OS is worse with refractory vs relapsed PTCL

Frederick Lansigan, MD

Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—Patients with refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) have significantly worse overall survival (OS) than patients with relapsed PTCL, according to data from the COMPLETE registry.

The data also showed that patients treated with a curative intent had significantly better OS than patients who received palliative care.

However, there was no significant difference in OS according to disease subtype or between patients who received conventional chemotherapy and those who received novel agents.

Frederick Lansigan, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, presented these data at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum. Data were also presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 4150).

Dr Lansigan and his colleagues analyzed COMPLETE data on patients with mature T-cell lymphomas, focusing on patients in first relapse and those with primary refractory disease.

Refractory disease was defined as no response to initial treatment or disease progression during or within 1 month of completing front-line therapy.

Relapsed disease was defined as progression more than 1 month after completing induction therapy in patients who initially achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR).

Patients

There were 138 patients in the analysis—58 with relapsed disease and 80 with refractory disease.

The median time from informed consent to diagnosis of relapsed disease was 11.4 months, and the time to diagnosis of refractory disease was 2.2 months.

Disease subtypes included:

• PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS)—35% of relapsed and 28% of refractory patients
• Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma—22% and 16%
• ALK- anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL)—10% and 14%
• ALK+ ALCL—3% and 4%
• Natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type—9% and 8%
• Enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma—5% and 3%
• Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma—3% and 5%
• Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma—2% and 5%
• Transformed mycosis fungoides—0% and 10%
• “Other”—10% and 9%.

Treatment

Most patients received combination regimens as front-line therapy—81% in the relapsed group and 68% in the refractory group. Nineteen and 32%, respectively, received single-agent treatment.

A majority of patients in both groups received chemotherapy or novel agents as second-line therapy—65% in the relapsed group and 71% in the refractory group. (Novel agents include histone deacetylase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, immunoconjugates, pralatrexate, bendamustine, denileukin diftitox, alisertib, and lenalidomide.)

Fifteen percent of relapsed patients and 16% of refractory patients received palliative care/best supportive care/observation as second-line therapy. Fifteen percent and 7%, respectively, had a transplant. Four percent and 6%, respectively, received chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Of the patients who received systemic therapy second-line, 53% of relapsed patients received novel therapies, and 47% received conventional chemotherapy. Twenty-five percent of the refractory patients received novel therapies, and 75% received chemotherapy (P=0.005 for relapsed/refractory comparison of novel vs traditional therapy).

Most patients with relapsed disease received single agents (74%) rather than multi-agent regimens (26%) as second-line therapy. However, single-agent treatment was about as common as multi-agent regimens for refractory patients—53% and 47%, respectively (P=0.03 for relapsed/refractory comparison).

The objective response rates to second-line therapy were 61% for relapsed patients and 37% for refractory patients (P=0.02). The CR rates were 37% and 12%, respectively (P=0.003).

Survival

The median OS was significantly better for patients with relapsed PTCL—15.7 months, compared to 6.1 months for refractory patients (P=0.0237).

OS was also significantly better for patients who achieved a CR. The median OS was not reached for patients with a CR, 14.6 months for those with a PR, 13.7 months for those with stable disease, and 3.2 months for those who progressed (P<0.0001).

There was no significant difference in median OS for patients who received novel agents and those who received traditional chemotherapy—14.6 months and 11.1 months, respectively (P=0.2362).

Disease subtype

There was no significant difference in OS between patients who had PTCL-NOS, ALCL, or another PTCL subtype.

For relapsed patients, the median OS was 26 months for those with ALCL, 34 months for those with PTCL-NOS, and 35 months for those with other subtypes (P=0.82).

For refractory patients, the median OS was 31 months for those with ALCL, 7 months for those with PTCL-NOS, and 11 months for those with other subtypes (P=0.36).

Treatment intent

There was a significant difference in OS according to the intent of treatment.

Among relapsed patients, the median OS was not reached for those treated with curative intent and was 17 months for those who received palliative care (P=0.001).

