International prognostic indices in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a comparison of IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI.

Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Three scoring systems incorporating simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the International Prognostic Index (IPI), revised IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We evaluated 2124 DLBCL patients treated from 1998 to 2009 with frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; or variant) across 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials to determine which scoring system best discriminates overall survival (OS). Median age was 63 years, and 56% of patients were male. Five-year OS estimates ranged from 54% to 88%, from 61% to 93%, and from 49% to 92% using the IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI, respectively. The NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest- and lowest-risk groups and best discriminated OS (concordance index = 0.632 vs 0.626 [IPI] vs 0.590 [R-IPI]). For each given IPI risk category, NCCN-IPI risk categories were significantly associated with OS (P ≤ .01); the reverse was not true, and the IPI did not provide additional significant prognostic information within all NCCN-IPI risk categories. Collectively, the NCCN-IPI outperformed the IPI and R-IPI. Patients with low-risk NCCN-IPI had favorable survival outcomes with little room for further improvement. In the rituximab era, none of the clinical risk scores identified a patient subgroup with long-term survival clearly <50%. Integrating molecular features of the tumor and microenvironment into the NCCN-IPI or IPI might better characterize a high-risk group for which novel treatment approaches are most needed.

Methotrexate and temozolomide versus methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine, and cytarabine for primary CNS lymphoma in an elderly population: an intergroup ANOCEF-GOELAMS randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: No standard chemotherapy regimen exists for primary CNS lymphoma, reflecting an absence of randomised studies. We prospectively tested two promising methotrexate-based regimens, one more intensive and a milder regimen, for primary CNS lymphoma in the elderly population, who account for most patients. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised phase 2 trial, done in 13 French institutions, we enrolled immunocompetent patients who had neuroimaging and histologically confirmed newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma, were aged 60 years and older, and had a Karnofsky performance scale score of 40 or more. Participants were stratified by Karnofsky performance scale score (<60 vs ≥60) and treating institution and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive methotrexate (3·5 g/m(2)) with temozolomide (150 mg/m(2)) or methotrexate (3·5 g/m(2)), procarbazine (100 mg/m(2)), vincristine (1·4 mg/m(2)), and cytarabine (3 mg/m(2)). Neither regimen included radiotherapy; both included prophylactic G-CSF and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival. Analysis was intent to treat, in a non-comparative phase 2 trial design. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00503594. FINDINGS: Between July 16, 2007, and March 25, 2010, 98 patients were enrolled, of whom 95 were randomly assigned and analysed; 48 to methotrexate with temozolomide and 47 to methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine, and cytarabine. 1-year progression-free survival was 36% (95% CI 22-50) in the methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine, and cytarabine group and 36% (22-50) in the methotrexate with temozolomide group; median progression-free survival was 9·5 months (95% CI 5·3-13·8) versus 6·1 months (3·8-11·9), respectively. Objective responses were noted in 82% (95% CI 68-92) of patients in the methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine, and cytarabine group versus 71% (55-84) of patients in the methotrexate with temozolomide group. Median overall survival was 31 months (95% CI 12·2-35·8) in the methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine, and cytarabine group and 14 months (8·1-28·4) in the methotrexate with temozolomide group. No differences were noted in toxic effects between the two groups. The most common grades 3 and 4 toxicities in both groups were liver dysfunction (21 [4%] in the the methotrexate and temozolomide group and 18 [38%] in the methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine, and cytarabine group), lymphopenia (14 [29%] and 14 [30%]), and infection (six [13%] and seven [15%]). To date, 33 (69%) patients in the methotrexate and temozolomide group have died, versus 31 (55%) in the methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine and cytarabine group. Quality-of-life evaluation (QLQ-C30 and BN20) showed improvements in most domains (p=0·01-0·0001) compared with baseline in both groups. Prospective neuropsychological testing showed no evidence of late neurotoxicity. INTERPRETATION: In this study of two different methotrexate-based combination regimens in elderly patients, the efficacy endpoints tended to favour the methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine, and cytarabine group. Both regimens were associated with similar, moderate toxicity, but quality of life improved with time, suggesting pursuing treatment in these poor prognosis patients is worthwhile. New alternatives are needed to improve response duration in this population. FUNDING: Schering-Plough/Merck and French Government.

Oral moxifloxacin or intravenous ceftriaxone for the treatment of low-risk neutropenic fever in cancer patients suitable for early hospital discharge.

GOALS OF WORK: Patients with low-risk neutropenic fever as defined by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score might benefit from ambulatory treatment. Optimal management remains to be clearly defined, and new oral antibiotics need to be evaluated in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer patients with febrile neutropenia and a favorable MASCC score were randomized between oral moxifloxacin and intravenous ceftriaxone. All were fit for early hospital discharge. The global success rate was related to the efficacy of monotherapy, as well as to the success of ambulatory monitoring. MAIN RESULTS: The trial was closed prematurely because of low accrual. Ninety-six patients were included (47 in the ceftriaxone arm and 49 in the moxifloxacin arm). A total of 65% were women, 30.2% had lymphoma, 34.4% had metastatic, and 35.4% had non-metastatic solid tumors. The success rates of home antibiotics were 73.9% and 79.2% for ceftriaxone and moxifloxacin, respectively. Seven patients were not discharged, and 14 required re-hospitalization. There were 17% of microbiologically documented infections that were, in most cases, susceptible to oral monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that MASCC is a valid and useful tool to select patients for ambulatory treatments and that oral moxifloxacin monotherapy is safe and effective for the outpatient treatment of cancer patients with low-risk neutropenic fever.