The clinical utility of the Revised European-American Lymphoma (R.E.A.L.) Classification: preliminary results of a prospective study in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from a single centre

BACKGROUND

The clinical applicability of the Revised European-American Lymphoma (R.E.A.L.) Classification has been demonstrated in several retrospective studies. The present, ongoing study was initiated to evaluate the clinical and pathological utility of the R.E.A.L. Classification compared with the Working Formulation (WF) in a prospective fashion, in an unselected patient population treated at a single institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective data were collected on 596 biopsies from 557 patients referred with an initial diagnosis of lymphoma. After initial histologic review, 465 biopsies from 441 patients were confirmed as non-Hodgkin's lyphoma (NHL), 412 of which could be classified in R.E.A.L. and WF.

RESULTS

According to WF criteria, 25% were low grade, 58% intermediate grade and 2% high grade, 14% could not be allocated to a WF subtype. According to R.E.A.L., 46% were diffuse large B cell, 19% follicle centre lymphoma, 6% marginal zone, 6% small lymphocytic, 4% mantle cell, and 3% T-cell anaplastic large cell. For those with B-cell NHL, 7% were unclassifiable in WF compared with 1% in R.E.A.L. Corresponding figures for T-cell NHL were 68% and 3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary results confirm the clinical utility of the R.E.A.L. Classification in a single institution setting, demonstrating that cases were more readily sub-typed in R.E.A.L. compared with WF. Frequencies are comparable with I.L.S.G. data. Further follow up with large patient numbers is on-going to analyse survival data with reference to clinical prognostic factors.

Cost-minimization analysis of CHOP, fludarabine and rituximab for the treatment of relapsed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the U.K

The optimal therapy for patients with relapsed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is unclear. Combination chemotherapy such as CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone) or purine analogues including fludarabine are frequently used and the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab has recently been licensed for use. However, no comparative studies of these therapies have been reported. Since relapsed indolent B-cell NHL is generally regarded as incurable with current therapies, the place of each of these therapies is likely to be determined by their relative efficacy, toxicity and cost. We undertook a literature review and a retrospective analysis of patients receiving combination chemotherapy for relapsed indolent B-cell NHL at our institution to determine the response rates and the duration of response when treated with CHOP or fludarabine. Reported response rates and median response duration for these regimens are similar, and similar to those reported in phase II studies of rituximab. A cost minimization analysis was therefore conducted. The per patient costs for the treatment of drug-related adverse events were pound 5049 for CHOP, pound 2953 for fludarabine and pound 109 for rituximab. When costs of a full course of each treatment were compared, the costs per patient for CHOP, fludarabine and rituximab were pound 7210 (pound 5975-8445), pound 10022 (pound 8917-11126) and pound 6080 (pound 5892-6267) respectively. In this preliminary analysis, rituximab appeared to have a similar efficacy rate to CHOP and fludarabine, but had significantly fewer adverse events and a lower total cost per patient. These data require confirmation in a prospective randomized study with formal assessment of cost-effectiveness.