Prognostic variables and 4-year survival outcomes in CD20 Positive AIDS-Related Lymphoma in the Anti-retroviral treatment era: A Retrospective Review from a Single Centre in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To describe 4-year survival outcomes and assess the value of established and additional relevant variables to predict complete response (CR), four-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of CD20 positive AIDS-Related Lymphoma (ARL) treated with standard combination chemotherapy.
METHOD: We performed a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with CD20 positive ARL between 2006 and 2016. All patients over 12 years of age who received at least one cycle of combination chemotherapy with curative intent were included in the analysis. Variables assessed included the International Prognostic Index (IPI), age-adjusted-IPI, age, gender, B symptoms, extent of disease, functional performance status, CD4 cell count, viral load, concurrent ART with chemotherapy, rituximab inclusion, and number of chemotherapy cycles used. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for OS and PFS at 4 years were compared for IPI and aaIPI using the log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the effects of prognostic variables for patients achieving OS and PFS at 4 years and logistic regression for patients achieving CR.
RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were included in the analysis. At year four of follow-up, the OS was 50% (n = 51) and PFS was 43% (n = 44). Attaining a CR and male gender were significantly associated with improved 4-year OS (p<0.001 and p = 0.028 respectively) and PFS (p<0.001 and 0.048 respectively). A viral load of < 50 copies/ml was associated with a higher complete response rate (aOR 6.10 [95% CI 1.15, 24.04], p = 0.01). Six or more cycles of chemotherapy was superior to fewer cycles for both PFS (aHR 0.17 [95% CI 0.10, 0.29]) and OS (aHR 0.12 [95% CI 0.07, 0.22]) with p-value < 0.001 for both PFS and OS. The Kaplan-Meier survival estimates demonstrated the prognostic utility of the IPI and aaIP for OS (p = 0.002 and 0.030 respectively) and the IPI for PFS (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: This study is a first from a high prevalence HIV area in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and confirms the utility of the internationally accepted prognostic scoring systems in predicting survival in CD20 positive ARL in the local population.

Introduction

Lymphomas that occur more frequently in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are referred to as HIV-associated lymphomas (HAL). Three malignancies are considered AIDS-defining: high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Kaposi sarcoma and invasive cancer of the cervix. The AIDS-defining high-grade NHL are collectively called AIDS-related lymphomas (ARL) and are aggressive with diverse histologic characteristics [1]. These ARL include diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Burkitt lymphoma (BL), plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) and less commonly, primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) and primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) [2,3]. DLBCL and BL usually express CD20, and the other ARL are generally CD20 negative. The introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in 1996 not only reduced the incidence of ARL but also improved outcomes [4-6]. Despite the widespread use of ART, ARL remains a common malignancy and a primary cause of AIDS-related malignant deaths [7-9]. South Africa is home to just over 20% of the global population living with HIV [10]. KwaZulu-Natal is a province in South Africa that has an HIV prevalence of 18% [11]. Ascertaining reliable and valid prognostic tools for rational utilization of scarce resources for the management of ARL is critical, particularly for these resource-limited settings.

Outcomes in ARL, both CD 20 positive and CD20 negative, are associated with characteristics of the host, malignancy, and HIV disease. The former two variables are incorporated into the well-established international prognostic index (IPI), which consists of the patient’s age, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, stage of lymphoma and the number of extranodal sites involved [12]. This index for aggressive lymphoma was initially derived from an HIV-negative cohort treated with combination chemotherapy [12]. This scoring system was subsequently validated for ARL treated with standard cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy as well as chemotherapy supplemented with CD20 monoclonal antibodies (rituximab) [13-15]. Another scoring index, the age-adjusted international prognostic index (aaIPI), is a modified IPI score utilizing three variables of the IPI, viz. performance status, LDH level and stage of disease, strongly correlates with outcomes of ARL [12]. This score was validated in a pooled analysis of 1546 patients from 19 prospective trials conducted in the United States and Europe [16]. This study population included predominantly male patients, with a good median CD4 count, and differs from the stronger female representation and poorer CD4 count in ARL described in two South African studies as well as East Africa [17-19].