Among refractory patients, the median OS was 15 months for those treated with curative intent and 5 months for those who received palliative care (P=0.005).

Dr Lansigan noted that the better outcomes in patients treated with curative intent may reflect a host of things, such as performance status, fitness for treatment, and transplant eligibility.

Treatment type

In relapsed patients, there was no significant difference in median OS between patients who underwent a transplant (not reached), those who received chemotherapy (24.4 months), and those who received best supportive care (20.9 months).

In refractory patients, the differences were significant. The median OS was not reached in patients who underwent a transplant, 11.6 months in those who received chemotherapy, and 3.5 months in those who received best supportive care (P=0.001).

In closing, Dr Lansigan noted that, in addition to showing a difference in OS between patients with relapsed and refractory PTCL, the COMPLETE registry highlights differences in practice patterns.

“The refractory group was treated more aggressively with traditional combination salvage regimens, but this does not appear to be better than single-agent chemo,” he said. “Of course, selection bias does play a role here, but this is hypothesis-generating.”

“In the relapsed PTCL group, novel, single-agent chemo was used more often, with good effect, with high response rates and long-term survival outcomes. So novel single agents can be considered as salvage therapy for both relapsed and refractory PTCL. Clinical trials are needed to improve outcomes in this poor-risk subgroup.”

Frederick Lansigan, MD

Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—Patients with refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) have significantly worse overall survival (OS) than patients with relapsed PTCL, according to data from the COMPLETE registry.

The data also showed that patients treated with a curative intent had significantly better OS than patients who received palliative care.

However, there was no significant difference in OS according to disease subtype or between patients who received conventional chemotherapy and those who received novel agents.

Frederick Lansigan, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, presented these data at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum. Data were also presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 4150).

Dr Lansigan and his colleagues analyzed COMPLETE data on patients with mature T-cell lymphomas, focusing on patients in first relapse and those with primary refractory disease.

Refractory disease was defined as no response to initial treatment or disease progression during or within 1 month of completing front-line therapy.

Relapsed disease was defined as progression more than 1 month after completing induction therapy in patients who initially achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR).

Patients

There were 138 patients in the analysis—58 with relapsed disease and 80 with refractory disease.

The median time from informed consent to diagnosis of relapsed disease was 11.4 months, and the time to diagnosis of refractory disease was 2.2 months.

Disease subtypes included:

• PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS)—35% of relapsed and 28% of refractory patients
• Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma—22% and 16%
• ALK- anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL)—10% and 14%
• ALK+ ALCL—3% and 4%
• Natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type—9% and 8%
• Enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma—5% and 3%
• Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma—3% and 5%
• Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma—2% and 5%
• Transformed mycosis fungoides—0% and 10%
• “Other”—10% and 9%.

Treatment

Most patients received combination regimens as front-line therapy—81% in the relapsed group and 68% in the refractory group. Nineteen and 32%, respectively, received single-agent treatment.

A majority of patients in both groups received chemotherapy or novel agents as second-line therapy—65% in the relapsed group and 71% in the refractory group. (Novel agents include histone deacetylase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, immunoconjugates, pralatrexate, bendamustine, denileukin diftitox, alisertib, and lenalidomide.)

Fifteen percent of relapsed patients and 16% of refractory patients received palliative care/best supportive care/observation as second-line therapy. Fifteen percent and 7%, respectively, had a transplant. Four percent and 6%, respectively, received chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Of the patients who received systemic therapy second-line, 53% of relapsed patients received novel therapies, and 47% received conventional chemotherapy. Twenty-five percent of the refractory patients received novel therapies, and 75% received chemotherapy (P=0.005 for relapsed/refractory comparison of novel vs traditional therapy).

Most patients with relapsed disease received single agents (74%) rather than multi-agent regimens (26%) as second-line therapy. However, single-agent treatment was about as common as multi-agent regimens for refractory patients—53% and 47%, respectively (P=0.03 for relapsed/refractory comparison).

