MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310107925 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-168586

Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Aged 65 Years or Older with Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma, Not Otherwise Specified (PTCL-NOS) and T-Follicular Helper T-Cell Lymphoma (TFHTCL) Treated with Curative Intent CHOP(like) Chemotherapy

2022· article· en· W4310107925 sur OpenAlexaff
Henry S. Ngu, Diego Villa, Alina S. Gerrie, Christopher P. Venner, Andrew Lytle, Brian Skinnider, Jeffrey W. Craig, Graham W. Slack, David W. Scott, Laurie H. Sehn, Kerry J. Savage

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BC
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineLymphomaFollicular lymphomaInternal medicineNot Otherwise SpecifiedOncologyGastroenterology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) remains the standard treatment for older adults with non-anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), nodal peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs). However, recent studies suggest that patients (pts) > 75 years (y) have similar outcomes with CHOP compared to those receiving palliative regimens (Ellin et al. Hematological Oncology 2017). In addition, with studies demonstrating sensitivity of PTCLs to epigenetic therapies, especially in the T-follicular helper (TFH) subtypes, there are emerging clinical trials evaluating these agents in newly diagnosed PTCL patients > 60 y (NCT02232516). We evaluated the long-term outcomes of pts aged 65 y or older with PTCLs, a group generally not transplant eligible, treated with systemic therapy with a focus on those treated with curative intent CHOP(like) chemotherapy. Methods The BC Cancer Lymphoid Cancer Database was reviewed and pts > 65 years with PTCL, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) as well as other T-Follicular Helper PTCL (collectively referred to as TFH T-cell lymphoma [TFHTCL]) diagnosed between 2000-2021 and who received front-line chemotherapy were included. Diagnoses were based on the World Health Organization (WHO) classifications of 2001, 2008, and 2017, depending on the era of diagnosis. Time to progression (TTP) was measured from the date of pathologic diagnosis to the date of relapse/progression, death due to treatment toxicity or lymphoma. Results 152 pts were initially identified, of which 5 were excluded: stage IA/IAE (n=3); CNS involvement only (n=2). Of the remaining 147 pts, 67 (46%) had PTCL-NOS and 80 (54%) had TFHTCL. The median age was 74 y (range 65-90) and the majority of pts had high risk features: International Prognostic Index (IPI) score of > 3 (n=113, 76%), stage III/IV disease (n=136, 93%) and PS of > 2 (n=85, 58%). Most pts (n=127, 86%) received multi-agent chemotherapy with curative intent. All pts received CHOP/CHOP-like chemotherapy (including five pts treated with CHP-brentuximab vedotin)Over half of these patients (n=66, 52%) received attenuated doses of chemotherapy starting from cycle 1, typically 50-75% dose intensity. Only two patients received consolidative autologous stem cell transplant. The remaining 20 patients received chemotherapy with palliative treatment intent, the majority (n=18, 90%) receiving cyclophosphamide alone or with the CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone) regimen. The median follow-up of all pts using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method was 9.2 y (range 0.9 to 12.5). The estimated 5-y TTP and overall survival (OS) for all patients were 21%, and 26%, respectively. Outcomes were similar in PTCL-NOS and TFHTCL (5-y TTP 17% vs 25%; p = 0.26). Curative intent chemotherapy was used more frequently in the 65-74 y vs > 75 y age group (70% vs 36%, p = 0.004). As expected, outcomes were superior in those treated with curative intent (Table 1): Median TTP of 11.3 months (m) vs 3.0 m; median OS of 24 m vs 4.5 m. Improvements in TTP and OS extended to those > 75 y (p < 0.001 for both). Considering the curative intent cohort, 91% of the relapse/progression events occurred within the first 3 y, and there was no significant difference in outcomes (5-y TTP/OS) with increasing age: 65-75 (19%/25%), >75 (34%/35%) (p = 0.08/0.6). Further, the outcomes of pts who received attenuated doses of CHOP-like chemotherapy were not inferior compared to full dose chemotherapy (5-y TTP/OS 32%/37% vs. 17%/21% p= 0.2/0.3). 5-y TTP/OS by the IPI ranged from 30%/52% for IPI of 1-2 to 12%/14% for IPI 4-5. The prognostic index for T-cell lymphoma (PIT) was more effective at identifying a lower risk group: 5-y TTP/ OS (PIT 1 40%/57%; PIT 2 21%/28%; PIT 3 21%/20% PIT 4 9%/10%, p = 0.002/0.001). Both models were prognostic in PTCL-NOS and TFHTCL. (Table 1) Conclusion With mature follow-up, ~ 30% of all older pts treated with curative intent CHOP-like chemotherapy remain progression-free and are alive at 5 y. Although results remain suboptimal, robust older patients can still be considered for curative intent CHOP chemotherapy with tailored doses to mitigate toxicity. Those with low risk IPI/PIT scores have a more favourable outcome with this approach, with a 5-y OS of > 50%, suggesting a benefit of subsequent therapies. In contrast, higher risk disease have poor outcomes and novel therapeutic approaches should be considered. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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 enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,228
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · 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
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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