Unlike the IPI and aaIPI, the HIV-specific prognostic variables for ARL are less well-defined. Studies have variably analysed the prognostic significance of the viral load, CD4 count and history of prior AIDS-defining illness, showing poorer outcome with the latter two variables [20,21]. However, the significance of these variables has evolved over time with the use of ART, with less prognostic significance attributed to the CD4 count [22]. In this post-ART era, it is unclear if a specific ARL prognostic score would better determine prognosis in ARL than the IPI or aaIPI, and which variables would need to be included in such a score [23].

The therapeutic advances in ARL have resulted in outcomes comparable to HIV-negative patients, spurring the need to optimise current prognostic tools to improve management [13,20,24]. This is especially pertinent in countries with a high HIV prevalence where a significant portion of the health care budget is utilised in the management of ARL. The IPI and aaIPI prognostic scoring systems have not been validated in the local cohort or in the three other South African studies on ARL [17,18,25]. In KwaZulu-Natal, the significance of other lymphoma-related, or HIV-associated variables, including the CD4 count, concurrent ART and viral load in CD20 positive ARL is also unknown. In these settings, accurate prognostic tools for an African cohort will guide the implementation of risk-adapted, cost-effective treatment strategies.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of patients with histologically confirmed CD20 positive ARL managed at King Edward Vlll Hospital between January 2006 and December 2016. To be included, patients had to be over the age of 12 years, have received at least one cycle of CHOP chemotherapy, with or without rituximab (R), with curative intent, and have had at least four years of follow-up. Patients with Burkitt lymphoma were not included in this study, as these patients are treated with a more intensive chemotherapy protocol. Patients with primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma were also excluded from this analysis. Anonymized data from the patients’ haematology charts was captured onto an Excel electronic spreadsheet. Laboratory data was further obtained from the National Health Laboratory Service laboratory information system. Data was exported into Stata 16 programme for analysis. The study protocol was approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Council of the University of KwaZulu-Natal (BE043/17), and the study complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

All patients in the study cohort were managed according to standard lymphoma treatment guidelines [26,27]. Between 2006 and 2013, CHOP was the main chemotherapy regimen. During 2013 local guidelines added rituximab to CHOP chemotherapy. CHOP and RCHOP were given at standard doses, except for prednisone, which was given at a dose of 60mg daily, orally for 8 days rather than 100mg daily for 5 days, according to the centre’s practice. Here we report on the effect of established and individual prognostic variables on CR, 4-year OS and 4-year PFS. Patient-related variables considered for their prognostic value included age, gender, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) functional status. Tumor-related variables considered included B symptoms, Ann Arbor stage, use of rituximab, number of chemotherapy cycles, radiotherapy and CNS involvement. HIV-specific variables included baseline CD4 cell count, viral load, ART status, and timing of ART relative to initiation of chemotherapy. The cut-off for the age of 40 and CD4 of 100 cells/μL was chosen to allow for comparison with existing data, which shows prognostic significance to these variables at these limits [16,21,25,28]. The IPI score was categorized as low risk (0–2), and high risk (3–5). An aaIPI of 0–1 was considered low risk and a score of 2–3 as high risk.

CNS involvement was determined by imaging or cerebrospinal fluid examination using cytocentrifuge or flowcytometry. Response to therapy was assessed at mid-cycle and at completion of chemotherapy. CR was defined by the absence of disease assessed by clinical, radiological and laboratory measures. All records were available, except for viral load, where only 65 patients had information.

Statistical analysis

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for OS and PFS at 4 years were compared for IPI and aaIPI (low versus high risk) using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the effects of prognostic variables on patients achieving OS and PFS during the study period. Logistic regression was used to determine the effects for the different prognostic variables in patients who achieved CR. Unadjusted and adjusted hazards and odds ratios are reported. All variables and outcome measures were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. All time to event analyses were measured from presentation to event or last recorded follow-up. P-values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Stata 16 was used for all data analyses [29].

