Cargando…

A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials

The Lugano 2014 criteria are the standard for response assessment in lymphoma. We compared the prognostic performance of Lugano 2014 and the more recently developed response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017), which relies primarily on computed tomography and uses unidimensional measuremen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kostakoglu, Lale, Martelli, Maurizio, Sehn, Laurie H., Davies, Andrew, Trněný, Marek, Herold, Michael, Vitolo, Umberto, Hiddemann, Wolfgang, Trotman, Judith, Knapp, Andrea, Mattiello, Federico, Nielsen, Tina G., Sahin, Deniz, Sellam, Gila, Ward, Carol, Younes, Anas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10660391/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38024624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jha2.796
_version_ 1785137748523352064
author Kostakoglu, Lale
Martelli, Maurizio
Sehn, Laurie H.
Davies, Andrew
Trněný, Marek
Herold, Michael
Vitolo, Umberto
Hiddemann, Wolfgang
Trotman, Judith
Knapp, Andrea
Mattiello, Federico
Nielsen, Tina G.
Sahin, Deniz
Sellam, Gila
Ward, Carol
Younes, Anas
author_facet Kostakoglu, Lale
Martelli, Maurizio
Sehn, Laurie H.
Davies, Andrew
Trněný, Marek
Herold, Michael
Vitolo, Umberto
Hiddemann, Wolfgang
Trotman, Judith
Knapp, Andrea
Mattiello, Federico
Nielsen, Tina G.
Sahin, Deniz
Sellam, Gila
Ward, Carol
Younes, Anas
author_sort Kostakoglu, Lale
collection PubMed
description The Lugano 2014 criteria are the standard for response assessment in lymphoma. We compared the prognostic performance of Lugano 2014 and the more recently developed response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017), which relies primarily on computed tomography and uses unidimensional measurements, in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials, respectively. Concordance between responses according to the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 criteria was analyzed. Landmark analyses of progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by end of treatment (EOT) and end of induction (EOI) response status according to RECIL 2017 and Lugano 2014 criteria, and prognostic value of response at EOT/EOI were also compared. Overall, 1333 patients were included from GOYA and 502 from GALLIUM. Complete response (CR) status according to RECIL 2017 criteria showed high concordance with complete metabolic response (CMR) status by Lugano 2014 criteria in both GOYA (92.5%) and GALLIUM (92.4%). EOT and EOI CR/CMR status by both criteria was highly prognostic for PFS in GOYA (RECIL 2017 [CR]: hazard ratio [HR], 0.35 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26–0.46]; Lugano 2014 [CMR]: HR, 0.35 [95% CI 0.26–0.48]; both p < .0001) and GALLIUM (RECIL 2017 [CR]: HR, 0.35 [95% CI 0.23–0.53]; Lugano 2014 [CMR]: HR, 0.21 [95% CI 0.14–0.31]; both p < .0001). In conclusion, response categorization by RECIL 2017 is similar to that by Lugano 2014 criteria, with high concordance observed. Both were prognostic for PFS and OS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10660391
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106603912023-10-09 A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials Kostakoglu, Lale Martelli, Maurizio Sehn, Laurie H. Davies, Andrew Trněný, Marek Herold, Michael Vitolo, Umberto Hiddemann, Wolfgang Trotman, Judith Knapp, Andrea Mattiello, Federico Nielsen, Tina G. Sahin, Deniz Sellam, Gila Ward, Carol Younes, Anas EJHaem Haematologic Malignancy ‐ Lymphoid The Lugano 2014 criteria are the standard for response assessment in lymphoma. We compared the prognostic performance of Lugano 2014 and the more recently developed response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017), which relies primarily on computed tomography and uses unidimensional measurements, in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials, respectively. Concordance between responses according to the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 criteria was analyzed. Landmark analyses of progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by end of treatment (EOT) and end of induction (EOI) response status according to RECIL 2017 and Lugano 2014 criteria, and prognostic value of response at EOT/EOI were also compared. Overall, 1333 patients were included from GOYA and 502 from GALLIUM. Complete response (CR) status according to RECIL 2017 criteria showed high concordance with complete metabolic response (CMR) status by Lugano 2014 criteria in both GOYA (92.5%) and GALLIUM (92.4%). EOT and EOI CR/CMR status by both criteria was highly prognostic for PFS in GOYA (RECIL 2017 [CR]: hazard ratio [HR], 0.35 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26–0.46]; Lugano 2014 [CMR]: HR, 0.35 [95% CI 0.26–0.48]; both p < .0001) and GALLIUM (RECIL 2017 [CR]: HR, 0.35 [95% CI 0.23–0.53]; Lugano 2014 [CMR]: HR, 0.21 [95% CI 0.14–0.31]; both p < .0001). In conclusion, response categorization by RECIL 2017 is similar to that by Lugano 2014 criteria, with high concordance observed. Both were prognostic for PFS and OS. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-10-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10660391/ /pubmed/38024624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jha2.796 Text en © 2023 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Haematologic Malignancy ‐ Lymphoid
Kostakoglu, Lale
Martelli, Maurizio
Sehn, Laurie H.
Davies, Andrew
Trněný, Marek
Herold, Michael
Vitolo, Umberto
Hiddemann, Wolfgang
Trotman, Judith
Knapp, Andrea
Mattiello, Federico
Nielsen, Tina G.
Sahin, Deniz
Sellam, Gila
Ward, Carol
Younes, Anas
A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials
title A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials
title_full A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials
title_fullStr A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials
title_short A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials
title_sort comparison of the prognostic performance of the lugano 2014 and recil 2017 response criteria in patients with nhl from the phase iii goya and gallium trials
topic Haematologic Malignancy ‐ Lymphoid
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10660391/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38024624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jha2.796
work_keys_str_mv AT kostakoglulale acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT martellimaurizio acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT sehnlaurieh acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT daviesandrew acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT trnenymarek acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT heroldmichael acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT vitoloumberto acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT hiddemannwolfgang acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT trotmanjudith acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT knappandrea acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT mattiellofederico acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT nielsentinag acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT sahindeniz acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT sellamgila acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT wardcarol acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT younesanas acomparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT kostakoglulale comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT martellimaurizio comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT sehnlaurieh comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT daviesandrew comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT trnenymarek comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT heroldmichael comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT vitoloumberto comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT hiddemannwolfgang comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT trotmanjudith comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT knappandrea comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT mattiellofederico comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT nielsentinag comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT sahindeniz comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT sellamgila comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT wardcarol comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials
AT younesanas comparisonoftheprognosticperformanceofthelugano2014andrecil2017responsecriteriainpatientswithnhlfromthephaseiiigoyaandgalliumtrials