4.7 Article

Richter transformation in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)-a pooled analysis of German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG) front line treatment trials

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 169-176

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-020-0797-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG [SFB1074]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Richter transformation (RT) is the development of aggressive lymphoma in patients with CLL, with an incidence rate ranging from 2% to 10%. In a study of GCLLSG trial participants, 3% of patients developed RT, mostly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients with RT had a significantly shorter overall survival compared to those without RT.
Richter transformation (RT) is defined as development of aggressive lymphoma in patients (pts) with CLL. The incidence rates of RT among pts with CLL range from 2 to 10%. The aim of this analysis is to report the frequency, characteristics and outcomes of pts with RT enrolled in trials of the GCLLSG. A total of 2975 pts with advanced CLL were reviewed for incidence of RT. Clinical, laboratory, and genetic data were pooled. Time-to-event data, starting from time of CLL diagnosis, of first-line therapy or of RT diagnosis, were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methodology. One hundred and three pts developed RT (3%): 95 pts diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (92%) and eight pts Hodgkin lymphoma (8%). Median observation time was 53 months (interquartile range 38.1-69.5). Median OS from initial CLL diagnosis for pts without RT was 167 months vs 71 months for pts with RT (HR 2.64, CI 2.09-3.33). Median OS after diagnosis of RT was 9 months. Forty-seven pts (46%) received CHOP-like regimens for RT treatment. Three pts subsequently underwent allogeneic and two pts autologous stem cell transplantation. Our findings show that within a large cohort of GCLLSG trial participants, 3% of the pts developed RT after receiving first-line chemo- or chemoimmunotherapy. This dataset confirms the ongoing poor prognosis and high mortality associated with RT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据