Division of Hematology, Hospital of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy; Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Innsbruck, Austria.
Department of Diagnostic, Clinical and Public Health Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena.
Ann Oncol. 2014 Dec;25(12):2398-2404. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu462. Epub 2014 Oct 1.
In the rituximab era, the conventional International Prognostic index (IPI) lost at least in part its predictive power, while the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-IPI (NCCN-IPI) seems to be a new and valid prognosticator. However, it has not yet been evaluated in patients with localized disease and it has not been compared with the modified IPI (mIPI) of the pre-rituximab era. In order to evaluate the different prognosticators and to assess the importance of rituximab and radiotherapy (RT), we carried out the so far largest retrospective analysis of patients with localized diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
We retrospectively assessed clinical and therapeutical data of 1405 patients treated in from 1987 to 2012 in 10 cancer centers in Italy and 1 in Austria.
All patients underwent an anthracycline containing polychemotherapy and 254 additional rituximab. The median follow-up was 5.7 years (range 0.1-23 years). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 75%, being significantly superior in those who underwent additional rituximab, while RT consolidation did not improve the outcome of those who received immunochemotherapy. Patients with extranodal disease benefited from the addition of rituximab, while RT did not improve OS of the immunochemotherapy subgroup. In the pre-rituximab era, the mIPI showed a better performance than the others. In rituximab-treated patients, the NCCN-IPI had the highest discriminant value and the 5-years OS varied significantly (P < 0.001) between the three risk groups and was 98% in low-risk patients, 82% in those with a low-intermediate risk and 57% among high-intermediate and high-risk cases.
The NCCN-IPI is so far the best prognosticator for patients with localized DLBCL who underwent R-CHOP(-like). The addition of rituximab is indispensable regardless of the risk category and site of involvement, while the addition of RT should be reserved to those cases who are ineligible to rituximab.
在利妥昔单抗时代,传统的国际预后指数(IPI)至少在一定程度上失去了其预测能力,而国家综合癌症网络-IPI(NCCN-IPI)似乎是一种新的、有效的预后指标。然而,它尚未在局限性疾病患者中得到评估,也尚未与前利妥昔单抗时代的改良 IPI(mIPI)进行比较。为了评估不同的预后指标,并评估利妥昔单抗和放疗(RT)的重要性,我们对 1405 例局限性弥漫性大 B 细胞淋巴瘤(DLBCL)患者进行了迄今为止最大的回顾性分析。
我们回顾性评估了 1987 年至 2012 年期间意大利 10 个癌症中心和奥地利 1 个癌症中心的 1405 例患者的临床和治疗数据。
所有患者均接受了含蒽环类药物的联合化疗,254 例患者接受了额外的利妥昔单抗治疗。中位随访时间为 5.7 年(范围 0.1-23 年)。5 年总生存率(OS)为 75%,接受额外利妥昔单抗治疗的患者明显更高,而 RT 巩固治疗并不能改善接受免疫化疗患者的预后。结外疾病患者从利妥昔单抗的加入中获益,而 RT 并不能改善免疫化疗亚组的 OS。在前利妥昔单抗时代,mIPI 表现出更好的性能。在接受利妥昔单抗治疗的患者中,NCCN-IPI 具有最高的判别价值,三组之间的 5 年 OS 差异显著(P < 0.001),低危患者为 98%,低-中危患者为 82%,中-高危和高危患者为 57%。
NCCN-IPI 是迄今为止接受 R-CHOP(-样)治疗的局限性 DLBCL 患者的最佳预后指标。无论危险程度和受累部位如何,利妥昔单抗的加入都是必不可少的,而 RT 的加入应保留给那些不适合利妥昔单抗的患者。