Patterns of care and clinical outcomes in systemic peripheral T-cell lymphoma: the LEO-MER prospective cohort study

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABSTRACT: Few prospective benchmark studies exist to characterize the evolving contemporary real-world practice for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). We report the patterns of first-line care and outcomes for 720 patients with systemic PTCL enrolled in 2 related prospective cohort studies, Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) from 2015 to 2020 and Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) from 2002 to 2015, both followed to 2024. The primary end points were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression model. Secondary end points included correlations of clinical and treatment factors with survival. The most common induction regimens were CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) based (70%), given as CHOP (36%), CHOP plus etoposide (23%), or CHOP-like plus novel agents (11.5%, including 5% BV-CHP [brentuximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone]). Consolidative autologous stem cell transplant was performed in 102 patients (14%). Within nodal PTCL, EFS and OS were adversely associated with International Prognostic Index 2 to 5, prognostic index for T-cell lymphoma score 1 to 4, and non-anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) subtypes. Within LEO, which captured increasing first-line etoposide and brentuximab vedotin, adding etoposide to CHOP was associated with better OS in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative ALCL. BV-CHP showed a trend toward OS improvement in ALCL. Patients failing EFS6 and EFS24 had 5-year subsequent OS of 12% and 17%, respectively. The inferior outcomes in non-ALCL subtypes and patients failing EFS6 and EFS24 highlight unmet needs with CHOP-based induction, where clinical trials with targeted therapy should be prioritized. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02736357.

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