MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389248313 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-177788

Outcomes of Transplant-Eligible and Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma in Ontario, Canada

2023· article· en· W4389248313 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam Suleman, Zharmaine Ante, Ning Liu, Michael Crump, Kelvin Chan, Matthew C. Cheung, Anca Prica

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemoimmunotherapyMedicineMantle cell lymphomaRituximabBendamustineRegimenInternal medicinePopulationChemotherapy regimenTransplantationCHOPOncologySurgeryLymphomaChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The frontline treatment of patients with symptomatic mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) requiring treatment varies in practice. In Ontario, Canada, transplant-eligible (TE) patients have been treated with chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). In 2013, R-CHOP alternating with R-DHAP prior to ASCT replaced R-CHOP alone as standard of care based on the European MCL Younger trial (Hermine JCO 2022). Although this regimen improves progression-free survival, there remains concern about its toxicity. For transplant-ineligible (TI) patients, the standard of care has evolved over time. Evidence in support of bendamustine-rituximab (BR) efficacy in indolent lymphoma resulted in its increased use in TI patients with MCL over the last decade. However, real-world data are lacking on toxicities of this regimen compared to other chemoimmunotherapy. We aimed to characterize survival and healthcare utilization outcomes of patients with MCL using current treatment approaches. Methods We conducted a retrospective population-based study of patients with MCL using healthcare administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, from 2005 to 2020. Patients were defined as TE if they were less than 70 years old at the time of treatment initiation, and received either R-CHOP or R-CHOP/R-DHAP. Patients were defined as TI if they were 70 years or greater at the time of treatment initiation, and treated with BR or other forms of chemoimmunotherapy. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), from the time of first treatment to death or end of the study period. Secondary outcomes were toxicities of treatment and healthcare utilization. Cox regression analyses were used to assess the impact of demographic and treatment variables on OS. Results A total of 918 patients with MCL were included in this study; 426 were TE and 492 TI. For TE patients, 254 were treated with R-CHOP, and 172 with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. The median age of patients in both groups was 60 years (range 36-70 years, p=0.37). Patients treated with R-CHOP alone were followed for a mean of 6.01 years, and patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP for a mean of 3.38 years. Maintenance rituximab (MR) was used in 70.5% of patients treated with R-CHOP and 77.3% of patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP (p=0.12). ASCT was received by 53.5% of patients treated with R-CHOP and 83.7% of patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP (p<0.01). 5-year OS of patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP was 70.5% vs 62.0% for patients treated with R-CHOP regardless of transplant status ( Figure 1A hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.10). Of the 270 patients who received ASCT within 1 year of treatment initiation, survival was not impacted by prior receipt of R-CHOP alone or R-CHOP/R-DHAP (HR for R-CHOP/R-DHAP vs. R-CHOP 0.76, 95% CI 0.42-1.39). A higher proportion of patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP required hospital admissions for fever, infection, neutropenia, and renal toxicity, compared to R-CHOP alone ( Table 1). There was no difference between regimens in the number of patients requiring emergency department (ED) visits between regimens (p=0.39). 492 TI patients were included; 303 treated with BR and 189 treated with other regimens, most commonly R-CHOP (n=62) or R-CVP (n=108). The median age of patients in both groups was 77 years (range 71-94 years, p=0.17), and there was no significant difference in comorbidities (p=0.23). MR was more commonly used after BR compared to historical regimens (72.6% vs. 54.5%, p<0.01). 5-year unadjusted OS of patients treated with BR was 40.3% and 27.5% for patients treated with R-CHOP/R-CVP ( Figure 1B), with significantly lower mortality with the use of BR (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.89). After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and MR, this was no longer significant (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.14). MR use was associated with significantly lower mortality (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.44). More patients treated with BR had hospital admissions for neutropenia and febrile neutropenia ( Table 1). Conclusion In this large population-based study of patients with MCL, R-CHOP/R-DHAP prior to ASCT showed a trend toward improved 5-year OS, though not significant. For TI patients, BR resulted in superior OS compared to other regimens with similar rates of toxicities, however this was not significant after adjusting for use of MR, suggesting other regimens followed by MR may be a reasonable alternatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→