Sorial Mark N, Han Jessy Xinyi, Koh Min Jung, Boussi Leora, Li Sijia, Duan Rui, Lu Junwei, Lei Matthew M, MacVicar Caroline T, Freydman Jessica, Malespini Jack, Aniagboso Kenechukwu N, McCabe Sean M, Peng Luke, Singh Shambhavi, Iwasaki Makoto, Eche-Ugwu Ijeoma Julie, Gabler Judith, Fernandez Turizo Maria J, Garg Aditya, Disciullo Alexander, Chopra Kusha, Ford Josie, Lenart Alexandra, Nwodo Emmanuel, Barnes Jeffrey, Koh Min Ji, Miranda Eliana, Chiattone Carlos, Stuver Robert, Merrill Mwanasha, Jacobsen Eric, Manni Martina, Civallero Monica, Skrypets Tetiana, Lymboussaki Athina, Federico Massimo, Kim Yuri, Kim Jin Seok, Cho Jae Yong, Eipe Thomas, Shet Tanuja, Epari Sridhar, Shetty Alok, Saha Saswata, Jain Hasmukh, Sengar Manju, Van Der Weyden Carrie, Prince Henry Miles, Hamouche Ramzi, Muradashvili Tinatin, Foss Francine, Gentilini Marianna, Casadei Beatrice, Zinzani Pier Luigi, Okatani Takeshi, Yoshida Noriaki, Yoon Sang Eun, Kim Won-Seog, Panchoo Girisha, Mohamed Zainab, Verburgh Estelle, Alturas Jackielyn Cuenca, Al-Mansour Mubarak, Cabrera Maria Elena, Ku Amy, Bhagat Govind, Ma Helen, Sawas Ahmed, Kariya Khyati Maulik, Bhanushali Forum, Meharwal Arushi, Mistry Dhruv, Kosovsky Maria, Yeterian Mesrob, O'Connor Owen A, Marchi Enrica, Shen Changyu, Shah Devavrat, Jain Salvia
Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Br J Haematol. 2025 Jun;206(6):1664-1677. doi: 10.1111/bjh.20063. Epub 2025 May 1.
There is no standard of care in relapsed/refractory T-cell/natural killer-cell lymphomas. Patients often cycle through cytotoxic chemotherapy (CC), epigenetic modifiers (EM) or small molecule inhibitors (SMI) empirically. Ideal therapy at each line remains unknown. We conducted a retrospective, multiple intervention, 'target-trial' using the PETAL global cohort. Patients received front-line CC, then second and third line (2L and 3L) with either CC again, EM or SMI (12 possible treatment scenarios). Overall survival (OS; 2L or 3L to death) was compared across treatment sequences using Cox, reinforcement learning and synthetic intervention methods adjusting for age, histology, primary refractory disease, prognostic index for T-cell lymphoma (PIT) score, response to 2L, and receipt of 2L transplant consolidation. Five hundred and forty received 2L (EM = 101, SMI = 45, CC = 394), and 290 received 3L (EM = 65, SMI = 44, CC = 181). 2L SMI then 3L EM improved OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11-0.74; p = 0.010) versus 2L-3L CC-CC, and consistently across most other sequential strategies. In 2L stability analyses, benefit was notable with 2L SMI in angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (vs. CC: aHR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10-0.4; p < 0.001); vs. EM: aHR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12-0.82; p = 0.020), and both SMI and EM in PIT-stratified high-risk groups (SMI: aHR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21-0.76; p = 0.005; EM: aHR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39-0.92; p = 0.020) versus 2L CC. Results were consistent across all other independent stability and causal inference analyses providing a treatment selection framework.
复发/难治性T细胞/自然杀伤细胞淋巴瘤尚无标准治疗方案。患者通常凭经验在细胞毒性化疗(CC)、表观遗传修饰剂(EM)或小分子抑制剂(SMI)之间循环使用。每一线的理想治疗方案仍不明确。我们使用PETAL全球队列进行了一项回顾性、多干预的“目标试验”。患者接受一线CC治疗,然后二线和三线(2L和3L)治疗时,再次使用CC、EM或SMI(共12种可能的治疗方案)。使用Cox模型、强化学习和综合干预方法,对年龄、组织学类型、原发性难治性疾病、T细胞淋巴瘤预后指数(PIT)评分、对2L治疗的反应以及是否接受2L移植巩固治疗进行调整后,比较不同治疗顺序的总生存期(OS;从2L或3L治疗至死亡)。540例患者接受了2L治疗(EM = 101例,SMI = 45例,CC = 394例),290例患者接受了3L治疗(EM = 65例,SMI = 44例,CC = 181例)。与2L - 3L采用CC - CC治疗相比,2L采用SMI然后3L采用EM可改善OS(调整后风险比[aHR]:0.29,95%置信区间[CI]:0.11 - 0.74;p = 0.010),并且在大多数其他序贯治疗策略中结果一致。在2L稳定性分析中,血管免疫母细胞性T细胞淋巴瘤采用2L SMI治疗有显著获益(与CC相比:aHR:0.23,95% CI:0.10 - 0.4;p < 0.001);与EM相比:aHR:0.32,95% CI:0.12 - 0.82;p = 0.020),在PIT分层的高危组中,SMI和EM治疗均有获益(SMI:aHR:0.40,95% CI:0.21 - 0.76;p = 0.005;EM:aHR:0.60,95% CI:0.39 - 0.92;p = 0.020),与2L采用CC治疗相比。在所有其他独立的稳定性和因果推断分析中结果均一致,从而提供了一个治疗选择框架。