Treatment-specific risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms in five-year survivors of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of rituximab significantly improved the prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), emphasizing the importance of evaluating the long-term consequences of exposure to radiotherapy, alkylating agents and anthracycline-containing (immuno)chemotherapy among DLBCL survivors. METHODS: Long-term risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs) was examined in a multicenter cohort comprising 2373 5-year DLBCL survivors treated at ages 15-61 years in 1989-2012. Observed SMN numbers were compared with expected cancer incidence to estimate standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and absolute excess risks (AERs/10 000 person-years). Treatment-specific risks were assessed using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 13.8 years, 321 survivors developed one or more SMNs (SIR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.8, AER 51.8). SIRs remained increased for at least 20 years after first-line treatment (SIR ≥20-year follow-up 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2, AER 81.8) and were highest among patients ≤40 years at first DLBCL treatment (SIR 2.7, 95% CI 2.0-3.5). Lung (SIR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.7, AER 13.4) and gastrointestinal cancers (SIR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-2.0, AER 11.8) accounted for the largest excess risks. Treatment with >4500 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide/>300 mg/m2 doxorubicin versus ≤2250 mg/m2/≤150 mg/m2, respectively, was associated with increased solid SMN risk (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2). Survivors who received rituximab had a lower risk of subdiaphragmatic solid SMNs (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-1.0) compared with survivors who did not receive rituximab. CONCLUSION: Five-year DLBCL survivors have an increased risk of SMNs. Risks were higher for survivors ≤40 years at first treatment and survivors treated with >4500 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide/>300 mg/m2 doxorubicin, and may be lower for survivors treated in the rituximab era, emphasizing the need for studies with longer follow-up for rituximab-treated patients.

R-miniCHOP versus R-CHOP in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A propensity matched population-based study.

For elderly frail patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), an attenuated chemo-immunotherapy strategy of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (R-miniCHOP) was introduced as a treatment option as from 2014 onward in the Netherlands. Although R-miniCHOP is more tolerable, reduction of chemotherapy could negatively affect survival compared to R-CHOP. The aim of this analysis was to assess survival of patients treated with R-miniCHOP compared to R-CHOP. DLBCL patients ≥65 years, newly diagnosed in 2014-2020, who received ≥1 cycle of R-miniCHOP or R-CHOP were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry, with survival follow-up through 2022. Patients were propensity-score-matched for baseline characteristics. Main endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and relative survival (RS). The use of R-miniCHOP in DLBCL increased from 2% in 2014 to 15% in 2020. In total, 384 patients treated with R-miniCHOP and 384 patients treated with R-CHOP were included for comparison (median age; 81 years, stage 3-4; 68%). The median number of R-(mini)CHOP cycles was 6 (range, 1-8). The 2-year PFS, OS and RS were inferior for patients treated with R-miniCHOP compared to R-CHOP (PFS 51% vs. 68%, p < .01; OS 60% vs. 75%, p < .01; RS 69% vs. 86%, p < .01). In multivariable analysis, patients treated with R-miniCHOP had higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients treated with R-CHOP (HR 1.73; 95%CI, 1.39-2.17). R-miniCHOP is effective for most elderly patients. Although survival is inferior compared to R-CHOP, the use of R-miniCHOP as initial treatment is increasing. Therefore, fitness needs to be carefully weighed in treatment selection.

Baseline PET radiomics outperforms the IPI risk score for prediction of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

The objective of this study is to externally validate the clinical positron emission tomography (PET) model developed in the HOVON-84 trial and to compare the model performance of our clinical PET model using the international prognostic index (IPI). In total, 1195 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were included in the study. Data of 887 patients from 6 studies were used as external validation data sets. The primary outcomes were 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and 2-year time to progression (TTP). The metabolic tumor volume (MTV), maximum distance between the largest lesion and another lesion (Dmaxbulk), and peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak) were extracted. The predictive values of the IPI and clinical PET model (MTV, Dmaxbulk, SUVpeak, performance status, and age) were tested. Model performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic performance, using the positive predictive value (PPV). The IPI yielded an AUC of 0.62. The clinical PET model yielded a significantly higher AUC of 0.71 (P < .001). Patients with high-risk IPI had a 2-year PFS of 61.4% vs 51.9% for those with high-risk clinical PET, with an increase in PPV from 35.5% to 49.1%, respectively. A total of 66.4% of patients with high-risk IPI were free from progression or relapse vs 55.5% of patients with high-risk clinical PET scores, with an increased PPV from 33.7% to 44.6%, respectively. The clinical PET model remained predictive of outcome in 6 independent first-line DLBCL studies, and had higher model performance than the currently used IPI in all studies.

