Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Incidence, Treatment and Prognosis of Patients with Relapsed Burkitt Lymphoma/Leukemia Treated with Specific Chemotherapy or Immunochemotherapy in Spain

Authors: Alberto Pineda; Juan-Manuel Sancho; Olga Garcia; Jordi Esteve; Mar Tormo; Pilar Martinez; Ferran Vall-llovera; +26 Authors

Incidence, Treatment and Prognosis of Patients with Relapsed Burkitt Lymphoma/Leukemia Treated with Specific Chemotherapy or Immunochemotherapy in Spain

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Relapses after front-line therapy for Burkitt lymphoma/leukemia (BL) are unfrequent, and there is scarce information about the best rescue strategy for these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of relapse, salvage treatment and prognosis after relapse in patients with BL treated with two consecutive Spanish protocols. Patients and methods: Retrospective study of patients diagnosed with BL in 40 Spanish hospitals betwen January 1997 and October 2014 treated with first line chemotherapy according to protocols PETHEMA LAL-3/97 (specific chemotherapy without rituximab) and BURKIMAB (rituximab plus specific chemotherapy). The demographic, clinical and biological characteristics were collected at the time of diagnosis and at relapse, as well as the salvage treatment and outcomes. Results: 233 patients were diagnosed with Burkitt lymphoma (n=150) or leukemia (n=83) and received first-line therapy according to PETHEMA LAL-3/97 (n=53) and BURKIMAB (n=180) protocols. Baseline characteristics at diagnosis are described in Table 1. A total of 26 patients relapsed, 11 (28%) treated with PETHEMA LAL-3/97 protocol and 15 (10%) with BURKIMAB protocol (p=0.009). The cumulative incidence of relapse at 10 years was 27% (95% CI, 12%-42%) in PETHEMA LAL-3/97 protocol vs.16% (95% CI, 4%-28%) in BURKIMAB protocol (p= 0.013) (Figure 1). Time to relapse was shorter in PETHEMA LAL-3/97 protocol (median of 3.7 months) vs. BURKIMAB protocol (6.3 months), but it was not significant (p=0.506). No differences were observed in relapse incidence between Burkitt leukemia and Burkitt lymphoma in PETHEMA LAL-3/97 protocol (6/31 vs. 5/22, p=1) and BURKIMAB protocol (7/41 vs. 8/107, p=0.124). Out of 15 patients in whom rescue treatment strategy was evaluable, 12 received chemotherapy with high-dose methotrexate and/or cytarabine (4 of the them followed response, CR in 2, followed by SCT in the 2 patients achieving PR [autologous in one and allogeneic SCT in the other]), and the remaining 3 patients received DA-EPOCH-R (n=1, achieving CR), R-ICE (n=1, no response) and paliative care (n=1). At the time of the analysis, only 3 patients are alive. Median overall survival after relapse was 3 months (95% CI, 0.9-5.1) for PETHEMA LAL-3/97 relapsed group and 3.6 months (95% CI, 0.1-7.1) for BURKIMAB relapsed patients group. Conclusions: Patients with Burkitt leukemia/lymphoma treated with specific immunochemotherapy have lower probability of relapse compared with those treated with specific chemotherapy without rituximab. In our series, the most frequent regimens administered for the treatment of relapsed patients were based in high-dose methotrexate and/or cytarabine. The prognosis of relapsed Burkitt leukemia/lymphoma is poor, independently of the type of rescue therapy. Supported by grants RD12/0036/0029 (RTICC, FEDER), Instituto Carlos III, Spain. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    1
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
1
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!