MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405044058 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-201819

Retreatment with R-CHOP-like Therapy in Patients with Late Relapse of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)

2024· article· en· W4405044058 sur OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Nicolas Champagne, Diego Villa, Alina S. Gerrie, Christopher P. Venner, Graham W. Slack, Pedro Farinha, Jeffrey W. Craig, Laura K. Hilton, Kerry J. Savage, David W. Scott, Laurie H. Sehn

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaSpinal Cord Injury BC
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaMedicineLymphomaRituximabOncologyCHOPInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Most patients (pts) with DLBCL who experience relapsed/refractory disease following R-CHOP will do so within 24 months of diagnosis, but late relapses (> 2 years [y]) can occur and are typically associated with better outcomes. Pts with late relapse have lymphomas that share few mutations with the original tumor and may represent de novo DLBCL arising from a common precursor cell (Hilton et al, JCO 2023). It has been hypothesized that these pts have chemotherapy-naive disease and may be effectively treated with a second round of R-CHOP-like therapy. This approach has been adopted for many pts managed in British Columbia (BC), particularly those who are unsuitable for more intensive options. The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate outcomes in pts treated with R-CHOP-like therapy for late relapse DLBCL in BC. Methods: The BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer Database was used to identify all pts with de novo DLBCL treated with an initial R-CHOP-like regimen who developed late relapse (> 2 y from initial diagnosis) of DLBCL from January 2005 to April 2024 and received second-line R-CHOP-like therapy with curative-intent (typically R-CHOP or R-CEOP, in which etoposide is substituted for doxorubicin once maximum lifetime anthracycline exposure has been reached [Moccia et al, Blood Advances 2021]). Transformed lymphoma, PTLD, PMBCL, and CNS lymphoma were excluded. Primary outcome was time-to-progression (TTP). Other outcomes included overall response rate (ORR); complete response (CR) rate; progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); and disease-specific survival (DSS). Survival endpoints were calculated from the time of relapse to: progression of lymphoma or treatment/disease-related death (TTP), progression of lymphoma or death from any cause (PFS); death from any cause (OS); or treatment/disease-related death (DSS). Pts with ‘intent-to-transplant’ were evaluated for response, but time-to-event outcomes were censored at time of transplant. Results: 53 pts meeting all inclusion criteria were identified with a median age of 77 y (range: 52-89) at time of relapse. 30 (57%) were male. Median time from initial diagnosis to relapse was 7.4 y (range: 2.5 - 15.9). 47 pts had biopsy confirmation of DLBCL at relapse. Cell of origin (COO) was GCB in 24/37 (65%), ABC/non-GCB in 12/37 (32%), or unclassifiable (1/37; 3%), according to gene expression profile (11/37) or Hans algorithm (26/37). COO concordance with initial diagnostic biopsy was 24/26 (92%). At time of relapse, in pts with available information, 80% had stage III-IV disease; 53% had poor performance status (ECOG 2-4) and 80% had high IPI (3-5). 15 pts (28%) started R-CHOP, with a median of 3 cycles (range 1-6) before switching to R-CEOP (n = 7), stopping for transplant (n = 4), limited stage (n = 2), or toxicity (n = 2). The remainder (n = 38) were started directly on R-CEOP. The median number of total cycles (R-CHOP and/or R-CEOP) was 5 (range 1-6), with 5 pts receiving consolidative radiation therapy. Four pts were treated with a limited stage approach. 19 pts (36%) did not complete their planned treatment, with toxicity or intolerance (n = 12; 63%) being the most common reason for early discontinuation. Most pts were not considered for transplant due to age or comorbidities. Six pts were intended for autologous stem cell transplant, with 5/6 proceeding to transplant. Response rates were as follows: CR 60%, PR 11%, SD 4%, PD 9%, non-evaluable/missing 15%. With a median follow-up of 29 months (m), 2-y TTP was 55%, 2-y PFS was 46%, 2-y OS was 55% and 2-y DSS was 67%. Median TTP was 45 m (95% CI 0 - 97), median PFS was 20 m (95% CI 0 - 45), median OS was 39 m (95% CI 13 - 65), and median DSS was 59 m (95% CI 41 - 78). Outcomes were also assessed according to timing of relapse following initial therapy. Pts who relapsed more than 5 y from initial diagnosis (n=41) had a significantly better TTP than pts who relapsed between 2-5 y (n = 12) with 2-y TTP 68% vs 11%, respectively (HR 0.27 [95%CI 0.11-0.64]; p = 0.003), despite comparable baseline characteristics. No difference in TTP was observed between COO subgroups (HR 1.14 [95%CI 0.82-1.60]). Conclusion: In pts with late relapse DLBCL, a retreatment strategy with R-CHOP-like therapy is a reasonable option. This approach results in durable remission in a high proportion of pts, thereby avoiding the need for more intensive therapies, particularly in pts who experience relapse more than 5 y from initial diagnosis.

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 enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

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
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,204
Écart entre enseignants0,199 · 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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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