Search

Background: Several clinical prognostic models for diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have been proposed, including the most commonly used International Prognostic Index (IPI), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN‐IPI), and models incorporating beta‐2 microglobulin (β2M). However, the role of β2M in DLBCL patients is not fully understood. Methods: We identified 6075 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with immunochemotherapy registered in the Danish Lymphoma Registry. Results: A total of 3232 patients had data available to calculate risk scores from each of the nine considered risk models for DLBCL, including a model developed from our population. Three of four models with β2M and NCCN‐IPI performed better than the International Prognostic Indexes (IPI, age‐adjusted IPI, and revised IPI). Five‐year overall survival for high‐ and low‐risk patients were 43.6% and 86.4% for IPI and 34.9% and 96.2% for NCCN‐IPI. In univariate analysis, higher levels of β2M were associated with inferior survival, higher tumor burden (advanced clinical stage and bulky disease), previous malignancy and increased age, and creatinine levels. Furthermore, we developed a model (β2M‐NCCN‐IPI) by adding β2M to NCCN‐IPI (c‐index 0.708) with improved discriminatory ability compared to NCCN‐IPI (c‐index 0.698, p < 0.05) and 5‐year OS of 33.1%, 56.2%, 82.4%, and 96.4% in the high, high‐intermediate, low‐intermediate and low‐risk group, respectively. Conclusion: International Prognostic Indices, except for NCCN‐IPI, fail to accurately discriminate risk groups in the rituximab era. β2M, a readily available marker, could improve the discriminatory performance of NCCN‐IPI and should be re‐evaluated in the development setting of future models for DLBCL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Outcome data of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) beyond the second line are scarce outside of clinical trials. Novel therapies in the R/R setting have been approved based on single‐arm trials, but results need to be contextualized by real‐world outcomes. Medical records from 3753 Danish adults diagnosed with DLBCL were reviewed. Patients previously treated with rituximab and anthracycline‐based chemotherapy who received the third or later line (3 L+) of treatment after 1 January 2015, were included. Only 189 patients with a median age of 71 years were eligible. The median time since the last line of therapy was 6 months. Patients were treated with either best supportive care (22%), platinum‐based salvage therapy (13%), low‐intensity chemotherapy (22%), in clinical trial (14%) or various combination treatments (32%). The 2‐year OS‐/PFS estimates were 25% and 12% for all patients and 49% and 17% for those treated with platinum‐based salvage therapy. Age ≥70, CNS involvement, elevated LDH and ECOG ≥2 predicted poor outcomes, and patients with 0–1 of these risk factors had a 2‐year OS estimate of 65%. Only a very small fraction of DLBCL patients received third‐line treatment and were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes were generally poor, but better in intensively treated, fit young patients with limited disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Patients and Methods Results Conclusion Etoposide to standard R‐CHOP is used for high‐risk diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in some countries. Due to the lack of randomized trials, a real‐world data study using matching methods was used to test the potential effectiveness of R‐CHOEP over R‐CHOP.This study included patients from the Danish Lymphoma Register diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 at the age of 18–60 years with de novo DLBCL and age‐adjusted IPI ≥2. R‐CHOEP treated patients were matched 1:1 without replacement to R‐CHOP treated patients using a hybrid exact and genetic matching technique. Primary endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).In total, 396 patients were included; 213 received R‐CHOEP and 183 received R‐CHOP. Unadjusted 5‐year PFS and OS for R‐CHOEP were 69% (95% Confidence intervals [CI]; 63%–76%) and 79% (CI;73%–85%) versus 62% (CI;55%–70%) and 76% (CI;69%–82%) for R‐CHOP (log‐rank test, PFS p = .25 and OS p = .31). A total of 127 patients treated with R‐CHOEP were matched to 127 patients treated with R‐CHOP. Matching‐adjusted 5‐year PFS and OS were 65% (CI; 57%–74%) and 79% (CI; 72%–84%) for R‐CHOEP versus 63% (CI; 55%–73%) and 79% (CI;72%–87%) for R‐CHOP (log‐rank test, PFS p = .90 and OS p = .63).The present study did not confirm superiority of R‐CHOEP over R‐CHOP for young patients with high‐risk DLBCL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]