Patterns of care and outcomes in patients with large B-cell lymphoma not treated with full-dose anthracycline regimens: Outcome analysis from the lymphoma epidemiology of outcomes (LEO) prospective cohort study

Abstract

Abstract Introduction There is currently no standard-of-care for patients (pts) who cannot tolerate full dose anthracycline regimens in frontline large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). R-miniCHOP is a commonly used regimen that provides curative intent treatment with manageable toxicity. Despite this, lymphoma and treatment-related mortality are the leading causes of death in these pts. Additionally, many pts may not be eligible to receive R-miniCHOP due to comorbidity or frailty. There are limited clinical trial and real-world data focused on this population. Methods Pts with LBCL age 18 years (yrs) and older were identified from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort, a prospective study of newly diagnosed pts with non-Hodgkin lymphoma enrolled from 2015-2020 at 8 academic medical centers in the US. Pts with LBCL were included in this analysis if they had received R-miniCHOP or a regimen that did not include an anthracycline (nonAC). NonAC regimens included R-CVP, BR, rituximab, radiation and lenalidomide and rituximab. Pts completed the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) and were considered vulnerable if they had a score >3. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from start of treatment until progression/relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause; EFS at 24 months (EFS24) was a secondary endpoint. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from start of treatment until death due to any cause. EFS and OS for R-miniCHOP and non-IC groups, as well as vulnerable and not vulnerable by VES-13 were estimated using Cox models. Results A total of 190 pts received R-miniCHOP (N=139) or nonAC (N=51). R-miniCHOP-treated pts were older (median 82 vs 72 yrs) and more commonly female (55% vs 35%). The majority in both groups (86% vs 78%) received their treatment at a LEO center and did not receive therapy on a clinical trial (89% vs 100%). Most pts receiving R-miniCHOP had high-intermediate (32%) or high (30%) international prognostic index (IPI) score, while both high-intermediate (22%) and high (20%) IPI were lower in the nonAC-treated pts. Cell of origin was determined by immunohistochemistry as available clinically, with GCB 42% vs 31%, non-GCB 32% vs 29%, and not done/unknown 26% vs 39% in R-miniCHOP vs nonAC pts. Double-hit status by FISH was known in 115 pts and was positive in 13% of R-miniCHOP pts and 10% of nonAC pts. The diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) was ≤14 days in 30% of R-miniCHOP pts and 24% of nonAC pts. Of pts who had a VES-13 score (N=119), vulnerable status trended higher in the R-miniCHOP (66%) vs the non-IC group (50%; p=0.15). With a median follow-up of 50.5 months, the median EFS was 37.1 months and median OS was 50.0 months. R-miniCHOP, compared with non-IC, was associated with improved EFS (unadjusted HR=0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.81; p=0.003) and OS (unadjusted HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.88; p=0.011). When adjusted for age, IPI, LBCL subtype (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified vs other), DTI and VES-13, R-miniCHOP was strongly associated with improved EFS (HR=0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.50; p<0.001) and OS (adjusted HR=0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.57; p<0.001). EFS24 rate was 56% in all pts and was superior in pts treated with R-miniCHOP vs non-IC (62.7% vs 34.1%; p=0.001). In the R-miniCHOP group, vulnerable status (adjusted for IPI) was associated with inferior OS (HR=2.22, 95% CI 1.09-4.50; p=0.028) and trended towards inferior EFS (HR=1.76, 95% CI 0.93-3.32; p=0.083). In a competing-risk cumulative-incidence analysis, lymphoma was the leading cause of death for pts receiving R-miniCHOP at 2 (0.16, 95% CI 0.11-0.24) and 5 (0.20, 95% CI 0.14-0.28) yrs, as well as for those receiving non-IC at 2 (0.35, 95% CI 0.24-0.53) and 5 (0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.56) yrs. Treatment-related mortality was similar in both groups. In the R-miniCHOP group, the 2-yr (0.20 vs 0.03) and 5-yr (0.20 vs 0.11) lymphoma-related mortality was higher in pts who were vulnerable vs not by VES-13, while there were no differences for mortality due to therapy or other causes by vulnerable status. Conclusions These data support R-miniCHOP as a curative regimen in older and frail pts with the majority achieving EFS24. R-miniCHOP compared to non-IC use is strongly associated with improved EFS and OS when adjusted for disease and patient related variables. Within the R-miniCHOP group, vulnerable status is associated with inferior OS. Additional research efforts are needed to optimize outcomes for this group of pts.