R-CHOP Vs DA-EPOCH-R for Double-Expressor Lymphoma: A University of California Hematologic Malignancies Consortium Retrospective Analysis

Managing double-expressor lymphomas (DEL) is controversial given the dearth of data and lack of standardized guidelines on this high-risk subset of lymphomas. No prospective and few retrospective studies limited by either their sample size or short follow-up address the question of initial treatment...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia myeloma and leukemia, 2022-10, Vol.22 (10), p.e947-e957
Hauptverfasser: Othman, Tamer, Penaloza, Juan, Zhang, Shiliang, Daniel, Claire E., Gaut, Daria, Oliai, Caspian, Brem, Elizabeth A, Baweja, Abinav, Ly, Jane, Reid, Jack, Pinter-Brown, Lauren, Lee, Matthew, Abdulhaq, Haifaa, Tuscano, Joseph
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Managing double-expressor lymphomas (DEL) is controversial given the dearth of data and lack of standardized guidelines on this high-risk subset of lymphomas. No prospective and few retrospective studies limited by either their sample size or short follow-up address the question of initial treatment of choice for DEL. We performed the largest analysis to date exploring R-CHOP vs DA-EPOCH-R in DEL. Adults with DEL diagnosed from 6/2012-2/2021 at 4 unique sites were retrospectively analyzed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Key secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), overall and complete response rates (ORR and CRR), cumulative incidence of relapse, and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) utilization. 155 patients were included, 61 treated with R-CHOP and 94 with DA-EPOCH-R. 3-year PFS and OS were similar between R-CHOP and DA-EPOCH-R, 33.2% vs 57.2%,(P = .063), and 72.2% vs 71.6% (P = .43) after median follow-up times of 2.43 and 2.89 years, respectively. Patients
ISSN:2152-2650
2152-2669
DOI:10.1016/j.clml.2022.06.013