4.3 Article

A population-based study on different regimens of R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL in The Netherlands

Journal

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
Volume 62, Issue 3, Pages 549-559

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2020.1842394

Keywords

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; R-CHOP; population-based; survival

Funding

  1. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development [ZonMw] [152001007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Randomized controlled trials have confirmed similar efficacy of different dose-intensity and dose-interval regimens of R-CHOP in DLBCL patients across different age groups, while overall survival decreased with older age. Interestingly, in patients aged 18-64, the adjusted risk of mortality with 6xR-CHOP21 compared to other R-CHOP regimens appears to be similar.
Randomized controlled trials have studied different dose-intensity and dose-interval regimens of R-CHOP for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This study was undertaken to confirm these results in a population-based setting, with special emphasis on the value of 6xR-CHOP21 among patients aged 18-64 years. Two thousand three hundred and thirty-eight stage II-IV DLBCL patients, >= 18 years, we confirmed the similar efficacy of six versus eight cycles of R-CHOP and of R-CHOP21 versus R-CHOP14 regimens across all age groups on overall survival (median follow-up 36.4 (1.3-167.6) months). Nevertheless, overall survival decreased with older age. Interestingly, in patients 18-64 years, the adjusted risk of mortality among recipients of 6xR-CHOP21 compared to other R-CHOP regimens seems to be similar (HR 0.62; 95%CI: 0.38-1.02; p= .059). Although this finding might suggest that 6xR-CHOP21 could be considered as first-line regimen for all stage II-IV DLBCL patients, it should be confirmed in forthcoming population-based studies with larger patient numbers and longitudinal follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available