Results

During the study time period, 157 ARL were managed at this hospital. There were 102 patients with CD20 positive ARL included in this analysis (histological subtypes were 70 DLBCL, 31 high-grade B cell lymphoma, and 1 high-grade B cell lymphoma not otherwise specified). 13 patients were excluded due to missing data (either histology or HIV results), 9 patients for receiving an alternative chemotherapy regimen, 5 patients who did not receive chemotherapy and 2 patients with primary effusion lymphoma. The data for 26 plasmablastic patients has been published [30]. The chemotherapy regimens and 4-year survival outcomes are shown in . From the 102 patients, 50% (n = 51) were alive at 4 years, with 43% (n = 44) showing no disease progression, 12% (n = 12) demising and 38% (n = 39) were lost to follow up during the 4 years. 64% (25/39) of the patients defaulting treatment were lost to follow-up within a year and none of these patients were in a CR at the time. There were 5 patients defaulting treatment between 12–24 months, and of the nine patients lost to follow-up after 2 years, 4 were treated with CHOP (2 with a partial response [PR] who chose not to continue further therapy, and 2 in CR) and 5 were treated with R-CHOP (all in CR). There were 3 patients who relapsed post first-line chemotherapy, with 2 receiving salvage(S) therapy and the third patient was lost to follow-up immediately after documented relapse. For 21 patients receiving salvage therapy with mesna, ifosfamide, novantrone, etoposide (MINE), and/or high dose methotrexate and/or radiotherapy, 9 achieved a CRs, 9 were lost to follow-up and 3 demised.

For the patient and HIV prognostic variables shown in , the HIV viral load was the only variable that significantly affected the achievement of CR. Patients having undetectable viral loads of <50 copies/ml had a greater likelihood of CR (adjusted OR 6.10 [95% CI 1.55, 24.04]). Attaining a CR was significantly associated with improved PFS (HR = 0.08 [CI: 0.04, 0.16]; p-value <0.001) and OS (HR = 0.11 [CI: 0.06, 0.22)]; p-value <0.001). At lymphoma diagnosis, 45% (n = 46) of the patients were already on ART, 39% (n = 40) initiated ART concurrently with chemotherapy and 16% (n = 16) remained ART naïve during chemotherapy. Of the 86 patients who received concurrent ART with chemotherapy, 60% (n = 50) achieved a CR and 25% (n = 4) of the ART naïve group achieved a CR (p = 0.994). Of the 16 ART naïve patients, 12 received CHOP. Four of these 12 patients attained a CR and two a PR, with five of these patients having an OS exceeding five years and the sixth patient defaulted therapy after 10 months. Of the remaining six patients on CHOP, one had disease progression, two demised after three months, and three defaulted follow-up, with OS ranging from 2 weeks to six months. Four ART naïve patients received R-CHOP; one had disease progression and died 25 months later, and the three remaining patients were lost to follow-up during chemotherapy (none in CR). Using the chi-squared test, the 4-year OS of 59% (46/86) for concurrent ART with chemotherapy and 31% (5/16) for those who remained ART naïve during chemotherapy, was not significantly associated with improved OS(p = 0.111).

Table 1

Impact of patient and HIV variables on CR.

			CR (n = 56)
Predictor (%)		Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	p-value
Age in years	<40 (55%)≥40 (45%)	ref 1.32 (0.60, 2.91)	ref 0.88 (0.26, 3.04)	ref 0.841
	Female (54%)	ref	ref	ref
Gender	Male (46%)	1.03 (0.47, 2.26)	1.70 (0.51, 5.62)	0.386
B symptoms	Absent (70%)	ref	ref	ref
	Present (30%)	0.83 (0.35, 1.93)	0.84 (0.22, 3.24)	0.798
ART timing	Pre-diagnosis (53%)	ref	ref	ref
	Concurrent with chemotherapy (47%)	0.79 (0.33, 1.89)	1.01 (0.25, 4.11)	0.994
CD4 count in cells/μL	< 100 (25%)	ref	ref	ref
	≥ 100 (75%)	1.60 (0.66, 3.93)	1.15 (0.18, 7.52)	0.885
VL	Undetectable or <50 copies/ml (49%)	8.21 (2.68, 25.17)	6.10 (1.55, 24.04)	0.010
	≥50 copies/ml (51%)	ref	ref	ref

Abbreviations: CR = complete response, OR = odds ratio, ART = antiretroviral therapy, VL = viral load.

