Title |
A multicentre retrospective comparison of central nervous system prophylaxis strategies among patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
|
---|---|
Published in |
British Journal of Cancer, July 2014
|
DOI | 10.1038/bjc.2014.405 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
C Y Cheah, K E Herbert, K O'Rourke, G A Kennedy, A George, P L Fedele, M Gilbertson, S Y Tan, D S Ritchie, S S Opat, H M Prince, M Dickinson, K Burbury, M Wolf, E H Januszewicz, C S Tam, D A Westerman, D A Carney, S J Harrison, J F Seymour |
Abstract |
Background:Central nervous system (CNS) relapse in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a devastating complication; the optimal prophylactic strategy remains unclear.Methods:We performed a multicentre, retrospective analysis of patients with DLBCL with high risk for CNS relapse as defined by two or more of: multiple extranodal sites, elevated serum LDH and B symptoms or involvement of specific high-risk anatomical sites. We compared three different strategies of CNS-directed therapy: intrathecal (IT) methotrexate (MTX) with (R)-CHOP 'group 1'; R-CHOP with IT MTX and two cycles of high-dose intravenous (IV) MTX 'group 2'; dose-intensive systemic antimetabolite-containing chemotherapy (Hyper-CVAD or CODOXM/IVAC) with IT/IV MTX 'group 3'.Results:Overall, 217 patients were identified (49, 125 and 43 in groups 1-3, respectively). With median follow-up of 3.4 (range 0.2-18.6) years, 23 CNS relapses occurred (12, 10 and 1 in groups 1-3 respectively). The 3-year actuarial rates (95% CI) of CNS relapse were 18.4% (9.5-33.1%), 6.9% (3.5-13.4%) and 2.3% (0.4-15.4%) in groups 1-3, respectively (P=0.009).Conclusions:The addition of high-dose IV MTX and/or cytarabine was associated with lower incidence of CNS relapse compared with IT chemotherapy alone. However, these data are limited by their retrospective nature and warrant confirmation in prospective randomised studies.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 29 July 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.405 www.bjcancer.com. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 25% |
Australia | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 108 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 30 | 27% |
Other | 20 | 18% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 8% |
Student > Master | 8 | 7% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
Other | 21 | 19% |
Unknown | 17 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 56% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
Other | 9 | 8% |
Unknown | 26 | 23% |