Population-Wide Introduction of Dose-Adjusted EPOCH-R Is Associated with Improved Outcome of High Grade B-Cell Lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 Rearrangements with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Morphology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: High-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (HGBL-DH/TH), colloquially referred to as double- or triple-hit lymphoma, is associated with poor outcomes prompting many centers to use dose-intensive immunochemotherapy. The benefit of treatment intensification in patients with HGBL-DH/TH with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) morphology, who would otherwise receive standard-of-care rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP), remains unclear because suitably powered randomized clinical trials have not been performed, and earlier studies included patients with high-grade morphology. Furthermore, selection bias due to the restriction of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing to diagnose HGBL-DH/TH in patients with high-risk clinical presentation or aggressive tumor morphology confounds historical comparators. Since 2015, de novo DLBCL biopsies in British Columbia (BC) have undergone routine FISH testing in clinical practice. Concurrently, provincial guidelines were introduced recommending treatment with dose-adjusted etoposide, doxorubicin, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, prednisone and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) for appropriately fit patients aged 75 years (y) or younger with HGBL-DH/TH harboring BCL2 rearrangements with DLBCL morphology (HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2-DLBCL). A population-based analysis was conducted to assess the impact of the introduction of DA-EPOCH-R on outcomes in HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2-DLBCL. Methods: Outcomes of HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2-DLBCL patients diagnosed between 2015 to 2020 using clinical FISH performed on de novo DLBCL biopsies (DA-EPOCH-R era) were compared to patients with HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2-DLBCL identified from a historic province-wide cohort of de novo DLBCL diagnosed between 2005-2010 in BC that underwent universal FISH in a research setting (R-CHOP era). Patients with the rarer entity of HGBL-DH/TH harboring MYC and BCL6 rearrangements only (HGBL-DH-BCL6) were excluded and were not part of the original DA-EPOCH-R guideline. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to predict the independent effect of treatment era after controlling for the International Prognostic Index (IPI). Results: 99 patients with HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2-DLBCL were identified through routine clinical FISH in the DA-EPOCH-R era. Of 1172 de novo DLBCL patients in the historic R-CHOP era, 824 had adequate diagnostic material for evaluation by FISH, 52 of which were HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2-DLBCL. The analysis was restricted to patients aged 75y or younger, yielding 71 and 38 patients in the DA-EPOCH-R and R-CHOP eras, respectively. 7/38 (18%) biopsies in the R-CHOP era had undergone clinical FISH testing at diagnosis with results known to the treating physician. Median (interquartile range) follow-up in living patients was 2.8y (2.0-4.4y) in the DA-EPOCH-R era and 12.2y (11.2-13.4y) in the R-CHOP era. 49/71 (69%) patients received DA-EPOCH-R in the DA-EPOCH-R era, whereas 32/38 patients (84%) received R-CHOP in the R-CHOP era. Both eras had comparable baseline clinical characteristics with no significant difference in IPI risk groups (Table 1). The DA-EPOCH-R era was associated with superior 2-year time to progression (TTP, 73.9% vs 47.4%, p=0.016) and overall survival (OS, 77.7% vs 50.0%, p=0.022, Figure 1). After adjusting for IPI risk groups (low 0-2, high 3-5), the DA-EPOCH-R era was independently associated with superior TTP (hazard ratio (HR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.77, p=0.005) and OS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.76, p=0.005). After controlling for individual IPI factors, treatment era remained predictive of TTP (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19- 0.76, p=0.006) and OS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.79, p=0.008). Conclusions: Introduction of a provincial, population-based recommendation to use DA-EPOCH-R for appropriately fit patients aged 75y or younger is associated with improved real-world outcomes of HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2-DLBCL. The similarity between TTP and OS within each era suggests the high failure rate of conventional salvage therapy irrespective of frontline treatment, prompting further investigation of novel second-line therapies in this poor-prognosis population. Targeted capture sequencing to identify MYC translocation partners is underway, and the influence of the MYC partner on outcomes in both eras will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sehn: Novartis: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Slack: Seagen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Craig: Bayer: Consultancy. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Gerrie: Sandoz: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Freeman: Teva: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Savage: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Steidl: Bayer: Consultancy; Trillium Therapeutics: Research Funding; Curis Inc.: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Epizyme: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Scott: Celgene: Consultancy; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling.; 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: 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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».