Addition of Rituximab to Salvage Chemotherapy in Aggressive CD20+ Lymphoma Prior to Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT): A Cohort Comparison from the NCIC CTG Study LY.12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The addition of rituximab (R) to salvage chemotherapy has been shown to improve response rates and proportion of patients subsequently transplanted with Aggressive CD 20+ Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma who were previously R naïve. It is unknown if this benefit would be seen in the era of patients requiring ASCT who had previously been treated with R + chemotherapy. Methods: The NCIC CTG study LY.12 is a phase III study that evaluated gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin (GDP) as a salvage regimen compared with dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin (DHAP), and demonstrated that GDP was non-inferior with respect to response rate and showed similar results for rates of transplantation and event-free survival (Crump et al, ASH 2012; in press JCO 2014). In addition GDP resulted in less toxicity and was highly cost effective compared to DHAP. Between Aug 2003 and Oct 2011, 619 patients (pts) were accrued; 414 had CD 20+ lymphoma and received R with their initial treatment. Ninety six pts were accrued between 2003-05 and received GDP or DHAP without R; following a protocol amendment in 2005, 318 pts received R on day 1 of each cycle of salvage chemotherapy. We compared these two cohorts to determine whether there is a benefit to adding R to DHAP or GDP in those pts who have relapsed or are refractory (stable disease or progressive disease) after R containing first-line treatment. Response assessment by CT scan was performed following two cycles of salvage treatment. Subsequent mobilization, choice of high-dose chemotherapy regimen and use of post-transplant radiation were at investigator discretion. Results: Of the 414 pts in this analysis, median age was 55.7 years (range 18-71); 78% had diffuse large B cell lymphoma and 14.5% transformed from indolent lymphoma; 35% were refractory to first line treatment and 46.9% had relapsed within 1 year; 34.5% had IPI score 3 or higher at study enrolment. 41.3% of pt had an elevated LDH and 33.1% had B symptoms prior to salvage therapy. Most had no prior radiation treatment (78.7%). Equal number of pts in the R+ and R- groups received DHAP as GDP as salvage chemotherapy. The R- group was slightly younger (53.7 vs 56 years, P=0.03), had a higher ECOG Performance status >1 (19.8% vs 11.6%, P=0.041) and a higher proportion of pts relapsing within 1 year of R-CHOP (59.4% vs 43.1%, P=0.002). The rate of CR/Cru (15.7% vs 4.2%, p = 0.0032) and overall RR (45.6% vs 25%, P=0.0003) were significantly better in the R+ group. The transplantation rate was significantly greater in the R+ group 165/318 versus the R- group 30/96 (51.9% vs. 31.3%; P=0.0004). Multivariate analysis revealed that response rate was significantly higher in those receiving R with salvage, longer remission after primary therapy and without B symptoms at relapse. We were unable to detect differences in EFS and OS between the groups who received or did not receive R (4 year EFS 22 vs. 20%, HR = 0.85, P=0.26; 4 year OS 35 vs 31%, HR = 0.83, P=0.18). Conclusion: Although this is a retrospective analysis, these data suggest that in patients with relapsed/refractory CD20+ aggressive lymphoma, the addition of rituximab to subsequent salvage treatment improves RR and the proportion of patients proceeding to ASCT. Additional strategies are required to improve outcomes post-ASCT. Disclosures Baetz: Roche: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Meyer:Celgene: 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".