Reliability of staging, prognosis, and comorbidity data collection in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) multicenter outcomes database

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the HIV Setting

Despite the widespread use of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) and the subsequent decrease in AIDS-defining cancers, HIV-related lymphomas remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with HIV (PWH). Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) subtype in PWH. This lymphoma is a heterogeneous disease including morphological variants and molecular subtypes according to the cell of origin or the mutation profile. In the pre-cART era, treatment with standard-dose chemotherapy induced high rates of toxicity and outcomes were very poor. The introduction of cART and the incorporation of infection prophylaxis allowed the use of conventional intensive chemotherapy regimens used in the general population, such as R-CHOP or R-EPOCH. The use of cART during chemotherapy treatment was initially controversial due to the potential risk of adverse drug-drug interactions. However, the availability of current cART regimens with less potential to cause drug interactions and evidence that cART improves survival rates in NHL strongly support the use of cART in PWH with DLBCL. Consequently, interdisciplinary collaboration between HIV specialists and hemato-oncologists for the management of potential interactions and overlapping toxicities between antiretroviral and antineoplastic drugs is crucial for the optimal treatment of PWH with NHL.

Outcomes of secondary cytoreductive surgery for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Most women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer develop recurrent disease, despite maximal surgical cytoreduction and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In observational studies, secondary cytoreductive surgery has been associated with improved survival; however its use is controversial, because there are concerns that the improved outcomes may reflect selection bias rather than the superiority of secondary surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the overall survival of women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer treated at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers who receive secondary surgery vs chemotherapy.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study included women from 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers diagnosed with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. The primary outcome was overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to compare similar women who received secondary surgery vs chemotherapy. Additional analyses examined how these findings may be influenced by the prevalence of unobserved confounders at the time of recurrence.

RESULTS

Among 626 women, 146 (23%) received secondary surgery and 480 (77%) received chemotherapy. In adjusted analyses, patients who received secondary surgery were younger (P = 0.001), had earlier-stage disease at diagnosis (P = 0.002), and had longer disease-free intervals (P < 0.001) compared with those receiving chemotherapy. In the propensity score-matched groups (n = 244 patients), the median overall survival was 54 months in patients who received secondary surgery and 33 months in those treated with chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Among patients who received secondary surgery, 102 (70%) achieved optimal secondary cytoreduction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the 2 groups. In sensitivity analyses, the survival advantage associated with secondary surgery could be explained by the presence of more multifocal recurrences (if 4.3 times more common), ascites (if 2.7 times more common), or carcinomatosis (if 2.1 times more common) among patients who received chemotherapy instead of secondary surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer who received secondary surgery had favorable surgical characteristics and were likely to have minimal residual disease following secondary surgery. These patients had a superior median overall survival compared with patients who received chemotherapy, although unmeasured confounders may explain this observed difference.

Validation of the NCCN-IPI for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): the addition of β2 -microglobulin yields a more accurate GELTAMO-IPI

The study included 1848 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)patients treated with chemotherapy/rituximab. The aims were to validate the National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) and explore the effect of adding high Beta-2 microglobulin (β2M), primary extranodal presentation and intense treatment to the NCCN-IPI variables in order to develop an improved index. Comparing survival curves, NCCN-IPI discriminated better than IPI, separating four risk groups with 5-year overall survival rates of 93%, 83%, 67% and 49%, but failing to identify a true high-risk population. For the second aim the series was split into training and validation cohorts: in the former the multivariate model identified age, lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Stage III-IV, and β2M as independently significant, whereas the NCCN-IPI-selected extranodal sites, primary extranodal presentation and intense treatments were not. These results were confirmed in the validation cohort. The Grupo Español de Linfomas/Trasplante de Médula ósea (GELTAMO)-IPI developed here, with 7 points, significantly separated four risk groups (0, 1-3, 4 or ≥5 points) with 11%, 58%, 17% and 14% of patients, and 5-year overall survival rates of 93%, 79%, 66% and 39%, respectively. In the comparison GELTAMO IPI discriminated better than the NCCN-IPI. In conclusion, GELTAMO-IPI is more accurate than the NCCN-IPI and has statistical and practical advantages in that the better discrimination identifies an authentic high-risk group and is not influenced by primary extranodal presentation or treatments of different intensity.

Use and Effectiveness of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE

A 2006 randomized trial demonstrated a 16-month survival benefit with intraperitoneal and intravenous (IP/IV) chemotherapy administered to patients who had ovarian cancer, compared with IV chemotherapy alone, but more treatment-related toxicities. The objective of this study was to examine the use and effectiveness of IP/IV chemotherapy in clinical practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective cohort study of 823 women with stage III, optimally cytoreduced ovarian cancer diagnosed at six National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions. We examined IP/IV chemotherapy use in all patients diagnosed between 2003 and 2012 (N = 823), and overall survival and treatment-related toxicities with Cox regression and logistic regression, respectively, in a propensity score-matched sample (n = 402) of patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2012, excluding trial participants, to minimize selection bias.

