The efficacy and cardiac toxicity of different‐dose pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in elderly patients with diffuse large B lymphoma

OBJECTIVES: In order to explore the impact of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) dose intensity on survival outcomes of newly diagnosed elderly patients with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL), we performed a retrospective study to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of RCEOP (70 mg/m(2)), RCdOP (20–30 mg/m(2)) and RCDOP (30–45 mg/m(2)). The optimal PLD dose of patients with different clinical characteristics of subgroups was explored to provide a clue for the selection of clinical PLD dose. METHODS: A total of 335 DLBCL patients (60–85 years old) who were newly diagnosed and completed at least four cycles of RCE(D)OP were selected. The patients were mainly divided into RCEOP (126 cases) (epirubicin 70 mg/m(2)), RCdOP (151 cases) (PLD 20–30 mg/m(2)) and RCdOP (58 cases) (PLD 30–45 mg/m(2)). The effects of different doses of PLD on clinical efficacy, cardiotoxicity and prognosis of patients were retrospectively analyzed. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare the clinical characteristics of different subgroups. RESULTS: Our study showed that PLD and epirubicin had similar efficacy (overall survival (OS) p = 0.776; progression‐free survival (PFS) p = 0.959). RCDOP (30–45 mg/m(2) PLD) group had a higher complete remission (CR) rate of 75.9% compared with RCdOP (20–30 mg/m(2) PLD) group (P D vs. d = 0.018). In the overall population, there was no significant difference in survival between RCDOP and RCdOP groups (OS P D vs. d = 0.661; PFS P D vs. d = 0.212). In patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases, the PFS of the RCDOP group was significantly better than the RCdOP group (p = 0.043). Meanwhile, patients in the RCDOP group tended to have a better prognosis than those in the RCEOP group (OS: RCDOP vs. RCEOP p = 0.054, PFS: RCDOP vs. RCEOP p = 0.053). There was no significant difference in the incidence of cardiotoxicity and other adverse events among the three groups. For the low‐risk (age‐adjusted‐International Prognostic Index = 0/1) old patients without cardiovascular disease, RCdOP was considered a better strategy in OS (p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: In the general population, the CR rate in the RCDOP group was significantly higher than that in the RCdOP group (p = 0.018). For elderly DLBCL patients with cardiovascular disease, the effect benefit brought by the PLD dose was more obvious, and the PFS of the RCDOP group was significantly better than that of the RCdOP group (p = 0.043). Full dose of PLD is an efficient alternative in the treatment of patients with preexisting cardiovascular diseases.