The objective response rates to second-line therapy were 61% for relapsed patients and 37% for refractory patients (P=0.02). The CR rates were 37% and 12%, respectively (P=0.003).

Survival

The median OS was significantly better for patients with relapsed PTCL—15.7 months, compared to 6.1 months for refractory patients (P=0.0237).

OS was also significantly better for patients who achieved a CR. The median OS was not reached for patients with a CR, 14.6 months for those with a PR, 13.7 months for those with stable disease, and 3.2 months for those who progressed (P<0.0001).

There was no significant difference in median OS for patients who received novel agents and those who received traditional chemotherapy—14.6 months and 11.1 months, respectively (P=0.2362).

Disease subtype

There was no significant difference in OS between patients who had PTCL-NOS, ALCL, or another PTCL subtype.

For relapsed patients, the median OS was 26 months for those with ALCL, 34 months for those with PTCL-NOS, and 35 months for those with other subtypes (P=0.82).

For refractory patients, the median OS was 31 months for those with ALCL, 7 months for those with PTCL-NOS, and 11 months for those with other subtypes (P=0.36).

Treatment intent

There was a significant difference in OS according to the intent of treatment.

Among relapsed patients, the median OS was not reached for those treated with curative intent and was 17 months for those who received palliative care (P=0.001).

Among refractory patients, the median OS was 15 months for those treated with curative intent and 5 months for those who received palliative care (P=0.005).

Dr Lansigan noted that the better outcomes in patients treated with curative intent may reflect a host of things, such as performance status, fitness for treatment, and transplant eligibility.

Treatment type

In relapsed patients, there was no significant difference in median OS between patients who underwent a transplant (not reached), those who received chemotherapy (24.4 months), and those who received best supportive care (20.9 months).

In refractory patients, the differences were significant. The median OS was not reached in patients who underwent a transplant, 11.6 months in those who received chemotherapy, and 3.5 months in those who received best supportive care (P=0.001).

In closing, Dr Lansigan noted that, in addition to showing a difference in OS between patients with relapsed and refractory PTCL, the COMPLETE registry highlights differences in practice patterns.

“The refractory group was treated more aggressively with traditional combination salvage regimens, but this does not appear to be better than single-agent chemo,” he said. “Of course, selection bias does play a role here, but this is hypothesis-generating.”

“In the relapsed PTCL group, novel, single-agent chemo was used more often, with good effect, with high response rates and long-term survival outcomes. So novel single agents can be considered as salvage therapy for both relapsed and refractory PTCL. Clinical trials are needed to improve outcomes in this poor-risk subgroup.”

Frederick Lansigan, MD

Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—Patients with refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) have significantly worse overall survival (OS) than patients with relapsed PTCL, according to data from the COMPLETE registry.

The data also showed that patients treated with a curative intent had significantly better OS than patients who received palliative care.

However, there was no significant difference in OS according to disease subtype or between patients who received conventional chemotherapy and those who received novel agents.

Frederick Lansigan, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, presented these data at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum. Data were also presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 4150).

Dr Lansigan and his colleagues analyzed COMPLETE data on patients with mature T-cell lymphomas, focusing on patients in first relapse and those with primary refractory disease.

Refractory disease was defined as no response to initial treatment or disease progression during or within 1 month of completing front-line therapy.

Relapsed disease was defined as progression more than 1 month after completing induction therapy in patients who initially achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR).

Patients

There were 138 patients in the analysis—58 with relapsed disease and 80 with refractory disease.

The median time from informed consent to diagnosis of relapsed disease was 11.4 months, and the time to diagnosis of refractory disease was 2.2 months.

Disease subtypes included:

• PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS)—35% of relapsed and 28% of refractory patients
• Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma—22% and 16%
• ALK- anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL)—10% and 14%
• ALK+ ALCL—3% and 4%
• Natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type—9% and 8%
• Enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma—5% and 3%
• Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma—3% and 5%
• Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma—2% and 5%
• Transformed mycosis fungoides—0% and 10%
• “Other”—10% and 9%.

