Outcome of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas (DLBCL) Receiving Initial Therapy in Hospital Compared with An Out-Patient Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 4944 Background: DLBCL is the most common form of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Despite its aggressive nature, the majority of patients are diagnosed and managed in an out-patient setting and only minority of patients require hospital admission, for symptom control or management of associated co-morbid conditions. The outcomes of patients admitted to hospital with newly diagnosed DLBCL, though presumed to be inferior to patients managed in an outpatient setting, due to advanced disease or poorer performance status is presently unknown. The aims of this study were to identify predictors of treatment location (in-patient vs. out-patient), and assess the survival of patients according to treatment location (in-hospital or out-patient). Methods: Retrospective chart review over 5 years (January 2005 to December 2009) of newly diagnosed patients with DLBCL in Winnipeg, Canada. These patients were treated either in a teaching hospital, at Health Sciences Center, or in the out-patient setting, at CancerCare Manitoba. Clinical predictors of treatment setting were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Survival at one and three years was assessed with Kaplan-Meier statistics. Results: We included140 patients (46 in-patients and 96 outpatients). The mean age of the in-patient population was 68.3 (SD 14.2); while for the out-patient group it was 65.2 (SD 15.3). The in-patient group was comprised of 47.8% female, with the outpatient having 52.1%. Fifty percent of the in-patient group came from a rural residence, while only 28.1% of the out-patient group was from a rural residence. Of the in-patient group 21.7% had a favorable IPI (0-2), compared with 70.8% of the out-patient population. Of the 46 in-patients, 28 (60.9%) received R-CHOP, compared with 69 (71.9%) from the out-patient group. Four (8.7%) in-patients received an alternate form of chemotherapy (e.g. R-CVP), compared with 18 (18.8%) outpatients. Fourteen (30.4%) in-patients received no chemotherapy, compared with 9 (9.4%) in the out-patient group. Patients with an IPI of 3 or higher at diagnosis were significantly more likely to require hospital admission for initial treatment [Odds ratio (OR) = 8.43; (95% CI 2.55–19.30), p-value <0.01]. Patients living in rural setting were more likely to be hospitalized compared to those who resided in Winnipeg [OR = 2.34; (95% CI 0.86–6.46), p-value = 0.04]. Overall survival at one and three year was 50.0% and 38.8% for the in-patient group, compared with 85.3% and 69.3 for the out-patient group (p<0.01). In a subgroup of patients who received R-CHOP, survival for in-patients compared with out-patients was 71.4%% vs. 89.7%% at one year, and 57.7% vs. 76.8% (p=0.03) at three years respectively. Survival of in-patients with a low IPI (0-2) that completed R-CHOP (six cycles) therapy was 100% at one year, compared with 97.7% in the out-patient group (p=0.10). Survival of in-patients with high IPI (≥3) that completed R-CHOP was 68.2% at one year, compared to 66.7% in the out-patient group (p=0.51). Conclusions: The overall survival of patients with DLBCL that require hospital admission to receive their first cycle of chemotherapy is inferior to patients who can be treated in the out-patient setting. Observed differences in survival may relate to the decreased administration of chemotherapy among in-patients, which may further relate to patient co-morbidity and functional status. Among patients who receive a full course of chemotherapy, the location of treatment initiation does not appear to impact survival. Factors found to be associated with in-patient treatment initiation include high IPI and rural status. Initial in-patient treatment is not a necessarily associated with poor prognosis if a complete course of chemotherapy can be delivered and to better inform prognosis, further studies are needed to predict which patients will ultimately not be able to tolerate a full course of chemotherapy and thus be at high risk for death. Disclosures: Rubinger: Roche Canada: Consultancy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".