Inferior Progression-Free Survival after Autotransplant for Relapsed or Refractory Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in Patients > 60 Versus ≤ 60 Years of Age.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION: Results of the randomized Parma trial (Philip, NEJM 1995) demonstrated an overall survival (OS) advantage for patients aged ≤ 60 years who received an autotransplant for relapsed aggressive histology non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard of care in this setting and trial results have been generalized to include patients up to age 65 years. Earlier results from our group (Gupta ASH 2003 abstract #2720) reported a treatment-related mortality (TRM) of 29% in a group of patients (pts) aged > 60 which included pts who had received bone marrow grafts and TBI-containing high dose therapy. We reviewed our results (overall [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS], TRM and non-relapse mortality (NRM) of ASCT in pts of age > 60 years (older group: OG) and compare these with patients aged ≤ 60 years (younger group: YG). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our computerized database and charts between Jan 1st 1986 until June 30th 2006 and identified 289 pts with relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL who underwent ASCT. 30 pts were aged > 60 years and 259 were age ≤ 60. All pts had disease that did not respond to or relapsed after initial anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Responses have been retrospectively assessed using International Workshop Criteria. Pts typically received 2–3 cycles of platinum-based salvage therapy to assess chemotherapy sensitivity; responding pts proceeded to PBSC mobilization and subsequent ASCT. The intensive therapy regimen consisted of high-dose VP16 60 mg/kg day -4 and melphalan 180 mg/m2 day -3 with PBSC infusion day 0. Pts with bulky disease at relapse (> 5cm) received involved field radiation post-ASCT. RESULTS: The median age at the time of transplant was 62 (range 61–66) in the OG vs. 50 (range 19–60) in the YG. Histology was similar in both groups: DLBCL and variants (OG: 63%; YG: 48%), transformed FL (OG: 10%; YG: 16%), MCL (OG: 7%; YG: 13%) (chi square 0.525). Prior chemotherapy was R-CHOP (OG: 23%; YG: 9%), CHOP or CHOP-like (OG: 69%; YG: 72%), chi-square p=0.10. There was no difference in prior radiotherapy (OG:40%;YG:38%, chi square 0.859). Advanced stage disease at relapse was seen in 56% (OG) vs. 44% (YG) (p=0.52 chi-square). Disease response [complete response (OG; 17%; YG:32%, p=0.09) and partial response rate (OG:67%, YG:68%, p=0.92)] pre-ASCT was not statistically different between groups. With a median follow-up of 41 months for OG and 81 months YG pts, the OS post-ASCT was 53% (OG) vs. 65% (YG), (p-value 0.06). Progression-free survival post-ASCT was 40% (OG) vs. 52% (YG), p-value 0.04. TRM was 7% (OG) vs. 3% (YG) (chi-square P=0.310) and NRM was 1% (OG) vs. 3% (YG) (chi square P=0.942). CONCLUSIONS: While the OS between the OG and YG was not significantly different, PFS was inferior in the older pts. This difference was not expected based on available prognostic factors pre-ASCT although full IPI data is not available in all cases. This may suggest other factors related to tumour biology in patients age > 60 may be responsible for inferior PFS. TRM, NRM and OS were not statistically different and this may in part be due to small numbers in the OG. Well-designed prospective trials should address the role of salvage chemotherapy and ASCT in patients with aggressive NHL above the age of 60.
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".