MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Long-Term Results of Cytarabine-Containing Induction Followed By Consolidation with Autologous Stem Cell Transplant and Rituximab Maintenance As Primary Treatment for Mantle Cell Lymphoma

2015· article· en· W2577706754 on OpenAlexaff
Umberto Falcone, Shaheena Bashir, Khalil Al‐Farsi, Laurie Watkins, C. Denise Turvey, Norman Franke, Armand Keating, Michael Crump, John Kuruvilla

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMantle cell lymphomaCytarabineRituximabInternal medicineCHOPSurgeryInduction chemotherapyAutologous stem-cell transplantationChemotherapyOncologyLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) often follows an aggressive course and remains incurable with standard therapies. First-line chemotherapy followed by consolidation with high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has become a standard of care in eligible patients (pts). As relapse remains the main cause of treatment failure, strategies such as intensifying induction therapy with high-dose cytarabine or adding rituximab maintenance (RM) have been tested to reduce the relapse rate (RR) post-ASCT. We evaluated the effect of the addition of cytarabine and RM on the outcome of pts undergoing ASCT. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive MCL pts who underwent ASCT after first-line chemotherapy at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between 2000-2013. Pts received induction with CHOP, RCHOP, or RCHOP alternating with RDHAP (RCHOP/RDHAP), followed by HDT with or without total body irradiation (TBI). All pts had a documented response to induction using Cheson 1999 criteria. After ASCT, pts received maintenance with single-agent rituximab 375 mg/m2 or were simply observed. Results: 98 MCL pts were treated: median age was 56 years (36-66), 15 pts (15%) had blastoid or pleomorphic subtype, 85 pts (87%) had stage IV disease. MIPI was high risk in 18 pts (19%). Induction therapy: CHOP 14 pts (14%), RCHOP 57 (58%), and RCHOP/RDHAP 27 (28%). After induction CR was obtained in 44%, PR in 56% pts. CR rates were: CHOP 7 (50%), RCHOP 25 (44%), RCHOP/RDHAP 12 (44%) (P=ns). 89% pts had collected > 5*106 CD34/kg after RCHOP, and 78% after RCHOP/RDHAP (P=ns). Overall 66/98 pts (67%) had > 5*106 CD34/kg collected with 1 apheresis (Table 1). HDT was melphalan+etoposide for 63% pts, cytarabine+melphalan for 31% pts; 77 (79%) also received TBI. Median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 7.5 months (2.5, 33.4). Post-ASCT responses: CR 92 pts (94%), PR 4 (4%), 2 (2%) PD. Median time to ANC ≥0.5 were 10 days (CHOP), 11 days (RCHOP), and 11 days (RCHOP/RDHAP), while median days to PLT≥20 were 9 (CHOP), 11.5 (RCHOP), and 13 (RCHOP/RDHAP). Post-ASCT, 31% of pts had normal blood counts at 3 months which improved to 52% at 1 year post-ASCT. Maintenance data were available for 95/98 pts. RM was given to 72 pts (74%). Median follow-up from date of transplant for the entire cohort was 3.22 years (range 0.7 - 14.1). The 2-year and 5-year PFS were 85.8% (76.7-91.5) and 52.2% (37.7-64.7), respectively. 32 pts relapsed after ASCT (32.65%). Relapse occurred in 3 (11%) pts after RCHOP/RDHAP, 19 (33%) after RCHOP, and 10 (71%) after CHOP. Median time to relapse was 9 years (95%CI: 4.7-NR). 2-year and 5-year RR were 14.54% and 41.65%, respectively. Median OS was 9.15 years (95%CI: 7.3-NR), 2-year OS was 88.8% (80.2-93.8), and 5-year OS was 74.9% (61.7-84.2%). For patients observed without treatment post-ASCT, median PFS was 2.87 years (1.22-4.63) and median OS 5.19 years (1.66-NR), while for those receiving RM, PFS was 9.06 years (4.97-NR, p<0.001) and median OS has not yet been reached (7.30- NR, p=0.009). Conclusions: Response rate and PFS were similar between different induction regimens. The outcomes of responding pts following ASCT appear superior to previous strategies. Our patients enjoyed a very long PFS and median OS is surprisingly long as well. Within the limits of a retrospective study, our data support the use of rituximab maintenance, showing a significant benefit in both PFS and OS. Table 1. ASCT data Stem cell collection CHOP RCHOP RCHOP/RDHAP P value Pts collecting > 2x106 /Kg CD34+ cells in 1 day 4/14 (29%) 44/57 (77%) 17/27 (67%) 0.002 Pts collecting 2-5 x106 /Kg CD34+ cells N/A 6/57 (11%) 6/27 (22%) Pts collecting >5 x106 /Kg CD34+ cells N/A 51/57 (89%) 21/27 (78%) 0.153 Engraftment median (range) Days to ANC ≥ 0.5 10 (9,11) 11 (9, 12) 11 (9, 12) Pts with ANC ≥ 0.5 ≤ 11 days 13/13 (100%) 45/52 (87%) 21/25 (84%) 0.33 Days to PLT ≥ 20 9 (7, 15) 11.5 (9, 17) 13 (9, 26) Pts with PLT ≥ 20 ≤ 12 days 12/13 (92%) 37/52 (71%) 8/25 (32%) 0.0001* Days from ASCT to discharge 13 (11,26) 14 (11,30) 13 (11,23) PTs requiring RBC Transfusions 11 (79%) 43 (75%) 22 (81%) 0.821 Number of RBC Transfusions 2 (0, 4) 2 (0, 7) 3(0, 6) Pts requiring PLT Transfusions 12 (86%) 52 (93%) 25 (93%) 0.759 Number of PLT Transfusions 1 (0, 4) 2 (1, 9) 3 (1, 5) * comparison CHOP Vs R-CHOP: not significant, p=0.113 Legend. ASCT: autologous stem cell transplant; Pts: patients; ANC: absolute neutrophils count; PLTs: platelets; RBC: red blood cells. Disclosures Kuruvilla: Hoffmann LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→