Survival of Patients With Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma After First Relapse or Progression: Spectrum of Disease and Rare Long-Term Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A number of novel therapies are under investigation in relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL); however, their relative impact on outcome is unknown. We examined the survival of patients with PTCL after relapse or progression in the absence of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation and explored factors influencing survival. The three most common subtypes encountered in North America were evaluated: PTCL not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL; anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK] positive and ALK negative. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After exclusions, 153 patients were analyzed (PTCL-NOS, n = 79 [52%]; AITL, n = 38 [25%]; ALK-positive ALCL, n = 11 [7%]; ALK-negative ALCL, n = 27 [16%; including ALK status unknown, n = 1]). RESULTS: Median time from initial diagnosis to relapse or progression after primary therapy was 6.7 months, and median age at relapse was 66 years (ALK-positive ALCL, 39 years). Median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) after relapse or progression (second PFS) were 5.5 and 3.1 months, respectively, and were only marginally better in patients who received chemotherapy at relapse (n = 89 [58%]; 6.5 and 3.7 months, respectively). Patients with good performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 (n = 47) at relapse who received chemotherapy had a more favorable OS (P < .001; median OS, 13.7 months) and PFS (P = .006; median second PFS, 5.0 months), which remained significant in multivariate analysis (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 2.09; P = .002; second PFS: HR, 1.66; P = .030). CONCLUSION: Most patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL have poor outcomes with short survival. Select patients with good PS have more favorable outcomes with standard chemotherapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".