RESULTS

Use of IP/IV chemotherapy increased from 0% to 33% between 2003 and 2006, increased to 50% from 2007 to 2008, and plateaued thereafter. Between 2006 and 2012, adoption of IP/IV chemotherapy varied by institution from 4% to 67% (P < .001) and 43% of patients received modified IP/IV regimens at treatment initiation. In the propensity score-matched sample, IP/IV chemotherapy was associated with significantly improved overall survival (3-year overall survival, 81% v 71%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.99), compared with IV chemotherapy, but also more frequent alterations in chemotherapy delivery route (adjusted rates discontinuation or change, 20.4% v 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.47 to 5.47).

CONCLUSION

Although the use of IP/IV chemotherapy increased significantly at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers between 2003 and 2012, fewer than 50% of eligible patients received it. Increasing IP/IV chemotherapy use in clinical practice may be an important and underused strategy to improve ovarian cancer outcomes.

Interinstitutional variation in management decisions for treatment of 4 common types of cancer: A multi-institutional cohort study

BACKGROUND

When clinical practice is governed by evidence-based guidelines and there is consensus about their validity, practice variation should be minimal. For areas in which evidence gaps exist, greater variation is expected.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess interinstitutional variation in management decisions for 4 common types of cancer.

DESIGN

Multi-institutional, observational cohort study of patients with cancer diagnosed between July 2006 through May 2011 and observed through 31 December 2011.

SETTING

18 cancer centers participating in the formulation of treatment guidelines and systematic outcomes assessment through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

PATIENTS

25 589 patients with incident breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

MEASUREMENTS

Interinstitutional variation for 171 binary management decisions with varying levels of supporting evidence. For each decision, variation was characterized by the median absolute deviation of the center-specific proportions.

RESULTS

Interinstitutional variation was high (median absolute deviation >10%) for 35 of 171 (20%) oncology management decisions, including 9 of 22 (41%) decisions for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16 of 76 (21%) for breast cancer, 7 of 47 (15%) for lung cancer, and 3 of 26 (12%) for colorectal cancer. Forty-six percent of high-variance decisions involved imaging or diagnostic procedures and 37% involved choice of chemotherapy regimen. The evidence grade underpinning the 35 high-variance decisions was category 1 for 0%, 2A for 49%, and 2B/other for 51%.

LIMITATION

Physician identifiers were unavailable, and results may not generalize outside of major cancer centers.

CONCLUSION

The substantial variation in institutional practice manifest among cancer centers reveals a lack of consensus about optimal management for common clinical scenarios. For clinicians, awareness of management decisions with high variation should prompt attention to patient preferences. For health systems, high variation can be used to prioritize comparative effectiveness research, patient-provider education, or pathway development.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

An enhanced International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated in the rituximab era

The International Prognostic Index (IPI) has been the basis for determining prognosis in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) for the past 20 years. Using raw clinical data from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) database collected during the rituximab era, we built an enhanced IPI with the goal of improving risk stratification. Clinical features from 1650 adults with de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosed from 2000-2010 at 7 NCCN cancer centers were assessed for their prognostic significance, with statistical efforts to further refine the categorization of age and normalized LDH. Five predictors (age, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), sites of involvement, Ann Arbor stage, ECOG performance status) were identified and a maximum of 8 points assigned. Four risk groups were formed: low (0-1), low-intermediate (2-3), high-intermediate (4-5), and high (6-8). Compared with the IPI, the NCCN-IPI better discriminated low- and high-risk subgroups (5-year overall survival [OS]: 96% vs 33%) than the IPI (5 year OS: 90% vs 54%), respectively. When validated using an independent cohort from the British Columbia Cancer Agency (n = 1138), it also demonstrated enhanced discrimination for both low- and high-risk patients. The NCCN-IPI is easy to apply and more powerful than the IPI for predicting survival in the rituximab era.

Comparative outcome of initial therapy for younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma: an analysis from the NCCN NHL Database

Few randomized trials have compared therapies in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and the role of aggressive induction is unclear. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) Database, a prospective cohort study collecting clinical, treatment, and outcome data at 7 NCCN centers, provides a unique opportunity to compare the effectiveness of initial therapies in MCL. Patients younger than 65 diagnosed between 2000 and 2008 were included if they received RHCVAD (rituximab fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin, and dexamethasone), RCHOP+HDT/ASCR (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone + high-dose therapy/autologous stem cell rescue), RHCVAD+HDT/ASCR, or RCHOP. Clinical parameters were similar for patients treated with RHCVAD (n = 83, 50%), RCHOP+HDT/ASCR (n = 34, 20%), RCHOP (n = 29, 17%), or RHCVAD+HDT/ASCR (n = 21, 13%). Overall, 70 (42%) of the 167 patients progressed and 25 (15%) expired with a median follow-up of 33 months. There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) between aggressive regimens (P > .57), which all demonstrated superior PFS compared with RCHOP (P < .004). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between the RHCVAD and RCHOP+HDT/ASCR (P = .98). RCHOP was inferior to RHCVAD and RCHOP+HDT/ASCR, which had similar PFS and OS. Despite aggressive regimens, the median PFS was 3 to 4 years. Future trials should focus on novel agents rather than comparing current approaches.