Aberrant patterns of PET response during treatment for DLBCL patients with MYC gene rearrangements.

PURPOSE: MYC gene rearrangements in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients are associated with poor prognosis. Our aim was to compare patterns of 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET/CT) response in MYC + and MYC- DLBCL patients. METHODS: Interim PET/CT (I-PET) and end of treatment PET/CT (EoT-PET) scans of 81 MYC + and 129 MYC- DLBCL patients from 2 HOVON trials were reviewed using the Deauville 5-point scale (DS). DS1-3 was regarded as negative and DS4-5 as positive. Standardized uptake values (SUV) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) were quantified at baseline, I-PET, and EoT-PET. Negative (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) were calculated using 2-year overall survival. RESULTS: MYC + DLBCL patients had significantly more positive EoT-PET scans than MYC- patients (32.5 vs 15.7%, p = 0.004). I-PET positivity rates were comparable (28.8 vs 23.8%). In MYC + patients 23.2% of the I-PET negative patients converted to positive at EoT-PET, vs only 2% for the MYC- patients (p = 0.002). Nine (34.6%) MYC + DLBCL showed initially uninvolved localizations at EoT-PET, compared to one (5.3%) MYC- patient. A total of 80.8% of EoT-PET positive MYC + patients showed both increased lesional SUV and MTV compared to I-PET. In MYC- patients, 31.6% showed increased SUV and 42.1% showed increased MTV. NPV of I-PET and EoT-PET was high for both MYC subgroups (81.8-94.1%). PPV was highest at EoT-PET for MYC + patients (61.5%). CONCLUSION: MYC + DLBCL patients demonstrate aberrant PET response patterns compared to MYC- patients with more frequent progression during treatment after I-PET negative assessment and new lesions at sites that were not initially involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: HOVON-84: EudraCT: 2006-005,174-42, retrospectively registered 01-08-2008. HOVON-130: EudraCT: 2014-002,654-39, registered 26-01-2015.

Cost-Effectiveness of Shortening Treatment Duration Based on Interim PET Outcome in Patients With Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment are shifting from long to short treatment duration, although it is still unclear whether shortening treatment duration does not cause any harm. As interim PET (I-PET) has high negative predictive value for progression, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of shortening treatment duration dependent on I-PET result. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model using the PET Re-Analysis (PETRA) database to evaluate a long treatment duration (LTD) strategy, ie 8x R-CHOP or 6x R-CHOP plus 2 R, and a short treatment duration (STD) strategy, ie 6x R-CHOP. Strategies were evaluated separately in I-PET2 positive and I-PET2 negative patients. Outcomes included total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (pp) from a societal perspective. Net monetary benefit (NMB) per strategy was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY. Robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In I-PET2 positive patients, shortening treatment duration led to 50.4 additional deaths per 1000 patients. The STD strategy was less effective (-0.161 [95%CI: -0.343;0.028] QALYs pp) and less costly (-€2768 [95%CI: -€8420;€1105] pp). Shortening treatment duration was not cost-effective (incremental NMB -€5281). In I-PET2 negative patients, shortening treatment duration led to 5.0 additional deaths per 1000 patients and a minor difference in effectiveness (-0.007 [95%CI: -0.136;0.140] QALY pp). The STD strategy was less costly (-€5807 [95%CI: -€10,724;-€2685] pp) and led to an incremental NMB of €5449, indicating that it is cost-effective to shorten treatment duration. Robustness of these findings was underpinned by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Treatment duration should not be shortened in I-PET2 positive patients whereas it is cost-effective to shorten treatment duration in I-PET2 negative patients.

Reasons for not reaching or using web-based self-management applications, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among cancer survivors, in the context of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The web-based self-management application Oncokompas was developed to support cancer survivors to monitor health-related quality of life and symptoms (Measure) and to provide tailored information (Learn) and supportive care options (Act). In a previously reported randomised controlled trial (RCT), 68% of 655 recruited survivors were eligible, and of those 45% participated in the RCT. Among participants of the RCT that were randomised to the intervention group, 52% used Oncokompas as intended. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for not participating in the RCT, and reasons for not using Oncokompas among non-users, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among users. METHODS: Reasons for not participating were assessed with a study-specific questionnaire among 243 survivors who declined participation. Usage was investigated among 320 participants randomised to the intervention group of the RCT via system data and a study-specific questionnaire that was assessed during the 1 week follow-up (T1) assessment. RESULTS: Main reasons for not participating were not interested in participation in scientific research (40%) and not interested in scientific research and Oncokompas (28%). Main reasons for not being interested in Oncokompas were wanting to leave the period of being ill behind (29%), no symptom burden (23%), or lacking internet skills (18%). Out of the 320 participants in the intervention group 167 (52%) used Oncokompas as intended. Among 72 non-users, main reasons for not using Oncokompas were no symptom burden (32%) or lack of time (26%). Among 248 survivors that activated their account, satisfaction and user-friendliness were rated with a 7 (scale 0-10). Within 3 (IQR 1-4) sessions, users selected 32 (IQR 6-37) topics. Main reasons for not using healthcare options in Act were that the information in Learn was already sufficient (44%) or no supportive care needs (32%). DISCUSSION: Main reasons for not reaching or using Oncokompas were no symptom burden, no supportive care needs, or lack of time. Users selected many cancer-generic and tumour-specific topics to address, indicating added value of the wide range of available topics.

