4.3 Article

Rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) in refractory/relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a real-life study in patients ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation

期刊

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
卷 62, 期 9, 页码 2161-2168

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2021.1901090

关键词

Lymphoma and Hodgkin disease; prognostication; immunotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The combination of R-GemOx shows efficacy and tolerability in R/R DLBCL patients who are ineligible for intensive treatment, with potential as a basis for new regimen combinations. However, further research and optimization are needed to improve outcomes.
There is no established standard treatment for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in patients who are not eligible to receive an intensive treatment. The combination of rituximab gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) is widely used in this population but data are scarce. We retrospectively collected the data of 196 patients with R/R DLBCL treated with R-GemOx in two French centers over a period of 15 years. The median age of the population was 72 years (range, 24-89), 63% of the patients had an international prognostic index of 3 or higher and 57% were refractory to the last treatment. At the end of R-GemOx treatment, 33% of the patients obtained a complete response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) of the population was 5 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 10 months. Several factors were predictors of unfavorable survival: age over 75 years, international prognostic index of 2 or higher, refractory disease and de novo DLBCL. The median PFS and OS of the patients who obtained a complete response were 22 months and 40 months, respectively. The most significant toxicities were grade 3-4 hematological toxicities (31% of patients). Given its efficacy and tolerability, R-GemOx can be used in patients ineligible for intensive treatment and serve as a basis for new regimen combinations.

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

4.3
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