Purpose: to analize the response rate and survival of a series of patients with disseminated large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP/21 x 8 cycles and to evaluate the prognostic factors and the prognostic value of gallium-67 imaging.

Patients and Methods: 128 patients with DLCL have been prospectively treated with R-CHOP/21 from March 2002 to March 2004, ages between 18 and 85 years. Survival curves were expressed as Kaplan-Meier plots. Prognostic factors were evaluated by the Chi-square test. Survival curves were compared by the Log-rank test.

Results: the median age was 65 years (limits: 27–83), 31% older than 70 years. 59 (54%) patients were males. Gallium imaging was positive at diagnosis in 91%. Clinical presentation of DLCL was: bulky disease: 40%, extra-nodal disease: 66% (³ 2 sites: 33%), B symptoms: 41%, ECOG ³ 2: 53%, LDH>N: 67%, IPI ³ 3: 60%. Chemotherapy cycles received were: <6: 20%; 6: 34%; 8: 46%. The intention-to-treat response was: CR 72%, PR 11%, failures 11%, not evaluable: 6%. Survival, with a median follow-up of 13 months, was: OS: 74%, and EFS: 70%. There are no differences between patients who have been treated with 6 or 8 cycles. EFS of patients with normal gallium imaging at the end of treatment was 90% (p=0.03). EFS was not different between patients older or younger than 70 years. EFS of patients with age adjusted IPI 0 was 100%, IPI 1:70%; IPI 3: 82% and IPI 4: 48%. Three (5%) patients relapsed. Prognostic factors for OS and EFS were: LDH > Normal (p=0.01 y p=0.005 respectively) and ECOG ³ 2 (p=0.0008 y p=0.02).

Conclusion: Rituximab associated with CHOP improves the results of historical series treated with CHOP for patients of all ages, but in patients with age-adjusted IPI=3 results have to be improved with other therapeutic strategies. Normalization of gallium-67 imaging at the end of treatment is predictive of a significantly better EFS. Age is not a prognostic factor in patients who receive the same treatment. For patients with disseminated disease, LDH and ECOG are the only significant prognostic factors.

Author notes

Corresponding author

Sign in via your Institution