For the 56 patients that attained a CR at the end of first line chemotherapy, two patients received 3 cycles, one had 4 cycles and another 5 cycles of chemotherapy (all four patients having refused additional chemotherapy). Of the 9 patients who received radiotherapy, 83% on CHOP (5/6) and 67% on R-CHOP (2/3) achieved a 4-year OS respectively. The impact of patient and HIV variables on PFS and OS are detailed in and lymphoma and treatment-related variables in .

Of the total cohort, 9% (n = 9) received radiotherapy; 4 patients with bulky disease, 1 patient with a tonsillar relapse (who received salvage chemotherapy and radiotherapy) and progressive disease treated with salvage chemotherapy in the remaining four patients. A third of the study patients who received radiotherapy (3/9) had a good response with the sole addition of curative dose radiotherapy to 1st line chemotherapy, converting partial responses to CR in all three patients (all 3 had bulky disease). There was a 78% (7/9) 4-year OS for patients receiving radiotherapy compared with 47% (44/93) for patients who did not receive radiotherapy (p = 0.071).

There was no significant association between individual prognostic variables of the aaIPI and OS or PFS (). However, the IPI and aaIPI significantly correlated with OS (Figs and respectively) and the IPI also significantly correlated with PFS and not OS (

Table 4

aaIPI prognostic variables on outcome of CD20 positive ARL.

	PFS			OS
Predictor (%)	Unadjusted HR (95% CI)	Adjusted HR(95% CI)	p- value	Unadjusted HR(95% CI)	Adjusted HR(95% CI)	p-value
Ann Arbor stageEarly—I/II (55%)Late—III/IV (45%)	ref 1.92 (1.14, 3.23)	ref 1.93 (0.95, 3.90)	ref 0.067	ref 2.05 (1.17, 3.59)	ref 2.04 (0.96, 4.37)	ref 0.065
ECOG PS< 2 (32%)≥ 2 (68%)	ref	Ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
	1.66 (0.91, 3.04)	1.05 (0.47, 2.35)	0.899	1.70 (0.89, 3.25)	1.03 (0.43, 2.46)	0.941
LDH increasedNo (4%)Yes (96%)	ref	Ref	ref	ref	ref	ref 0.727
	0.71 (0.22, 2.26)	0.56 (0.17, 1.85)	0.340	1.01 (0.24, 4.14)	0.77 (0.18, 3.27)

Abbreviations: ARL = AIDS related lymphoma, aaIPI = age adjusted International Prognostic Index, CR = complete response, PFS = progression free survival, OS = overall survival, HR = hazard ratio, ECOG PS = Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status, LDH = lactate dehydrogenase.

Discussion

Better HIV control in ARL has allowed for chemotherapy intensification with monoclonal antibodies similar to HIV-negative patients with lymphoma, and this is the first study from South Africa describing the prognostic significance of rituximab use in ARL. This study 4-year OS of 50% is within the reported 5-year survival of 46–55% for ARL [20,24] and comparable to the reported 46% 5-year survival in another South African study [18]. This improved 4-year survival in the ART era, compared with the 11-month median OS described in Gauteng, South Africa with 85% of the cohort not on ART [17], highlights the need for an accurate prognostic system to guide therapy in ARL.

The CR for the study cohort of 55% is at the lower spectrum of reported CR; 65% described by Miralles et al in the multicentre Spanish study [20] and 58–77% in American and European studies [31,32]. However this CR correlated with 4-year OS and PFS in our cohort. This finding is in accordance with the positive predictive value of the CR for OS found in a retrospective British cohort [13].

The only patient-related variable that correlated with survival, was gender, with males having both improved PFS and OS. This prognostic significance of gender has been confirmed by other studies in Africa, including South Africa [18,33]. These findings, however, contrast with the poorer outcome shown for male patients in Zimbabwe, and lack of significance for gender in studies outside of Africa [28]. Whether gender remains a unique prognostic variable for an African cohort in the ART era warrants further study.

