← 返回

伴 MYC 和 BCL2 和/或 BCL6 重排的复发/难治性弥漫大 B 细胞淋巴瘤中自体干细胞移植与 CAR-T 细胞治疗的使用模式及结局

英文原题:Patterns of Utilization and Outcomes of Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphomas with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 Rearrangements.

查看英文原题

Patterns of Utilization and Outcomes of Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphomas with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 Rearrangements.

PubMed 2022/06/29(内容时间) Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Q1 · IF 4.1(JCR 2025)

分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。

研究概要

复发双打击/三打击淋巴瘤的真实世界总生存期劣于非双打击/三打击淋巴瘤。

中文摘要

伴MYC及BCL2和/或BCL6基因重排的弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤(DLBCL)患者,即双重打击/三重打击淋巴瘤(DHL/THL),在复发/难治阶段预后较差。

利用DLBCL患者去标识化真实世界数据库,报告复发/难治性DLBCL的治疗使用模式。按既往治疗线数分层,采用log-rank检验比较DHL与非DHL亚组接受CAR-T 细胞治疗或自体造血干细胞移植(ASCT)后的真实世界总生存期(rwOS)。

7877例DLBCL患者中,367例为DHL,6113例为非DHL。147例DHL和1517例非DHL患者接受二线化疗。另排除1393例,其中934例DHL/THL状态未知。DHL亚组约47%接受挽救性化疗,其中19%最终接受ASCT;非DHL/THL组34%接受挽救性化疗,其中32%接受ASCT。DHL/THL状态会降低接受二线ASCT患者的中位rwOS;在多变量分析中,该状态与接受CAR-T 细胞治疗患者数值上较差但无统计学显著差异的rwOS相关。

复发DHL/THL患者rwOS差于非DHL/THL患者。与非DHL/THL相比,挽救化疗后能够继续接受ASCT的DHL/THL患者更少。复发DHL/THL患者二线ASCT后的rwOS差于非DHL/THL患者,这与DHL/THL的自然病程一致。CAR-T 治疗未观察到这一差异;结合临床试验中的良好结果,提示CAR-T 细胞疗法在复发/难治性DHL中可能具有更重要的作用。

展开英文摘要原文

Patients with Diffuse Large Bcell Lymphoma (DLBCL) with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 gene rearrangements [double-hit lymphoma/triple-hit lymphoma (DHL/THL)] have poor prognosis in the relapsed/refractory setting.

We utilized a real-world deidentified database of DLBCL patients and report patterns of therapy utilization in relapsed/refractory DLBCL. We used log-rank test to compare real-world overall survival (rwOS) among DHL and non-DHL subgroups for CAR Tcell therapy or ASCT respectively, stratified for prior lines of therapy.

Of all 7,877 patients with DLBCL, 367 patients had DHL while 6113 had non-DHL. Second line chemotherapy was administered to 147 DHL patients and 1517 non-DHL. 1393 were excluded, including 934 with unknown DHL/THL status. Approximately 47% received salvage intent chemotherapy in the DHL subgroup, of which 19% patients eventually received ASCT, while 34% received salvage intent chemotherapy in the non-DHL/THL group with 32% receiving ASCT. DHL/THL status negatively influenced median rwOS for patients who underwent ASCT in the second-line while it was associated with numerically inferior but without statistically significant rwOS among patients that underwent CAR Tcell therapy on multivariable analysis.

rwOS of relapsed DHL/THL is inferior to non-DHL/THL. Fewer patients with DHL/THL were able to proceed with ASCT after salvage chemotherapy compared to non-DHL/THL. ASCT as second-line therapy for relapsed DHL/THL had worse rwOS than for non-DHL/THL, consistent with the natural history of DHL/THL. This difference was not seen for CAR Tcell therapy, which combined with promising results from clinical trials, suggests a greater role for CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed/refractory DHL.

论文信息

作者
Bliven SP、Shea L、Bal S、Goyal G、Mehta A、Narkhede M
第一作者单位
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.United Kingdom
通讯作者单位
Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. Electronic address: msnarkhede@uabmc.edu.United Kingdom
期刊
Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia2022 Nov
原文标识
PubMed 35869021 · DOI 10.1016/j.clml.2022.06.011