Comparable PFS in isolated parenchymal cns vs systemic relapse of DLBCL: Results from a large real-world cohort
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Despite therapeutic advances, a significant proportion of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) experience disease relapse (R). Previously, we reported a 5-year cumulative incidence of systemic relapse (Sy-R) and central nervous system relapse (CNS-R) of 21.25% and 3.76%, respectively (Klanova et al., ASH 2023). Compared to Sy-R, CNS-R is generally associated with worse outcomes. Most CNS-Rs present with isolated CNS involvement (CNS-I-R), while a smaller subset develops concurrent CNS and systemic R (CNS+Sy-R). Based on localization, CNS-R can affect parenchymal (Par), leptomeningeal, or both sites (Lep/Comb). This study compared clinical outcomes of Sy-R, CNS-I-R (further divided into CNS-I-Par and CNS-I-Lep/Comb), and CNS+Sy-R in a large real-world DLBCL cohort. Methods Using the prospective NiHiL project (NCT03199066), we identified 1,364 patients with systemic DLBCL who experienced their first R between 2005 and 2023. Patients with CNS involvement at initial diagnosis or incomplete staging at R were excluded. Among the included patients (n=1,351), 1,186 (87%) had Sy-R, 127 (9%) had CNS-I-R (CNS-I-Par n=92; CNS-I-Lep/Comb n=34; unknown localization n=1), and 38 (3%) had CNS+Sy-R. In total, 1,153 patients received chemotherapy (CTx), including 901 treated with curative intent. We first compared outcomes across Sy-R, CNS-I-R, and CNS+Sy-R. Subsequently, CNS-I-R cases were stratified by localization (CNS-I-Par vs CNS-I-Lep/Comb). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS) was the secondary endpoint, both measured from the date of R. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. Results When comparing Sy-R, CNS-I-R, and CNS+Sy-R, the median time from diagnosis to relapse was 12.3, 14.2, and 9.3 months, respectively (P=0.01); median age at R was 68, 68, and 64.5 years, respectively (P=0.04). ECOG performance status (PS) 2–4 was more frequent in R involving the CNS (CNS-I-R 65%, CNS+Sy-R 63%) than in Sy-R (32%; P<0.01). In contrast, elevated LDH was more common in relapses with Sy involvement (Sy-R 67%, CNS+Sy-R 61%) compared to CNS-I-R (43%; P<0.01). With a median follow-up of 7.6 years, median PFS decreased across Sy-R, CNS-I-R, and CNS+Sy-R: 8 vs 6 vs 3 months (P<0.01), and median OS was 13, 6, and 3 months, respectively (P<0.01). We then focused on CNS-I-R and compared outcomes by localization. Patients with CNS-I-Par (73%) were older (median age 70 vs 62.5 years; P=0.048) and had longer time from diagnosis to relapse (15.75 vs 8.15 months; P<0.01) than those with CNS-I-Lep/Comb (27%). Median PFS and OS for CNS-I-Par vs CNS-I-Lep/Comb were 7 vs 4 months (HR=0.49, P<0.01) and 8 vs 4 months (HR=0.48, P<0.01), respectively. When comparing all four relapse types (Sy-R, CNS-I-Par, CNS-I-Lep/Comb, CNS+Sy-R), Sy-R and CNS-I-Par had the most favorable outcomes with similar PFS (median 8 vs 7 months; HR=0.98, P=0.87) and modestly better OS for Sy-R (median 13 vs 8 months; HR=0.77, P=0.04). CNS-I-Lep/Comb and CNS+Sy-R had similarly poor outcomes (median PFS 4 vs 3 months, HR=0.99, P=0.95; median OS 4 vs 3 months, HR=0.85, 95% CI 0.52–1.38, P=0.51). After adjusted for age, ECOG PS, LDH, and diagnosis-to-relapse interval, survival was similar between CNS-I-Par and Sy-R (PFS P=0.63; OS P=0.15). However, both CNS-I-Lep/Comb (PFS HR=1.82, P=0.01; OS HR=1.55, P=0.05) and CNS+Sy-R (PFS HR=1.60, P=0.01; OS HR=1.69, P=0.01) remained independently associated with worse survival compared to Sy-R. These findings were consistent in the curatively treated subgroup (n=901): median PFS 10, 8, 4, and 3 months, median OS 19, 10, 4, and 4 months, resp., for Sy-R, CNS-I-Par, CNS-I-Lep/Comb, CNS+Sy-R resp. (all P<0.01). Conclusion While all DLBCL relapses are associated with poor prognosis, clinical outcomes vary by relapse pattern. Sy-R and CNS-I-Par showed comparable PFS, and better survival compared to other subtypes,. In contrast, CNS-I-Lep/Comb and CNS+Sy-R were associated with worst outcomes. The OS in CNS-R cases closely mirrors the PFS, suggesting that treatment remains challenging, and therapeutic failure often represents a terminal event. Novel approaches, including CNS-penetrating targeted agents and CAR-T, which show early promise in CNS-Rs, are needed for these patients. Funding Grant No. NU23-03-00127.
Article Details
Authors (31)
Michal Masar
1First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Prokop Vodička
1First Department of Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Samuel Hricko
1Masaryk University Brno, Brno, Czech Republic, Faculcy of medicine, Brno, Czech Republic
Alice Sykorova
Andrea Hrušková
6Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Department of Haemato-Oncology, Olomouc, Czech Republic
Juraj Ďuraš
11Department of Hematology, Medical Faculty of the Ostrava University and University Hospital, Ostrava, Czech Republic
Alexandra Suri
7Department of Hematology, Fakultni nemocnice Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Veronika Bergerova
16Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Pilsen, Department of Haematology and Oncology, Pilsen, Czech Republic
Jan Pirnos
9Hospital Ceske Budejovice, Department of Oncology, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
Adam Lukac
9Second Faculty of Medicine and Motol University Hospital, Department of Oncology, Prague, Czech Republic
Katerina Benesova
6Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic
Martina Filipova
2Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and University Hospital, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Brno, Czech Republic
David Belada
4th Department of Internal Medicine - Haematology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
Vit Prochazka
Michal Kascak
14Medical Faculty of the Ostrava University and University Hospital, Department of Hematology, Ostrava, Czech Republic
Heidi Mocikova
Katerina Steinerova
6Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic
Jan Koren
2First Department of Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Andrea Janíková
26Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Pavla Stepankova
6Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Fourth Department of Internal Medicine – Hematology, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
Ales Obr
8Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Department of Haemato-Oncology, Olomouc, Czech Republic
Martina Gerykova
5Medical Faculty of the Ostrava University and University Hospital, Ostrava, Department of Hematology, Ostrava, Czech Republic
Pavel Klener
David Salek
4Department of Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
Jozef Michalka
4Department of Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
Jitka Dlouha
10Czech Lymphoma Study Group, Datacenter, Prague, Czech Republic
Petra Blahovcova
2General University Hospital in Prague, Brno, Czech Republic, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Jan Galko
8First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, Institute of Pathology, Prague, Czech Republic
Vit Campr
19Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Magdalena Klanova
Marek Trneny