Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25193992›Full record

ArticleAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2014

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas in a large US multicenter cohort: prognostication in the modern era including impact of frontline therapy.

J S Abramson, T Feldman, A R Kroll-Desrosiers, L S Muffly, E Winer, C R Flowers, F Lansigan, C Nabhan, L J Nastoupil, R Nath and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Update on T-Cell Lymphoma Epidemiology.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

J S AbramsonCenter for Lymphoma, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.
T FeldmanJohn Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack.
A R Kroll-DesrosiersDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.
L S MufflyDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago.
E WinerDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.
C R FlowersDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.
F LansiganDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon.
C NabhanDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago.
L J NastoupilDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.
R NathDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.
A GoyJohn Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack.
J J CastilloDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Miriam Hospital, Providence.
D JagadeeshDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.
B WodaDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.
S T RosenRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago.
S M SmithDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago.
A M EvensDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA. Electronic address: aevens@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USUniversity of Chicago · USEmory University · USHackensack University Medical Center · USAmerican University of Beirut Medical Center · LBMassachusetts General Hospital · USMiriam Hospital · USProvidence College · USRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern UniversityTufts Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimal frontline therapy for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) in the modern era remains unclear. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe examined patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes among 341 newly diagnosed PTCL patients from 2000 to 2011. Outcome was compared with a matched cohort of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients, and prognostic factors were assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

resultsPTCL subtypes included PTCL, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) (31%), anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma (ALCL) (26%), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (23%), NK/T-cell lymphoma (7%), acute T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (6%), and other (7%). Median age was 62 years (range 18-95 years), and 74% had stage III-IV disease. Twenty-three (7%) patients received only palliative care whereas 318 received chemotherapy: CHOP-like regimens (70%), hyperCVAD/MA (6%), or other (18%). Thirty-three patients (10%) underwent stem-cell transplantation (SCT) in first remission. The overall response rate was 73% (61% complete); 24% had primary refractory disease. With 39-month median follow-up, 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 32% and 52%. PFS and OS for PTCL patients were significantly inferior to matched patients with DLBCL. On multivariate analysis, stage I-II disease was the only significant pretreatment prognostic factor [PFS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.85, P = 0.007; OS: HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22-0.78, P = 0.006]. ALK positivity in ALCL was prognostic on univariate analysis, but lost significance on multivariate analysis. The most dominant prognostic factor was response to initial therapy (complete response versus other), including adjustment for stage and SCT [PFS: HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.14-0.28, P < 0.0001; OS: HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.40, P < 0.0001]. No overall survival difference was observed based on choice of upfront regimen or SCT in first remission.

conclusionsThis analysis identifies early-stage disease and initial treatment response as dominant prognostic factors in PTCL. No clear benefit was observed for patients undergoing consolidative SCT. Novel therapeutic approaches for PTCL are critically needed.

Indexed as

PrognosisAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCyclophosphamideDisease-Free SurvivalDoxorubicinFemaleHumansLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseLymphoma, T-Cell, PeripheralMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingCyclophosphamideDoxorubicinPrednisoneVincristineanaplastic large-cell lymphomaangioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphomaperipheral T-cell lymphomaPTCLstem-cell transplantation

Identifiers

PMID25193992
PMCPMC4481543
OpenAlexW2149005508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.