartis: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Savage: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Roche: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: 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 enseignants0,003
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 savante0,0010,000
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 Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,239
Écart entre enseignants0,223 · 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

Citations1
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→