Young High Risk Patients with MYC/BCL2 Double Hit Lymphoma, BCL2+ and/or Germinal Centre B-Cell like Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Benefit from Dose-Dense Chemoimmunotherapy Including Early CNS Prophylaxis: Analysis of Data from the Nordic Lymphoma Group CRY-04 and Chic Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background. Survival of patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is suboptimal, and the risk of central nervous system (CNS) progression is relatively high. We investigated the efficacy of dose-dense chemoimmunotherapy and systemic CNS prophylaxis in two Nordic trials including patients less than 65 years with high-risk DLBCL. We combined individual patient data from these trials to compare clinical outcome and biological prognostic factors in patients treated with CNS prophylaxis given in the beginning (CHIC) versus at the end (CRY-04) of therapy. Patients and methods. In CRY-04 study, patients were treated with six courses of R-CHOEP14 followed by HD-Mtx and HD-Ara-C. In CHIC trial, treatment started with two courses of HD-Mtx in combination with R-CHOP14, followed by four courses of R-CHOEP-14 and one course of R-HD-AraC. In addition, liposomal AraC was administered intrathecally at courses 1, 3 and 5. For the correlative studies, formalin fixed paraffin embedded pretreatment tumor samples were analyzed by fluorescent in situ hybridization for BCL2 and c-MYC breakpoints and by immunochemistry for CD10, BCL6, MUM1, MYC and BCL2 expression. Germinal center B-cell-like (GCB)/non-GCB) subclassification was performed according to Hans algorithm. Results. Among 303 patients enrolled in the trials (CRY-04, n=160 and CHIC, n=143), 295 (CRY-04, n=154 and CHIC, n=139) were evaluable for baseline characteristics and outcome. Median age (54 and 56 years, p=0.222), male/female ratio, stage, and aaIPI scores were comparable in the two cohorts. CHIC regimen improved outcome over CRY-04; the findings included 4-year estimates of PFS (81% vs 66%, p=0.003), OS (83% and 79%, p=ns) and cumulative incidence rates of CNS progression (2.4% and 5.0%, p=ns). Treatment with the CHIC regimen reduced the risk of systemic progression (aaIPI adjusted RR=0.489, 95%CI 0.308-0.777, p=0.002). PFS benefit with CHIC over CRY-04 was observed across pre-specified subgroups, and particularly in patients less than 60 years old (p=0.008). In the entire study population, dual protein expression (DPE) of BCL2 and MYC was the only parameter to be significantly correlated with a worse PFS (4-y PFS 77% vs 50%, p=0.024; RR=2.300, 95% CI 1.088-4.860, p=0.029). Neither any single immunohistochemical marker nor the GCB/non-GCB subtype or MYC/BCL2-translocations significantly affected outcome. However, when treatment interaction was tested, MYC/BCL2 double hit status (DHL; 13%) predicted poor outcome among patients treated with CRY-04 regimen compared with patients who received CHIC regimen (4-y PFS; 38% vs 78%, p=0.086). GCB subtype and BCL2 positivity were also associated with better outcome in the CHIC cohort (4 y PFS; 63% vs 84%, p=0.011 and 61% vs 80%, p=0.007, respectively), whereas there were no significant survival differences between these regimens among the patients with non-GCB subtype, BCL2 negative DLBCL or DPE lymphomas. Conclusions. Our results derived from trial data with homogenous treatment support the use of HD-Mtx in the beginning rather than at the end of therapy. The survival benefit related to CHIC regimen over CRY-04 is due to better systemic control of the disease, and at least partly linked to improved survival among patients with GCB subtype, BCL2 positivity and DHL. Disclosures Leppa: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Holte:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Norway: Research Funding.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".