MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405044058 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-201819

Retreatment with R-CHOP-like Therapy in Patients with Late Relapse of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)

2024· article· en· W4405044058 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Nicolas Champagne, Diego Villa, Alina S. Gerrie, Christopher P. Venner, Graham W. Slack, Pedro Farinha, Jeffrey W. Craig, Laura K. Hilton, Kerry J. Savage, David W. Scott, Laurie H. Sehn

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSpinal Cord Injury BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaMedicineLymphomaRituximabOncologyCHOPInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Most patients (pts) with DLBCL who experience relapsed/refractory disease following R-CHOP will do so within 24 months of diagnosis, but late relapses (> 2 years [y]) can occur and are typically associated with better outcomes. Pts with late relapse have lymphomas that share few mutations with the original tumor and may represent de novo DLBCL arising from a common precursor cell (Hilton et al, JCO 2023). It has been hypothesized that these pts have chemotherapy-naive disease and may be effectively treated with a second round of R-CHOP-like therapy. This approach has been adopted for many pts managed in British Columbia (BC), particularly those who are unsuitable for more intensive options. The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate outcomes in pts treated with R-CHOP-like therapy for late relapse DLBCL in BC. Methods: The BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer Database was used to identify all pts with de novo DLBCL treated with an initial R-CHOP-like regimen who developed late relapse (> 2 y from initial diagnosis) of DLBCL from January 2005 to April 2024 and received second-line R-CHOP-like therapy with curative-intent (typically R-CHOP or R-CEOP, in which etoposide is substituted for doxorubicin once maximum lifetime anthracycline exposure has been reached [Moccia et al, Blood Advances 2021]). Transformed lymphoma, PTLD, PMBCL, and CNS lymphoma were excluded. Primary outcome was time-to-progression (TTP). Other outcomes included overall response rate (ORR); complete response (CR) rate; progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); and disease-specific survival (DSS). Survival endpoints were calculated from the time of relapse to: progression of lymphoma or treatment/disease-related death (TTP), progression of lymphoma or death from any cause (PFS); death from any cause (OS); or treatment/disease-related death (DSS). Pts with ‘intent-to-transplant’ were evaluated for response, but time-to-event outcomes were censored at time of transplant. Results: 53 pts meeting all inclusion criteria were identified with a median age of 77 y (range: 52-89) at time of relapse. 30 (57%) were male. Median time from initial diagnosis to relapse was 7.4 y (range: 2.5 - 15.9). 47 pts had biopsy confirmation of DLBCL at relapse. Cell of origin (COO) was GCB in 24/37 (65%), ABC/non-GCB in 12/37 (32%), or unclassifiable (1/37; 3%), according to gene expression profile (11/37) or Hans algorithm (26/37). COO concordance with initial diagnostic biopsy was 24/26 (92%). At time of relapse, in pts with available information, 80% had stage III-IV disease; 53% had poor performance status (ECOG 2-4) and 80% had high IPI (3-5). 15 pts (28%) started R-CHOP, with a median of 3 cycles (range 1-6) before switching to R-CEOP (n = 7), stopping for transplant (n = 4), limited stage (n = 2), or toxicity (n = 2). The remainder (n = 38) were started directly on R-CEOP. The median number of total cycles (R-CHOP and/or R-CEOP) was 5 (range 1-6), with 5 pts receiving consolidative radiation therapy. Four pts were treated with a limited stage approach. 19 pts (36%) did not complete their planned treatment, with toxicity or intolerance (n = 12; 63%) being the most common reason for early discontinuation. Most pts were not considered for transplant due to age or comorbidities. Six pts were intended for autologous stem cell transplant, with 5/6 proceeding to transplant. Response rates were as follows: CR 60%, PR 11%, SD 4%, PD 9%, non-evaluable/missing 15%. With a median follow-up of 29 months (m), 2-y TTP was 55%, 2-y PFS was 46%, 2-y OS was 55% and 2-y DSS was 67%. Median TTP was 45 m (95% CI 0 - 97), median PFS was 20 m (95% CI 0 - 45), median OS was 39 m (95% CI 13 - 65), and median DSS was 59 m (95% CI 41 - 78). Outcomes were also assessed according to timing of relapse following initial therapy. Pts who relapsed more than 5 y from initial diagnosis (n=41) had a significantly better TTP than pts who relapsed between 2-5 y (n = 12) with 2-y TTP 68% vs 11%, respectively (HR 0.27 [95%CI 0.11-0.64]; p = 0.003), despite comparable baseline characteristics. No difference in TTP was observed between COO subgroups (HR 1.14 [95%CI 0.82-1.60]). Conclusion: In pts with late relapse DLBCL, a retreatment strategy with R-CHOP-like therapy is a reasonable option. This approach results in durable remission in a high proportion of pts, thereby avoiding the need for more intensive therapies, particularly in pts who experience relapse more than 5 y from initial diagnosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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