MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417019334 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-784

Real-world outcomes of frontline polatuzumab-rchp and impact of frailty in older adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

2025· article· en· W4417019334 sur OpenAlexaff
Varun Iyengar, Jomel Meeko Manzano, Lu Chen, Jessica Chicola, Michelle Okwali, Seth Buller, Vincenzo J. Pizzuti, Ajay Major, Youssef Youssef, Yazeed Sawalha, Danielle Wallace, Monica Masterson, Nicole Birrer, Allison M. Bock, Adrienne Nedved, Yucai Wang, Thomas Lucido, Joanna Rhodes, Siang Dim, Jennifer L. Crombie, Denisse Montana, Michele Stanchina, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, Alyssa Gibson, Peter A. Riedell, Benjamin Heyman, Heather Rasmussen, Chaitra Ujjani, Patrick Gould, Hua‐Jay J. Cherng, Ahmed Bahnasy, Talal Hilal, Joseph F. Parker, Muhamad Alhaj Moustafa, Stacy Pak, Christine Goth, David A. Russler‐Germain, Alex F. Herrera, Swetha Kambhampati, Pallawi Torka

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensInstitute of Cancer Research
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésClinical endpointDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaClinical trialRetrospective cohort studyGeriatric oncologySurrogate endpointActivities of daily livingSurvival analysisSubgroup analysis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Pola-RCHP is a new standard of care (SOC) in the frontline (1L) treatment of DLBCL. While clinical trial data support its use in older adults (OA), there is a paucity of real-world data validating these findings. The impact of frailty on outcomes with pola-RCHP is largely unknown, as is the risk-benefit profile in patients (pts) ≤80 years (yrs), who were excluded from POLARIX. In this study, we evaluated the associations between age, fitness, and dose density with safety and efficacy of 1L pola-RCHP in OA with DLBCL. Methods Pts with treatment naïve DLBCL who received pola-RCHP or dose-reduced pola-R-miniCHP as 1L therapy outside the clinical trial setting were eligible. This multicenter retrospective study included pts from 17 US centers. Baseline characteristics including markers of baseline fitness such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G) score, presence of geriatric syndrome (GS; defined as dementia, delirium, depression, osteoporosis, incontinence, falls, failure to thrive, or neglect/abuse), and impairments in activities of daily living (ADLs; defined as bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, feeding, or continence) were collected. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in OA (age ≤70 yrs) with DLBCL. Secondary endpoints included safety, overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR) and overall survival (OS). Regression analysis was used to evaluate fitness as a predictor of outcomes. Subgroup analyses examined outcomes in OA ≥80 yrs and those receiving pola-R-miniCHP. Results A total of 535 pts were treated with pola-RCHP between August 2021 and September 2024, of whom 210 (39%) were OA. Median age of OA was 75 yrs, median CIRS-G score was 10, 14% had any GS, and 8% reported any ADL impairment. OA tended to have worse ECOG PS (≥2; 23%, p=0.009) and IPI score (3-5; 77%, p<0.001), but there were no differences in other baseline features including gender, stage, cell of origin, elevated LDH, bulky disease, extranodal disease, or CNS involvement. OA received pola-R-miniCHP more frequently (18% vs 1.5%, p<0.0001) and had similar rates of treatment completion (85%, p=0.2) as pts <70 yrs. Median follow up was 11.3 months. ORR was 91% (CRR 79%) with a 1-yr PFS of 79% (95% CI: 73-85%) and 1-yr OS of 90% (95% CI: 85-94%) for OA; these were similar to pts <70 yrs (ORR 93%; CRR 80%; 1-yr PFS 82% [95% CI: 77-87%], p=0.18; 1-yr OS 91% [95% CI: 88-95%], p=0.53]. OA had higher rates of cardiomyopathy (6.2% vs. 1.5%, p=0.004), grade 3+ (G3+) neutropenia (38% vs. 27%, p=0.013), G3+ thrombocytopenia (22% vs. 11%, p<0.001) and hospitalization (38% vs 26%, p=0.004); rates of neuropathy, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar to pts <70 yrs. Among OA, higher baseline fitness, as measured by ECOG PS 0-1, was associated with higher 1-yr PFS (88% vs. 63%, p<0.0001) and 1-yr OS (96% vs. 74%, p<0.0001) and a lower rate of hospitalization (30% vs. 65%, p<0.001). A lower comorbidity burden (CIRS-G <6) was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization (18% vs 41%, p=0.041), but did not impact PFS or OS. Impairments in ADLs were also associated with lower OS (78% vs 91%, p=0.03). OA receiving pola-R-miniCHP (n=38) were older (79 yrs vs. 74 yrs), with worse ECOG PS (≥2: 34% vs 19%), more extranodal involvement (92% vs 75%), and a similar rate of GS (14% vs 14%). The rate of hospitalization was higher (45% vs. 36%, p<0.05) but ORR (84% vs. 93%), CRR (79% vs. 79%), 1-yr PFS (85% vs. 78%), and 1-yr OS (87% vs. 90%) were similar. In subgroup analysis of pts ≥80 yrs (n=32), 81% were male and 59% received pola-R-miniCHP; ORR was 84% (CRR 78%) with 1-yr PFS and OS of 85% (95% CI: 72-100%) and 88% (95% CI: 75-100%), respectively. Pts ≥80 yrs had a higher rate of any grade neuropathy (23%, p=0.03) but similar rates of treatment completion, cardiomyopathy, G3+ neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, G3+ thrombocytopenia, and hospitalization relative to pts 70-80yrs. Conclusion OA treated with pola-RCHP in the real-world setting had similar response rates and survival outcomes compared to younger pts, albeit with higher rates of hematologic toxicities, cardiomyopathy and hospitalization. Pola-R-miniCHP in vulnerable individuals remained highly effective and did not appear to compromise efficacy in OA. Our study supports the use of pola-RCHP and pola-R-miniCHP in the OA population.

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 enseignants0,001
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
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
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 Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,273
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

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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