Optimal timing and criteria of interim PET in DLBCL: a comparative study of 1692 patients.

Interim 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (Interim-18F-FDG-PET, hereafter I-PET) has the potential to guide treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) if the prognostic value is known. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal timing and response criteria for evaluating prognosis with I-PET in DLBCL. Individual patient data from 1692 patients with de novo DLBCL were combined and scans were harmonized. I-PET was performed at various time points during treatment with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy. Scans were interpreted using the Deauville score (DS) and change in maximum standardized uptake value (ΔSUVmax). Multilevel Cox proportional hazards models corrected for International Prognostic Index (IPI) score were used to study the effects of timing and response criteria on 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). I-PET after 2 cycles (I-PET2) and I-PET4 significantly discriminated good responders from poor responders, with the highest hazard ratios (HRs) for I-PET4. Multivariable HRs for a PET-positive result at I-PET2 and I-PET4 were 1.71 and 2.95 using DS4-5, 4.91 and 6.20 using DS5, and 2.93 and 4.65 using ΔSUVmax, respectively. ΔSUVmax identified a larger proportion of poor responders than DS5 did. For all criteria, the negative predictive value was >80%, and positive predictive values ranged from 30% to 70% at I-PET2 and I-PET4. Unlike I-PET1, I-PET3 discriminated good responders from poor responders using DS4-5 and DS5 thresholds (HRs, 2.94 and 4.67, respectively). I-PET2 and I-PET4 predict good response equally during R-CHOP therapy in DLBCL. Optimal timing and response criteria depend on the clinical context. Good response at I-PET2 is suggested for de-escalation trials, and poor response using ΔSUVmax at I-PET4 is suggested for randomized trials that are evaluating new therapies.

The eHealth self-management application 'Oncokompas' that supports cancer survivors to improve health-related quality of life and reduce symptoms: which groups benefit most?

BACKGROUND: Oncokompas is a web-based self-management application that supports cancer survivors to monitor their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms, and to obtain personalised feedback and tailored options for supportive care. In a large randomised controlled trial among survivors of head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer and (non-)Hodgkin lymphoma, Oncokompas proved to improve HRQOL, and to reduce several tumour-specific symptoms. Effect sizes were however small, and no effect was observed on the primary outcome patient activation. Therefore, this study aims to explore which subgroups of cancer survivors may especially benefit from Oncokompas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer survivors (n = 625) were randomly assigned to the intervention group (access to Oncokompas, n = 320) or control group (6 months waiting list, n = 305). Outcome measures were HRQOL, tumour-specific symptoms, and patient activation. Potential moderators included socio-demographic (sex, age, marital status, education, employment), clinical (tumour type, stage, time since diagnosis, treatment modality, comorbidities), and personal factors (self-efficacy, personal control, health literacy, Internet use), and patient activation, mental adjustment to cancer, HRQOL, symptoms, and need for supportive care, measured at baseline. Linear mixed models were performed to investigate potential moderators. RESULTS: The intervention effect on HRQOL was the largest among cancer survivors with low to moderate self-efficacy, and among those with high personal control and those with high health literacy scores. Cancer survivors with higher baseline symptom scores benefitted more on head and neck (pain in the mouth, social eating, swallowing, coughing, trismus), and colorectal cancer (weight) specific symptoms. DISCUSSION: Oncokompas seems most effective in reducing symptoms in head and neck cancer and colorectal cancer survivors who report a higher burden of tumour-specific symptoms. Oncokompas seems most effective in improving HRQOL in cancer survivors with lower self-efficacy, and in cancer survivors with higher personal control, and higher health literacy.

