MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389248313 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-177788

Outcomes of Transplant-Eligible and Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma in Ontario, Canada

2023· article· en· W4389248313 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Adam Suleman, Zharmaine Ante, Ning Liu, Michael Crump, Kelvin Chan, Matthew C. Cheung, Anca Prica

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésChemoimmunotherapyMedicineMantle cell lymphomaRituximabBendamustineRegimenInternal medicinePopulationChemotherapy regimenTransplantationCHOPOncologySurgeryLymphomaChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background The frontline treatment of patients with symptomatic mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) requiring treatment varies in practice. In Ontario, Canada, transplant-eligible (TE) patients have been treated with chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). In 2013, R-CHOP alternating with R-DHAP prior to ASCT replaced R-CHOP alone as standard of care based on the European MCL Younger trial (Hermine JCO 2022). Although this regimen improves progression-free survival, there remains concern about its toxicity. For transplant-ineligible (TI) patients, the standard of care has evolved over time. Evidence in support of bendamustine-rituximab (BR) efficacy in indolent lymphoma resulted in its increased use in TI patients with MCL over the last decade. However, real-world data are lacking on toxicities of this regimen compared to other chemoimmunotherapy. We aimed to characterize survival and healthcare utilization outcomes of patients with MCL using current treatment approaches. Methods We conducted a retrospective population-based study of patients with MCL using healthcare administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, from 2005 to 2020. Patients were defined as TE if they were less than 70 years old at the time of treatment initiation, and received either R-CHOP or R-CHOP/R-DHAP. Patients were defined as TI if they were 70 years or greater at the time of treatment initiation, and treated with BR or other forms of chemoimmunotherapy. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), from the time of first treatment to death or end of the study period. Secondary outcomes were toxicities of treatment and healthcare utilization. Cox regression analyses were used to assess the impact of demographic and treatment variables on OS. Results A total of 918 patients with MCL were included in this study; 426 were TE and 492 TI. For TE patients, 254 were treated with R-CHOP, and 172 with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. The median age of patients in both groups was 60 years (range 36-70 years, p=0.37). Patients treated with R-CHOP alone were followed for a mean of 6.01 years, and patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP for a mean of 3.38 years. Maintenance rituximab (MR) was used in 70.5% of patients treated with R-CHOP and 77.3% of patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP (p=0.12). ASCT was received by 53.5% of patients treated with R-CHOP and 83.7% of patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP (p<0.01). 5-year OS of patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP was 70.5% vs 62.0% for patients treated with R-CHOP regardless of transplant status ( Figure 1A hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.10). Of the 270 patients who received ASCT within 1 year of treatment initiation, survival was not impacted by prior receipt of R-CHOP alone or R-CHOP/R-DHAP (HR for R-CHOP/R-DHAP vs. R-CHOP 0.76, 95% CI 0.42-1.39). A higher proportion of patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP required hospital admissions for fever, infection, neutropenia, and renal toxicity, compared to R-CHOP alone ( Table 1). There was no difference between regimens in the number of patients requiring emergency department (ED) visits between regimens (p=0.39). 492 TI patients were included; 303 treated with BR and 189 treated with other regimens, most commonly R-CHOP (n=62) or R-CVP (n=108). The median age of patients in both groups was 77 years (range 71-94 years, p=0.17), and there was no significant difference in comorbidities (p=0.23). MR was more commonly used after BR compared to historical regimens (72.6% vs. 54.5%, p<0.01). 5-year unadjusted OS of patients treated with BR was 40.3% and 27.5% for patients treated with R-CHOP/R-CVP ( Figure 1B), with significantly lower mortality with the use of BR (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.89). After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and MR, this was no longer significant (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.14). MR use was associated with significantly lower mortality (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.44). More patients treated with BR had hospital admissions for neutropenia and febrile neutropenia ( Table 1). Conclusion In this large population-based study of patients with MCL, R-CHOP/R-DHAP prior to ASCT showed a trend toward improved 5-year OS, though not significant. For TI patients, BR resulted in superior OS compared to other regimens with similar rates of toxicities, however this was not significant after adjusting for use of MR, suggesting other regimens followed by MR may be a reasonable alternatives.

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 enseignants0,043
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,314

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,190
Écart entre enseignants0,183 · 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
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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