MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4200115086 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-149046

Impact of Disease Extent and Distribution on Outcomes in Stage II Follicular Lymphoma Treated with Curative-Intent Radiation Therapy

2021· article· en· W4200115086 sur OpenAlexaff
Yi Xu, Matthew Chan, Tom Pickles, Jessica Chan, Laurie H. Sehn, David W. Scott, Diego Villa, Alina S. Gerrie, Kerry J. Savage, Andrea Lo

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineFollicular lymphomaStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineDiseaseRadiation therapyLymphomaOncologyCancerB symptomsProgression-free survivalSurgeryChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, with 8% of patients presenting with stage II disease. Stage II FL is potentially curable with radiation therapy (RT), but more than half of patients relapse within 10 years. The Ann Arbor stage II definition encompasses a broad spectrum of disease extents and distributions; understanding how these factors affect outcomes could enable identification of patients at higher risk for progression. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of disease extent and distribution on outcomes in stage II FL. Methods: The study included patients who were diagnosed with stage II or IIE, grade 1-3A FL from 1980 to 2016 at BC Cancer, had non-mesenteric disease, and were treated with curative-intent (≥ 20 Gy) RT alone. Our provincial recommendation was to use curative-intent RT for limited-stage patients, with limited stage defined as stage I or II, non-bulky, radio-encompassable disease with no B symptoms. Prior to February 1998, the provincial policy was to use involved regional RT. In March 1998, the policy was changed to use involved-site RT. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics and outcomes. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method starting from the diagnosis date. Events were defined as relapse for freedom from progression (FFP), relapse or death from any cause for progression-free survival (PFS), death due to FL or FL treatment for disease-specific survival (DSS), and death from any cause for overall survival (OS). Univariable analyses (UVA) were performed using the log-rank test, and multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results were considered significant if p ≤ 0.05. Results: 222 patients were diagnosed with stage II, grade 1-3A FL from 1980 to 2016. 56 patients were excluded due to mesenteric involvement. Of the 166 remaining non-mesenteric patients, 16 were excluded due to treatment with chemoimmunotherapy only, 28 due to combined modality therapy, 3 due to palliative RT, 19 due to management with watchful waiting, and 1 due to treatment refusal. The remaining 99 patients formed our study cohort. The median follow-up duration of living patients was 13.6 years (range, 4.8-35.4). The median age at diagnosis was 59.5 years (range, 33.2-86.2), and 56% of patients were male. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was 0 in 68% of patients and 1-2 in 34%. 18% of patients had extranodal disease, 11% had grade 3A disease, 4% had complete resection of disease prior to RT, and 2% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The median greatest diameter of any individual mass was 3.6 cm. 11% had 1 involved lymph node region (staged as IIE due to extranodal disease), 64% had 2 regions, 18% had 3 regions, and 7% had 4 regions. Table 1 shows the FFP, PFS, DSS, and OS at 5, 10, and 15 years for the study cohort. Of the 57 patients who relapsed, 1 (2%) had in-field relapse only, 1 (2%) had in-field and marginal relapse, 9 (16%) had in-field and distant (± marginal) relapse, 2 (4%) had marginal relapse only, 7 (12%) had marginal and distant relapse, 36 (63%) had distant relapse only, and 1 (2%) had unknown site(s) of relapse. On UVA (Table 2), age ≥ 60 years was associated with inferior DSS and OS; greatest diameter ≥ 3.5 cm was associated with inferior FFP and PFS (Figure 1A and 1B); disease involving the paraaortic region was associated with inferior FFP and PFS; and involvement of 4 lymph node regions was associated with inferior PFS (Figure 1D). On MVA (Table 3), greatest diameter ≥ 3.5 cm and involvement of 4 lymph node regions were associated with an inferior FFP and PFS, while older age was associated with an inferior DSS and OS. Bilateral disease, infradiaphragmatic disease, and extranodal involvement did not correlate with worse outcomes on UVA or MVA. Conclusions: Greatest diameter of disease ≥ 3.5 cm and involvement of 4 lymph node regions are significantly associated with inferior FFP and PFS in stage II FL patients with non-mesenteric disease and treated with curative-intent RT alone. Bilateral disease, infradiaphragmatic disease, and extranodal involvement are not associated with worse outcomes. These results may assist clinicians with identifying specific patients in this population at higher risk for progression, facilitating improved treatment decision-making and patient counselling. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Scott: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rich/Genentech: Research Funding; 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. ; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Gerrie: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Savage: Roche: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; 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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
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 Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · 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
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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