Evolving treatment patterns and improved outcomes in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: a prospective cohort study
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Over the last two decades, the frontline therapy for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has evolved. However, the impact of subsequent lines of therapy on survival outcomes has not been well characterized. In this study, we investigated the treatment patterns and survival outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL treated with second-line (2 L) therapy. Adult patients with newly diagnosed MCL from 2002 to 2015 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Clinical characteristics, 2 L treatment details, and outcomes were compared between patients who received 2 L treatment between 2003-2009 (Era 1), 2010-2014 (Era 2), and 2015-2021 (Era 3). 2 L treatment was heterogenous in all eras, and there was a substantial shift in the pattern of 2 L therapy over time. The estimated 2-year EFS rate was 21% (95% CI, 13-35), 40% (95% CI, 30-53), and 51% (95% CI, 37-68) in Era 1-3 respectively, and the 5-year OS rate was 31% (95% CI, 21-45), 37% (95% CI, 27-50), and 67% (95% CI, 54-83) in Era 1-3, respectively. These results provide real-world evidence on evolving treatment patterns of 2 L therapy based on the era of relapse. The changes in 2 L treatment correlated with improved EFS and OS, suggesting that treatment advances are associated with improved outcomes in patients with R/R MCL.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Evolving treatment patterns and improved outcomes in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: a prospective cohort study
- Date Crossref
- 13/11/2023
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.