| Literature DB >> 27534792 |
Claire Wen-Chi Yang1, Chun-Wei Wang1, Ruey-Long Hong2, Chiao-Ling Tsai1, Ming Yao3, Jih-Luh Tang3, Chung-Wu Lin4, Ann-Lii Cheng2,2,3, Sung-Hsin Kuo5,2,2,3.
Abstract
Treatment strategies for nasal extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), including sequential chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (SCRT), concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), or radiotherapy alone (RT), remain varied. The purpose of this study was to assess the treatment outcome, the toxicity, and the potential prognostic factors for patients with early-stage nasal ENKTL treated using definitive RT (minimum of 50 Gy) with or without chemotherapy. From 1998 to 2014, 37 patients were included in the study. Eight patients were treated with RT alone, 1 with CCRT, and 28 with SCRT. Local regional control (LRC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RT resulted in an overall response rate of 91.2%, with a complete response rate of 78.4%. After a median follow-up time of 36.8 months, the 3-year LRC, PFS and OS were 87.4%, 64.0% and 76.3%, respectively. Acute severe toxicity (Grade 3) of mucositis was observed in 6 (16.2%) of the 37 patients. In univariate analyses, extensive disease (Stage I/II with local invasiveness) and the presence of B symptoms were significantly associated with a poor PFS, whereas extensive disease was significantly associated with a poor OS. Multivariate analysis identified the presence of extensive disease as an independent predictor of PFS (P < 0.001) and OS (P = 0.015). High-dose RT with or without chemotherapy reported promising locoregional control and a favorable outcome for patients with early-stage nasal ENKTL without local invasiveness. Further investigation of new treatment strategies for patients with local invasiveness is warranted.Entities:
Keywords: chemotherapy; nasal NK/T-cell lymphoma; prognosis; radiotherapy
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27534792 PMCID: PMC5321187 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrw081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Radiat Res ISSN: 0449-3060 Impact factor: 2.724
Treatment characteristics of 37 patients with nasal extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma
| Treatment strategies | Number of patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment sequence | |||
| RT alone | 8 | 21.6 | |
| C/T→RT or CCRT | 24 | 64.9 | |
| CCRT | 1 | 2.7 | |
| C/T→RT→C/T (Sandwich) | 4 | 10.8 | |
| C/T regimen | |||
| CHOP (or CHOP like) | 16 | 55.2 | |
| L-VP | 8 | 27.6 | |
| Others | 5 | 17.2 | |
| RT dose (Gy) | 50 (median) | ||
| 50–60 | 33 | 89.2 | |
| ≥60 | 4 | 11.8 | |
| RT technique | |||
| 2D | 10 | 27.0 | |
| 3D | 5 | 13.5 | |
| IMRT | 14 | 37.8 | |
| VAMT | 5 | 13.5 | |
| Tomotherapy | 3 | 8.1 | |
| RT field[ | |||
| Extended-field | 28 | 75.7 | |
| Limited-field | 9 | 24.33 | |
C/T = chemotherapy, RT = radiotherapy, CCRT = concurrent chemoradiotherapy, LN = lymph nodes, IMRT = intensity-modulated radiation therapy, VMAT = volumetric-modulated arc therapy, HSCT = hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, CHOP = cyclophosphamide + adriamycin + vincristine + prednisolone, L-VP = L-asparaginase + vincristine + prednisolone.
aRT field: limited-field: primary involved regions; extended-field: primary involved regions plus cervical lymphatics.
Demographic characteristics of 37 patients with nasal extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma
| Characteristics | No. of patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 37 | 100.0 | |
| Age | 52 (median) | ||
| >60 | 10 | 27.0 | |
| ≤60 | 27 | 73.0 | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 26 | 70.3 | |
| Female | 11 | 29.7 | |
| Ann Arbor stage | |||
| IE | 29 | 78.4 | |
| IIE | 8 | 21.6 | |
| B symptoms | |||
| No | 25 | 67.6 | |
| Yes | 12 | 32.4 | |
| ECOG performance status | |||
| 0 | 17 | 45.9 | |
| 1 | 20 | 54.1 | |
| Regional lymphadenopathies | |||
| No | 29 | 78.4 | |
| Yes | 8 | 21.6 | |
| LDH[ | |||
| Normal | 12 | 32.4 | |
| Elevated | 23 | 62.2 | |
| IPI score | |||
| 0 | 8 | 21.6 | |
| 1 | 24 | 64.9 | |
| 2 | 5 | 13.5 | |
| PET staging | |||
| No | 18 | 48.6 | |
| Yes | 19 | 51.4 | |
| New stage[ | |||
| Limited | 27 | 73.0 | |
| Extensive | 10 | 27.0 | |
| ENKTL prognostic index[ | |||
| Group I | 23 | 62.2 | |
| Group II | 14 | 37.8 | |
No. = number, ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, IPI = International Prognostic Index, LDH = lactate dehydrogenase.
aLDH normal range: 140–271 U/L.
bLimited disease as Stage I/II upper aerodigestive tract (UAT) disease without invasiveness; extensive disease as Stage I/II disease with local invasiveness or Stage III/IV disease of UAT or non-UAT disease.
cModified from prognostic index proposed by Lee et al., J Clin Oncol 2006;24:612–8 [10].
