4.6 Article

Lenalidomide maintenance fails to overcome the unfavourable prognosis of low NK-cell counts in rituximab-chemotherapy responsive elderly DLBCL patients: A LYSA group study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 201, 期 2, 页码 256-266

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18642

关键词

DLBCL; elderly; lenalidomide; NK cells; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low baseline NK-cell counts (NKCCs) in DLBCL patients are associated with poor prognosis. Lenalidomide maintenance does not affect the prognostic value of low NKCCs in DLBCL patients. Improving NK-cell function could be a potential therapeutic strategy to improve outcomes in DLBCL.
Low baseline NK-cell counts (NKCCs) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are associated with a poor prognosis. The REMARC phase III trial (NCT01122472) showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS in rituximab-chemotherapy responders. We conducted a REMARC ancillary study analysing the impact of lenalidomide maintenance on the prognostic value of low NKCCs. Blood samples from 335 elderly French patients enrolled in the REMARC trial were analysed by flow cytometry to obtain NKCCs at diagnosis (n = 220), at randomization (n = 186) and/or six months after randomization (n = 184). Baseline NKCCs < 100 cells/mu l were associated with shorter PFS and OS (HRs = [2.2 (1.4, 3.3), p < 0.001] and [2.8 (1.7, 4.5), p < 0.001], respectively), independently of aaIPI. In a competing risk analysis, low NKCCs at baseline were associated with a higher risk of relapse/progression (p = 0.0025), but not of death without progression (p = 0.33). Lenalidomide did not affect the prognosis value of low baseline NKCCs (p = 0.6349). Similar results were obtained for low NKCCs at randomization. Our results demonstrate that low NKCCs at baseline and post rituximab-chemotherapy are robust prognostic factors in DLBCL and reveal that lenalidomide has no impact on this parameter. Other therapeutic strategies aiming at improving NK-cell function could improve outcomes in DLBCL.

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

4.6
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