Cost-utility of an eHealth application 'Oncokompas' that supports cancer survivors in self-management: results of a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The eHealth self-management application 'Oncokompas' was developed to support cancer survivors in monitoring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms, and obtaining personalized feedback and options for supportive care. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility of Oncokompas compared with care as usual (CAU) among cancer survivors. METHODS: Survivors were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. Direct (non-)medical, indirect non-medical costs, and HRQOL were measured at 3- and 6-month follow-up, using iMTA Medical Consumption and Productivity Costs and the EuroQol-5D questionnaires. Mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were compared between both groups. RESULTS: In total, 625 survivors were randomized into intervention (n = 320) or control group (n = 305). Base case analysis showed that incremental costs from a societal perspective were - €163 (95% CI, - 665 to 326), and incremental QALYs were 0.0017 (95% CI, - 0.0121 to 0.0155) in the intervention group compared with those in the control group. The probability that, compared with CAU, Oncokompas is more effective was 60%, less costly 73%, and both more effective and less costly 47%. Sensitivity analyses showed that incremental costs vary between - €40 and €69, and incremental QALYs vary between - 0.0023 and - 0.0057. CONCLUSION: Oncokompas is likely to be equally effective on utilities, and not more expensive than CAU, and will therefore contribute to sustainable cancer survivorship care in a (cost-)effective manner. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Oncokompas seems to improve HRQOL and reduces the burden of several tumour-specific symptoms, while costs from a societal perspective are similar to CAU.

(18)F-fluoride-PET for dynamic in vivo monitoring of bone formation in multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Bone disease in multiple myeloma is characterized by reduced bone formation. The gold standard of bone formation is the mineral apposition rate (MAR), an invasive technique reflecting bone formation at a single site. We compared (18)F-fluoride-PET with the MAR in myeloma patients. METHODS: Bone formation was measured before and after bortezomib treatment by determination of the MAR in iliac bone marrow biopsies and the measurement of (18)F-uptake. RESULTS: The inter- and intra-individual variations in (18)F-uptake (SUVA50%) were pronounced as 33.50 (range 4.42 to 37.92) and 27.18 (range 4.00 to 31.18), respectively. A significant correlation between the MAR and (18)F-uptake was found (r = 0.80, p = 0.017). There was a heterogeneous response after treatment varying from -2.20 to 4.53. CONCLUSIONS: Iliac (18)F-uptake was associated with the local MAR in myeloma patients. Furthermore, (18)F-fluoride-PET demonstrated the heterogeneity of in vivo bone formation, enabling monitoring during treatment.

Treatment of older patients with mantle-cell lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The long-term prognosis for older patients with mantle-cell lymphoma is poor. Chemoimmunotherapy results in low rates of complete remission, and most patients have a relapse. We investigated whether a fludarabine-containing induction regimen improved the complete-remission rate and whether maintenance therapy with rituximab prolonged remission. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients 60 years of age or older with mantle-cell lymphoma, stage II to IV, who were not eligible for high-dose therapy to six cycles of rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) every 28 days or to eight cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) every 21 days. Patients who had a response underwent a second randomization to maintenance therapy with rituximab or interferon alfa, each given until progression. RESULTS: Of the 560 patients enrolled, 532 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for response, and 485 in the primary analysis for response. The median age was 70 years. Although complete-remission rates were similar with R-FC and R-CHOP (40% and 34%, respectively; P=0.10), progressive disease was more frequent with R-FC (14%, vs. 5% with R-CHOP). Overall survival was significantly shorter with R-FC than with R-CHOP (4-year survival rate, 47% vs. 62%; P=0.005), and more patients in the R-FC group died during the first remission (10% vs. 4%). Hematologic toxic effects occurred more frequently in the R-FC group than in the R-CHOP group, but the frequency of grade 3 or 4 infections was balanced (17% and 14%, respectively). In 274 of the 316 patients who were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy, rituximab reduced the risk of progression or death by 45% (in remission after 4 years, 58%, vs. 29% with interferon alfa; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.87; P=0.01). Among patients who had a response to R-CHOP, maintenance therapy with rituximab significantly improved overall survival (4-year survival rate, 87%, vs. 63% with interferon alfa; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: R-CHOP induction followed by maintenance therapy with rituximab is effective for older patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. (Funded by the European Commission and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00209209.).

[Radio-immunotherapy for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma]. / Radio-immunotherapie bij het B-cel-non-hodgkinlymfoom.

Radio-immunotherapy is a new treatment modality for patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In radio-immunotherapy, a therapeutic radionuclide is coupled to a monoclonal antibody directed against a tumour-specific or tumour-associated antigen. Biodistribution studies and dosimetry are used in the planning of radio-immunotherapy. Clinical studies, notably in patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, have demonstrated the clinical feasibility and efficacy of this treatment. The use of a high dose ofradio-immunotherapy in combination with (high-dose) chemotherapy and peripheral stem-cell transplantation constitutes a supplemental treatment for patients who respond insufficiently or not at all to standard therapy. The exact place of radio-immunotherapy in the treatment of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas is not yet clear.