Initial Treatment Patterns and Survival Outcomes of Mantle Cell Lymphoma Patients Managed at Chinese Academic Centers in the Rituximab Era: A Real-World Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of the study was to delineate the disease characteristics, the initial treatment patterns, and survival in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) managed in the real world. Methods Data of 518 MCL patients from 5 major Chinese Hematology Centers in the period from 2007 to 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Results The median age was 58 years. Of the patients, 88.6% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0–1 and 80.7% had advanced-stage disease. Ki67 expression was <30% in 39.6% of the patients, and 43.2% of patients were categorized into a low-risk group based on the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) scoring system. Overall, 73.4% of the patients received rituximab as their first-line therapy. The most commonly used chemotherapy was the CHOP-like (cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunomycin, oncovin, and prednisone) regimen (45.2%), followed by high-dose cytarabine-containing chemotherapy (31.3%) and bendamustine (3.3%). Of the patients, 13.7% (n = 71) underwent consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and 19.3% (n = 100) received novel agents containing first-line regimens. With a median follow-up time of 52 months, the 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 73.7% and 61.4%, respectively. Age ≤60 years, ECOG PS 0–1, stages I–II, normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), absence of bone marrow involvement, Ki67 <30%, and lower-risk IPI/MIPI scores were significantly associated with improved OS (p < 0.05). The inclusion of rituximab improved the 5-year OS, with borderline significance (62.5% vs. 55.2%, p = 0.076). High-dose cytarabine-containing chemotherapy showed significant clinical benefit in 5-year OS (72.1% vs. 55.9%, p = 0.010). Patients with ASCT had better 5-year OS in the younger (≤60 years) age group (87.2% vs. 64.8%, p = 0.002). Conclusion This large retrospective dataset unequivocally confirmed the survival advantage afforded by cytarabine-containing regimen and ASCT in a first-line setting under real-world management in the rituximab era.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".