Fig. 1.Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and local regional control (LRC) for all patients.
Hazard analysis for overall survival and progression-free survival (by Cox regression)
| Overall survival | Progression-free survival | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |||
| Univariate analysis | ||||||
| ECOG (0 vs 1) | 0.383 | 0.101–1.450 | 0.158 | 0.291 | 0.080–1.062 | 0.062 |
| Ann Arbor stage (I vs II) | 0.514 | 0.135–1.947 | 0.327 | 0.583 | 0.310–1.094 | 0.093 |
| B symptoms (No vs Yes) | 0.311 | 0.095–1.021 | 0.054 | 0.285 | 0.095–0.860 | 0.026 |
| New Stage (Extensive vs Limited) | 2.109 | 1.159–3.835 | 0.015 | 3.343 | 1.791–6.240 | <0.001 |
| ENKTL prognostic index(Group I vs Group II) | 0.631 | 0.348–1.145 | 0.13 | 0.645 | 0.373–1.114 | 0.115 |
| Multivariate analysis | ||||||
| New Stage (Extensive vs Limited) | 4.446 | 1.344–14.706 | 0.015 | 11.177 | 3.208–38.942 | <0.001 |
HR = hazard ratio, CI = confidence interval, CR = complete response, PR = partial response.
Fig. 2.(a) Progression-free survival and (b) overall survival according to new stage.
Comparison of clinical outcomes of early-stage nasal extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma in recent publications
| Author | No. of pts | Ann Arbor stage (%) | Treatment types (No. of pts) | CT regimen (No. of pts) | RT dose(cGy) | Response (%) | 5-year OS (%) | 5-year PFS (%) | ≥ Grade 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avilés | 427 |
I (58) II (41) |
RT alone (109) C/T alone (116) RT→C/T (202) | CMED (318) | 5500 |
69 59 91 |
64 45 86 |
78 40 91 |
11 14 33 |
| Li | 73 |
I/II (44) IV (24) |
CT alone (14) RT alone (8) C/T + RT (42) | CHOP like | 46 | Median PFS 3yrs | |||
| Wang | 42 |
I (81) II (19) |
RT alone (23) C/T+RT (19)* All use IMRT | CHOP like (19) | 5000 | 95.2 | 78 (2-year) | 74 (2-year) | 7 |
| Jayoung Lee | 24 |
I (83.3) II (16.7) |
RT→C/T (4) C/T→RT (12) C/T→RT→C/T (8) |
CHOP (16) ProMACE-CytaBOM (7) Other (1) | 4500 | 83.3 | 70.3 | 66.2 |
3 (acute) 4 (late) |
| Jieun Lee | 43 |
I (72) II (28) |
C/T→RT (16) CCRT (27) |
CHOP like (SCRT) Weekly cisplatin (CCRT) |
5400 4500 |
94 96 |
75 59 |
56 41 |
8 6 |
| Jiang | 26 |
I, Limited (50) I, Extensive (26.9) II (23.1) | C/T→RT→C/T | L-VP (26) | 5600 | 88.5 | 88.5 | 80.6 | 2 |
| Oh | 62 |
I (74.2) II (25.8) | CCRT→C/T |
Cisplatin for CCRT VIPD/VIDL/MIDLE for C/T | 4000 | 96.7 | 83.1 | 77.1 | 3 |
| Yang | 1273 |
I (74.4) II (25.6) |
RT alone (253) C/T alone (170) RT→C/T (209) C/T→RT (641) |
CHOP like (826) L-asparaginase based (126) Gemcitabine based (68) | 5000 | 93.3 |
Stage I: 67.6 Stage II: 51.3 |
Stage I: 58.3 Stage II: 44.0 | – |
| Present study | 37 |
I (78.4) II (21.6) |
RT alone (8) C/T→RT/CCRT (24) CCRT (1) C/T→RT→C/T (4) |
CHOP like (16) L-VP (8) Others (5) | 5000 | 91.2 | 76.3 | 64.0 | 6 |
C/T = chemotherapy, RT = radiotherapy, No. of pts = Number of patients, ProMACE-CytaBOM = cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + etoposide + cytozar + bleomycin + vincristine + methotrexate + prednisone, CHOP = cyclophosphamide + adriamycin + vincristine + prednisolone, L-VP = L-asparaginase + vincristine + prednisolone, CMED = cyclophosphamide + methotrexate + etoposide + dexamethasone, VIPD = etoposide + ifosfamide + cisplatin + dexamethasone, VIDL = etoposide + ifosfamide + dexamethasone followed by intramuscular injection of L-asparaginase, MIDLE = methotrexate + etoposide + ifosfamide + mesna + L-asparaginase, OS = overall survival, PFS = progression-free survival, SCRT = sequential chemoradiotherapy, CCRT = concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
aAcute toxicity according to CTCAE or RTOG, n as number of toxicity events.
bResponse, OS, PFS, toxicity according to different treatment types.