4.7 Article

Treatment factors affecting outcomes in HIV-associated non-Hodgkin lymphomas: a pooled analysis of 1546 patients

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 122, Issue 19, Pages 3251-3262

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2013-04-498964

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. AIDS Malignancy Consortium [UO1CA121947]
  2. Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology [K12CA132783-03]
  3. American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Limited comparative data exist for the treatment of HIV-associated non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We analyzed pooled individual patient data for 1546 patients from 19 prospective clinical trials to assess treatment-specific factors (type of chemotherapy, rituximab, and concurrent combination antiretroviral [cART] use) and their influence on the outcomes complete response (CR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In our analysis, rituximab was associated with a higher CR rate (odds ratio [OR] 2.89; P < .001), improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; P < .001), and OS (HR 0.51; P < .0001). Compared with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP), initial therapy with more dose-intense regimens resulted in better CR rates (ACVBP [doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin and prednisolone]: OR 1.70; P < .04), PFS (ACVBP: HR 0.72; P = .049; intensive regimens: HR 0.35; P < .001) and OS (intensive regimens: HR 0.54; P < .001). Infusional etoposide, prednisone, infusional vincristine, infusional doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (EPOCH) was associated with significantly better OS in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (HR 0.33; P = .03). Concurrent use of cART was associated with improved CR rates (OR 1.89; P = .005) and trended toward improved OS (HR 0.78; P = .07). These findings provide supporting evidence for current patterns of care where definitive evidence is unavailable.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available