Treatment patterns in patients aged 80+ years with LBCL: Propensity score analysis reveals comparable outcomes between R-CHOP and R-mini-CHOP
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Although chemo-free regimens are increasingly used in elderly patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), most still receive conventional chemoimmunotherapy. Patients up to 75–80 years old are usually treated with full-dose R-CHOP, while 80+ patients receive the attenuated R-miniCHOP regimen as standard of care. Prior studies have shown that in patients aged 65+ years, R-CHOP was associated with improved survival based on propensity score matching (PSM) analysis (Al-Sarayfi, Am J Hematol, 2023), though this did not include comorbidity data. Furthermore, no formal studies have focused specifically on 80+ patients. We aimed to perform a PSM comparison of R-CHOP versus R-miniCHOP to better inform treatment decisions in this population. Methods We harmonized and pooled data from 237 LBCL patients receiving chemotherapy with rituximab (out of all 263 80+ patients) from the prospective LEO cohort (USA, n=147; 2015–2020) and NiHiL registry (Czech Republic, single center, n=116; 2010–2023). Of them, 205 (86%) receiving anthracycline(A)-based regimens were included. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, treatments, and outcomes were collected. PSM (1:1, caliper 0.2) was performed to compare R-CHOP and R-miniCHOP using age, ECOG performance status (PS), clinical stage, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and major comorbidities (heart disease, history of stroke, and other recent cancer) as matching variables. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS, defined as death attributed to lymphoma progression). Results Among 205 A-treated patients, median age was 83 years (range 80–99); 30% had ECOG PS 2–4, 67% clinical stage III–IV, 34% ≥2 involved extranodal sites, 59% elevated LDH, and 58% had International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores 3–5. Median follow-up was 5.5 years; median OS and EFS were 4.1 and 3.4 years, resp. A-based regimens comprised full-dose R-CHOP-like (n=79; 39%; R-CHOP n=74, DA-EPOCH-R n=5) and R-miniCHOP (n=126; 61%). Patients receiving R-CHOP-like regimens had more favorable baseline characteristics (median age 82 vs 83 years, P=0.04; ECOG PS 2–4: 16% vs 39%, P<0.01; IPI 3–5: 46% vs 66%, P=0.03) and a lower, though not statistically significant, comorbidity burden (mean 1.14 vs 1.39; heart disease 35% vs 45%, P=0.22; history of stroke 4% vs 6%, P=0.64; other cancer 6% vs 5%, P=0.87). R-CHOP-like regimens vs R-miniCHOP had superior OS (median 6.3 vs 3.4 years; HR=0.61, 95% CI 0.42–0.90; P=0.01) and EFS (median 5.3 vs 2.1 years; HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.40–0.83; P<0.01), with no significant difference in LSS (2-year 89% vs 82%, HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.39–1.54, P=0.46). To mitigate selection bias, we performed PSM on patients with available baseline characteristics treated with R-CHOP (n=69) and R-miniCHOP (n=121), resulting in 63 matched pairs. Matched cohorts were well-balanced on age (median 82 years in both cohorts; P=0.68), ECOG PS 2–4 (17% vs 19%; P=0.82), IPI 3–5 (52% vs. 59%; P=0.41), and comorbidity burden (mean 1.10 vs. 1.29; P=0.30). The presence of heart disease (40% in both cohorts), history of stroke (5% vs 6%), and cancer (5% vs 6%) were similar. Survival modestly favored R-CHOP, but differences were not significant: median OS 5.3 vs 3.5 years (HR=0.73; 95% CI 0.46–1.15; P=0.17), median EFS 3.8 vs 2.8 years (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.49–1.18; P=0.23), and 2-year LSS 88% vs 84% (HR=1.09; 95% CI 0.45–2.63; P=0.85). Treatment-related mortality was similar in both cohorts (16%). Among R-miniCHOP patients, survival outcomes did not differ between matched (n=63) and unmatched (n=63) groups (OS P=0.72; EFS P=0.23; LSS P=0.27). Unmatched (n=16) R-CHOP patients had a trend toward improved survival compared to matched (n=63) individuals (OS P=0.10; EFS P=0.049; LSS P=0.24). Conclusion This is the first PSM-based analysis comparing R-CHOP and R-miniCHOP in LBCL patients 80+ years old. Despite inherent limitations of a non-randomized design and limited number of matched patients, our findings – derived from two prospective cohorts – suggest that R-miniCHOP may offer outcomes comparable to R-CHOP, particularly with respect to LSS. While these results support R-miniCHOP as an appropriate frontline option, treatment decisions remain highly individualized. These data may help inform clinical decision-making and provide a basis for designing future trials targeting this population, where R-miniCHOP could serve as a comparator arm. Funding: NU21-03-00411, U01 CA195568.
Article Details
Authors (30)
Prokop Vodička
1First Department of Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Patrick Reagan
5University of Rochester, Rochester, United States
Michal Masar
1First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Izidore S. Lossos
29Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Katerina Benesova
6Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic
Eric Mou
24Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
Kamila Polgarova
1First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
David Jaye
8Emory, Atlanta, United States
Diana Malarikova
2First Department of Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Chijioke Nze
6MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Jan Koren
2First Department of Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Dilan Patel
9Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Division of Oncology, St. Louis, United States
Josef Karban
1First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Peter Martin
Jana Salkova
1First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Andrew Feldman
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Jitka Dlouha
10Czech Lymphoma Study Group, Datacenter, Prague, Czech Republic
Jonathon Cohen
15Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta CA
Petra Blahovcova
2General University Hospital in Prague, Brno, Czech Republic, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Raphael Mwangi
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Thomas Habermann
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Radek Jaksa
21First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, Institute of Pathology, Prague, Czech Republic
Matthew Maurer
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Magdalena Klanova
Grzegorz Nowakowski
1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Pavel Klener
Jonathan Friedberg
15Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Rochester, United States
Christopher Flowers
1Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Marek Trneny
James Cerhan
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States