Treatment

Most patients received combination regimens as front-line therapy—81% in the relapsed group and 68% in the refractory group. Nineteen and 32%, respectively, received single-agent treatment.

A majority of patients in both groups received chemotherapy or novel agents as second-line therapy—65% in the relapsed group and 71% in the refractory group. (Novel agents include histone deacetylase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, immunoconjugates, pralatrexate, bendamustine, denileukin diftitox, alisertib, and lenalidomide.)

Fifteen percent of relapsed patients and 16% of refractory patients received palliative care/best supportive care/observation as second-line therapy. Fifteen percent and 7%, respectively, had a transplant. Four percent and 6%, respectively, received chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Of the patients who received systemic therapy second-line, 53% of relapsed patients received novel therapies, and 47% received conventional chemotherapy. Twenty-five percent of the refractory patients received novel therapies, and 75% received chemotherapy (P=0.005 for relapsed/refractory comparison of novel vs traditional therapy).

Most patients with relapsed disease received single agents (74%) rather than multi-agent regimens (26%) as second-line therapy. However, single-agent treatment was about as common as multi-agent regimens for refractory patients—53% and 47%, respectively (P=0.03 for relapsed/refractory comparison).

The objective response rates to second-line therapy were 61% for relapsed patients and 37% for refractory patients (P=0.02). The CR rates were 37% and 12%, respectively (P=0.003).

Survival

The median OS was significantly better for patients with relapsed PTCL—15.7 months, compared to 6.1 months for refractory patients (P=0.0237).

OS was also significantly better for patients who achieved a CR. The median OS was not reached for patients with a CR, 14.6 months for those with a PR, 13.7 months for those with stable disease, and 3.2 months for those who progressed (P<0.0001).

There was no significant difference in median OS for patients who received novel agents and those who received traditional chemotherapy—14.6 months and 11.1 months, respectively (P=0.2362).

Disease subtype

There was no significant difference in OS between patients who had PTCL-NOS, ALCL, or another PTCL subtype.

For relapsed patients, the median OS was 26 months for those with ALCL, 34 months for those with PTCL-NOS, and 35 months for those with other subtypes (P=0.82).

For refractory patients, the median OS was 31 months for those with ALCL, 7 months for those with PTCL-NOS, and 11 months for those with other subtypes (P=0.36).

Treatment intent

There was a significant difference in OS according to the intent of treatment.

Among relapsed patients, the median OS was not reached for those treated with curative intent and was 17 months for those who received palliative care (P=0.001).

Among refractory patients, the median OS was 15 months for those treated with curative intent and 5 months for those who received palliative care (P=0.005).

Dr Lansigan noted that the better outcomes in patients treated with curative intent may reflect a host of things, such as performance status, fitness for treatment, and transplant eligibility.

Treatment type

In relapsed patients, there was no significant difference in median OS between patients who underwent a transplant (not reached), those who received chemotherapy (24.4 months), and those who received best supportive care (20.9 months).

In refractory patients, the differences were significant. The median OS was not reached in patients who underwent a transplant, 11.6 months in those who received chemotherapy, and 3.5 months in those who received best supportive care (P=0.001).

In closing, Dr Lansigan noted that, in addition to showing a difference in OS between patients with relapsed and refractory PTCL, the COMPLETE registry highlights differences in practice patterns.

“The refractory group was treated more aggressively with traditional combination salvage regimens, but this does not appear to be better than single-agent chemo,” he said. “Of course, selection bias does play a role here, but this is hypothesis-generating.”

“In the relapsed PTCL group, novel, single-agent chemo was used more often, with good effect, with high response rates and long-term survival outcomes. So novel single agents can be considered as salvage therapy for both relapsed and refractory PTCL. Clinical trials are needed to improve outcomes in this poor-risk subgroup.”