Rate of Transformation and Secondary Malignancies in Follicular Lymphoma Patients Treated with First-Line Bendamustine Rituximab and Rituximab Maintenance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bendamustine-rituximab (BR) has exhibited improved outcomes in first-line therapy for Follicular Lymphoma (FL). Nevertheless, concerns regarding secondary malignancies and the transformation into aggressive lymphoma have arisen. Therefore, we aim to assess the outcomes in long-term follow-up of a cohort of FL patients treated within a tertiary care cancer centre. METHODS: Using the prospectively populated Lymphoma Data Base at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, we evaluated the outcomes of FL patients intended to be treated with 6 cycles of BR and 2 years of rituximab maintenance as frontline therapy between 2013 and 2022. RESULTS:137 patients were identified: at diagnosis, median age was 60 years (range 31-86), 61% had stage IV disease, 49% had elevated LDH, and 56% had high FLIPI; 126 (92%) completed 6 cycles of BR treatment, and 115 (84%) commenced rituximab maintenance (RM). At a median follow-up of 6.3 years (IQR 4.0-8.6), 5-year Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Duration of Response (DOR), and Overall Survival (OS) were 65% (95% CI, 60%–74%),72% (64–81%), and 85% (79%–92%), respectively. Disease progression occurred in 44 patients (32%), with 25 (18%) progressing within 24 months (POD24). A biopsy was performed at first progression in 42 patients (95%): 26 (62%), showed transformation to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, 20/42 [48%]) or, high-grade B-cell lymphoma with CMYC +BCL2 rearrangements (6/42, 14%). Among the POD24 patients, transformation was seen in 22/25 (88%). POD24 and elevated LDH at relapse were significant predictors of transformation in univariate analysis (OR 188.4 [95% CI 35.46, -], p < .001 and OR 9.58 [95% CI 2.3-51.64], p=0.004). In multivariate analysis, for transformation risk, elevated LDH at relapse was the only factor that remained significant (OR 7.64 [95% CI,1.58,36.78], p=0.11). The median time to transformation was 10 months (IQR 5-30), and the 5-year cumulative risk of transformation was 18% [95% CI: 12.1,25.4%]. Fourteen patients (10%) underwent ASCT: in 11 (79%), the indication was tFL (10 patients as a consolidation after second-line treatment, one as third line), and in 3, relapse of FL. Furthermore, 7 (5%) patients underwent CART therapy as third line of treatment or afterward, 6 (86%) with a tFL , and one (14%) for FL. The 12-month OS after ASCT was 69.2% [95% CI: 48.2, 99.5%], and after CART was 57.1% [95% CI: 30.1, 100%]. Excluding transformation and nonmelanoma skin cancer, 17 (12.4%) patients experienced a secondary malignancy during the follow-up. Given the bias of malignancies that may be present at diagnosis, we excluded the malignancies diagnosed within the 6 months from the BR, the second malignancies were found in 14 patients (10.2%). The 5-year cumulative risk of secondary malignancies among patients was 9% [95% CI: 4.14,14%]. The median time from BR to second malignancy was 23 months (IQR 7.5-74.5). The incidence rate of secondary malignancies among patients was 22.3 per 1,000 person-year. CONCLUSION: These single-centre data are consistent with prospective clinical trial results in FL, with BR followed by RM offering prolonged 5-year PFS. However, we observed a notably higher rate of transformation to aggressive lymphomas compared to clinical trials, where rates of biopsy at progression are much lower. This observation underscores the need for biopsies at early progression/relapse, and has implications for trials designed to address markers of poor outcome (positive end of treatment PET scan or MRD), as tFL rates are underestimated when biopsies are not mandated by trial protocols. The elevated risk of secondary malignancies warrants further investigation through population-based studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".