Short Cycle of Immunochemotherapy Followed by Radiation Therapy Compared with Prolonged Cycles of Immunochemotherapy for Localized DLBCL: The Osaka Lymphoma Study Group (OLSG) Retrospective Analysis
Authors: Terada Yoshiki , Take Hironori , Shibayama Hirohiko , Hashimoto Koji , Kuwayama Maki , Fujii Norie , Azenishi Yasuhiko , Maeda Yasuhiro , Yamagami Tamotu , Uoshima Nobuhiko , Tsukaguchi Machiko , Semba Osamu , Mitui Hideki , Ueda Shuji , Soma Toshihiro , Nakagawa Masashi , Matuda Mituhiro , Urase Fumiaki , Kiyoi Teruo , Yoshida Hitoshi , Sugahara Hiroyuki , Yamashita Kenichi , Tominaga Nobuhiko , Kubota Takeshi , Arima Nobuyoshi , Mori Shinichirou , Tamaki Toshiharu , Okamoto Takahiro , Anzai Naoyuki , Akasaka Hiroshi , Tabata Rie , Ikeda Junichiro , Wada Naoki , Aozasa Katsuyuki , Hino Masayuki 
Published: October 2019

Abstract 1628

Introduction:

Standard treatment for localized diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has been rather a short cycle of immunochemotherapy followed by involved field radiotherapy or prolonged cycles of immunochemotherapy. There is no convincing evidence in favor of either strategy. This retrospective analysis is an attempt to compare these treatment options.

Methods:

Patients were eligible if they had histologicaly newly diagnosed localized DLBCL by the Osaka Lymphoma Study Group (OLSG) central review panel and registered between 2003 and 2011, and received rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (R-CHOP) like immunochemotherapy with more than three consecutive courses as initial therapy. In this study, we defined a localized DLBCL as DLBCL with Ann Arbor stage I or non-bulky (<10cm) stage II. One hundred thirty-seven localized DLBCL patients were analyzed retrospectively. Of 137 patients, 83 had 6 to 8 cycles of R-CHOP like immunochemotherapy (Chemo group), and 28 had 3 to 4 cycles of R-CHOP like immunochemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (Chemo+RT group). In this study, the efficacy and tolerability of the 2 treatment groups, Chemo group and Chemo+RT group, in localized DLBCL patients were compared. Treatment outcomes were evaluated, overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and toxicity were compared according to each treatment option and risk factor.

Results:

With a median follow-up time of 34 months, neither OS nor PFS differ between these treatment groups. The 3-year OS were 85.5% in Chemo group and 96.2% in Chemo+RT group, respectively (P=0.225). The 3-year PFS were 74.3% in Chemo group and 89.7% in Chemo+RT group, respectively (P=0.185). A multivariate Cox regression model showed that Chemo+RT group have a tendency to improve PFS [hazard ratio =0.33; 95% confidence interval 0.10–1.07; P =0.066] of localized DLBCL compared with Chemo group. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and neutopenic fever were more frequent in patients with Chemo group (P<0.01, P<0.01, respectively).

Conclusion:

For the treatment of localized DLBCL, although the difference between two treatment options was not significant in efficacy, short cycle of immunochemotherapy followed by radiation therapy seems to be superior to prolonged cycles of immunochemotherapy in terms of safety. Further studies are needed to define the optimal treatment option for localized DLBCL in the rituximab era.

Disclosures:

No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.