All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the Lymphoma Coalition.

The Lymphoma Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

An expert panel hosted by

The Lymphoma Hub logo and the Multiple Myeloma Hub logo

Sequencing immune-based therapies in B-cell malignancies

with Ulric Jäger, Sagar Lonial, and Krina Patel

Saturday, June 15 | 18:00-19:30 CEST

Register now

This independent education activity is sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. All content is developed independently by the faculty. Funders are allowed no direct influence on the content of this activity.

  TRANSLATE

The Lymphoma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Lymphoma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Lymphoma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
2022-04-27T10:43:30.000Z

Outcomes of elderly patients with primary CNS lymphoma in different socioeconomic settings; a 12-year population-based analysis of combined modality treatment

Apr 27, 2022
Share:
Learning objective: After reading this article, learners will be able to cite a new clinical development in lymphoma/CLL

Bookmark this article

Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is an aggressive lymphoma subtype characterized by brain, spinal cord, meninges, or eye involvement without systemic features. Approximately 50% of all patients with PCNSL are aged >60 years, yet the optimal treatment for elderly patients with PCNSL has not yet been established, translating to median survival rates of around 6–7 months. Herein lies an unmet need to evaluate the long-term survival outcomes of elderly patients diagnosed with PCNSL. Thus, Samhouri, et al., published an analysis in Anticancer Research evaluating patient outcomes to different modalities for the treatment of elderly patients with PCNSL, and aimed to characterize predictors affecting treatment decisions.1 The study compared outcomes to chemotherapy, radiation, and a combination of both (combined modality treatment [CMT]) as first-line therapy, while examining socioeconomic disparities in lymphoma care.

Study design

  • A comprehensive retrospective cohort analysis using data from the National Cancer Database of 6,537 patients diagnosed with PCNSL between 2004 and 2015 across the United States.
  • Eligible patients were >65 years of age and human immunodeficiency virus negative.
  • Survival outcomes were compared using a propensity score model, which considered age, sex, race, insurance status, median income, education, treatment facility type, type of area, comorbidity score, and distance from the treating facility.
  • Primary outcome: overall survival (OS) in patients who received chemotherapy/radiation alone, CMT, or no treatment.

Results

  • The majority of patients received chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment (Figure 1).
  • Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of patients analyzed.

Figure 1. Consort diagram of patients of interest*

CMT, combined modality treatment; PCNSL, peripheral central nervous system lymphoma.
*Adapted from Samhouri, et al.1


Table 1.
Adjusted baseline characteristics of patients selected for analysis*

Characteristic, %
(unless stated
otherwise)

Chemotherapy
alone

Radiation
alone

CMT

No
treatment

p
value

Mean age, years

73.9

74.5

73.8

74.3

0.08

Female

52

54

52

53

0.93

Race

 

 

 

 

0.89

              Non-Hispanic
              White

88

88

89

89

 

              Black

3

3

2

2

 

              Hispanic

4

5

3

4

 

              Other

5

5

5

5

 

Facility type

 

 

 

 

0.88

              Community
              cancer program

3

3

3

3

 

              Comprehensive
              community

35

37

35

35

 

Median income

 

 

 

 

1.00

              Less than
              $38,000

15

14

14

15

 

              $38,000–
              $47,999

22

22

23

22

 

              $48,000–
              $62,999

28

28

28

28

 

              More than
              $63,000

35

36

35

35

 

Percentage of at least
high school education

 

 

 

 

1.00

              ≥29%

14

14

13

14

 

              20%–28.9%

24

24

25

25

 

              14%–19.9%

35

35

36

35

 

              <14%

27

26

27

27

 

Insurance

 

 

 

 

0.95

              Not insured

1

1

1

1

 

              Private

              insurance

12

12

13

12

 

              Medicaid

1

1

1

1

 

              Medicare

85

86

86

85

 

              Others

1

1

0

1

 

Type of area

 

 

 

 

0.37

              Metropolitan

83

85

84

83

 

              Urban

15

15

14

15

 

              Rural

2

1

1

2

 

Comorbidity Score

 

 

 

 

0.92

              0

60

60

62

59

 

              1

25

24

25

25

 

              2

10

11

10

11

 

              ≥3

5

5

4

5

 

Mean distance, miles

39.8

80.0

30.88

35.07

<0.01

*Data from Samhouri, et al.1

Treatment selection and socioeconomic factors

  • Of the entire patient cohort, 51.5% and 13.1% received chemotherapy alone and radiation alone, respectively, whereas 12.8% and 22.2% received CMT and no treatment, respectively.
  • Multivariable logistic regression analysis highlighted a number of factors associated with differential treatment:
    • The probability of receiving any treatment reduced with advancing age and higher comorbidity score.
    • Admission at an academic or research institution and having insurance were linked with more treatment administration.
    • Patients who had private insurance and Medicare underwent more treatment than those with no insurance.
  • Of the treated patients, CMT use was significantly less in elderly patients, those undergoing treatment at an academic/research center, with higher income, and living in rural areas.

Survival

  • Median follow-up: 7.1 months (IQR, 2.2–29.3).
  • Patients who received CMT over single-modality treatment, in both the entire population and an age-adjusted analysis, had significantly longer OS (Table 2; p < 0.001).

Table 2. Survival rates by treatment category*

 

All patients

Chemotherapy alone

CMT

Radiation alone

No treatment

Median OS, months

7.0

13.37

19.5

5.0

2.0

Age-adjusted median OS, months

5.2

7.0

14.0

4.1

1.7

Predicted 12-month OS, %

 

40.6

53.2

25.2

14.3

Predicted 24-month OS, %

 

31.3

38.5

14.3

10.1

*Data from Samhouri, et al.1
patients aged 75 years or older.

Conclusion

This retrospective study indicates that, although combining radiation with chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for elderly patients with PCNSL, there is an OS benefit of CMT over single modality treatment which was greatest in the initial year of treatment. Notably, the survival benefit then began to steadily decline to the point of overlap with other groups, indicating late toxicity and increased probability of death in patients receiving CMT. Further work should focus on identifying factors which contribute to increased toxicity and establishing an optimal radiation dosage and technique to minimize this. Furthermore, confirmatory studies that explore the survival advantage of CMT over single modality treatment should be conducted in randomized trials.

Disparities were identified among patients with PCNSL; treatment at an academic/research center, increased age, higher income, and living in rural areas were all associated with decreased CMT administration. Treatment in academic/research programs increased the likelihood of receiving any treatment and chemotherapy, both of which can drastically improve patient outcomes.

The inferior prognosis among patients receiving no treatment (median OS, 2 months) emphasizes the need to identify contributing factors to treatment availability. This study highlights the influence of social and economic factors such as age, gender, race, insurance status, and residence on treatment decisions, and thus patient outcome. Having insurance, especially Medicare or private insurance, was predictive of receiving therapy, while the probability of patients receiving any treatment at all reduced with advancing age and comorbidity score.

  1. Samhouri Y, Ali MKM, Khan C, et al. The trend of combined modality treatment and its outcomes in elderly patients with primary CNS lymphoma: a 12-year population-based analysis using propensity score. Anticancer Research. 2022;42(4):1867-1877. DOI: 21873/anticanres.15663

Understanding your specialty helps us to deliver the most relevant and engaging content.

Please spare a moment to share yours.

Please select or type your specialty

  Thank you

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to lymphoma & CLL delivered to your inbox