Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2025 conference-abstract

Retrospective analysis of R-CDOP efficacy and safety in frail patients with DLBCL compared to R-CHOP in fit patients

0Citations signalées — pas une note de qualité
1Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Introduction: R-CHOP (Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) remains a frontline treatment for DLBCL. However, toxicity in older patients remains a challenge. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with doxorubicin has demonstrated a more favorable hematologic toxicity profile in breast cancer treatment. Further data is needed to better establish efficacy and relative safety for PLD substitution in the R-CHOP regimen (R-CDOP). Patients and Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on patients with DLBCL not otherwise specified (NOS) who received treatment with either R-CHOP or R-CDOP at Stony Brook University Hospital between 2014 and 2025. Patients were identified by ICD-10 code C83.3 for DLBCL via TriNetX query. Three independent reviewers manually verified records and excluded cases other than DLBCL NOS such as DLBCL transformed from indolent lymphoma and high-grade B cell lymphoma or other entities. Patient demographics, response rate, overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS; events defined as radiographic progression; deaths without confirmed progression were censored), cell counts of baseline, start of cycle, and nadir counts were assessed. Significance testing was performed using the log-rank test for OS and DFS, two tailed t-test for quantitative variables, and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables without adjustment for multiple comparison. Results: Of 450 records screened, 18 patients treated with R-CHOP and 10 with R-CDOP were included for analysis. Patients in the R-CDOP group were older compared to the R-CHOP group (75.4 years vs 57.4 years at diagnosis; p < 0.01), and more likely to have non-GCB subtype (70% versus 44%, p = 0.03). The R-CDOP group had lower baseline ejection fraction (EF) than the R-CHOP group (59% versus 63%, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in gender, IPI score, LDH, or BMI between the two populations. Each patient in the R-CHOP group completed 6 cycles and 8 in the R-CDOP group completed 6 cycles, one 5 cycles and one 4 cycles. Median OS and DFS were not reached in either group. 5-year DFS was similar (75% for R-CDOP vs 88% for R-CHOP) while OS was significantly lower in the R-CDOP group (5-year OS: 53% vs 94% for R-CHOP; p = 0.01). Rates of any-grade observed adverse events were comparable between R-CDOP and R-CHOP: anemia (100% vs 94%), thrombocytopenia (60% vs 56%), neutropenia (80% vs 72%), and heart failure exacerbation (10% vs 0%). Grade ≥3 toxicities were also similar: anemia (50% vs 22%), thrombocytopenia (40% vs 11%), neutropenia (60% vs 56%), and febrile neutropenia (20% vs 11%). In R-CDOP, neutrophil count declined from 9.67 to 4.14 k/μL by cycle 6 (p = 0.01), with no significant changes in hemoglobin, platelets, or nadir counts between cycles 1 and 6. Conclusions: Patients in the R-CDOP group demonstrated greater age, lower EF, and more aggressive disease subtype than those in the R-CHOP group. There was no evidence of increased hematopoietic or cardiac adverse events in the R-CDOP group compared to the R-CHOP group. DFS was comparable while the OS was lower in the R-CDOP group, suggesting death from non-relapse etiologies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Retrospective analysis of R-CDOP efficacy and safety in frail patients with DLBCL compared to R-CHOP in fit patients
Date Crossref
03/11/2025
Éditeur
American Society of Hematology
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Sujets associés

Breast Cancer Treatment StudiesLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processes

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Recherche à la demande dans Crossref et Europe PMC, sans clé ; OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant requis, aucune réponse conservée. Sources et limites.