There was no improvement in 4-year OS in patients who received ART with chemotherapy compared with those who remained ART naïve during chemotherapy (p = 0.111). This result contrasts with the Lim et al [21] analysis which showed that median survival increased significantly from 8.3 months in ART naïve patients to 43.2 months for those on ART. Our study findings also contrast with an African study from Uganda which found similar survival outcomes in ARL treated with concurrent ART and chemotherapy compared with HIV-negative lymphoma patients, but an almost 9-fold increase in mortality in ARL patients not taking ART compared with HIV-negative patients [33]. Barta et al demonstrated that survival increased from 24% pre-ART to 67% in the ART era [22]. All 3 studies show a clear survival benefit to ART, which is not evident in our cohort. A similarly matched South African cohort to our study cohort also showed poor outcome pre-ART [17]. This lack of prognostic significance in our study is therefore most likely due to the smaller number of patients not on ART (n = 16), rather than a true lack of significance.

Although a low or undetectable viral load in our study significantly affected CR (p = 0.01), this did not translate to a significantly improved FPS or OS. Our findings are similar to a Spanish study in terms of viral load correlating with CR but did not match the correlation with virological response and improved OS seen in this Spanish cohort [32]. The lack of impact on the OS in our cohort may be due to small sample size, or lymphocyte dysregulation, even whilst on ART being driven by immune activation [34,35] rather than HIV viral replication [36,37]. This could negate the benefit of a low or undetectable viral load on OS.

The CD4 count was not associated with improved OS (p = 0.787), and this shift away from the significance of the immune status reflected by the CD4 count in the ART era has been well documented [13,22,38]. A retrospective analysis of ARL patients pre and post-ART, found that a low CD4 count of <100cells/mL was associated with poorer survival only in the pre-ART era [21]. However, the prognostic value of the CD4 cell count in the post-ART era is not entirely lost. When used in a composite score with the viral load and past history of AIDS-defining illness, it showed a strong association with mortality [23].

There was no association between the timing of ART and survival in our cohort (aHR 0.85 [95% CI 0.34, 2.11] p = 0.719), which is borne out by a Chinese study on 100 patients with ARL [39]. However, this is contradictory to the multicentre study in sub-Saharan Africa by Gopal et al [40] and a Brazilian study [41] which found a significantly lower OS in ARL diagnosed in patients already on ART. A German study also found poorer OS in ARL patients already on ART at lymphoma diagnosis compared with ART initiated post lymphoma diagnosis [42]. The conflicting results on the prognostic significance of the timing of ART in ARL is worthy of further study.

In this study, there was no improvement in outcome with the use of rituximab, in contrast to the clearly proven benefit in multiple international studies [16,42-44]. Unsurprisingly, patients who received 6–8 cycles of chemotherapy had a significantly better outcome than patients receiving < 6 cycles of chemotherapy (p = <0.001). The FLYER trial demonstrated non-inferiority of 4 cycles of R-CHOP and 2 additional rituximab doses compared to 6 cycles of R-CHOP [45]. However, this group included only HIV-negative patients with DLBCL and an excellent aaIPI of 0. In our cohort, only 1 patient had an aaIPI of 0. This patient had progressive disease on R-CHOP and required radiotherapy and salvage chemotherapy to attain a 4-year OS. Compatible with our study findings, another cohort in Africa found that patients with ARL who received < 3 cycles of chemotherapy had a significant increase in mortality at 18 months [28]. In the absence of randomised trials, and noting that most patients with ARL have an aaIPI >0, our findings would support current guidelines of 6–8 cycles of R-chemotherapy in CD20 positive ARL [46,47].

Although the numbers are small, with only 9% receiving radiotherapy, the trend toward significance in survival is different to another small study on consolidative radiotherapy in HIV DLBCL, which found no significant difference in OS in patients who received radiotherapy [48]. Unlike this latter study, the indications for radiotherapy in our study were more diverse and included bulky disease, relapse and progressive disease. For the only 2 patients who received radiotherapy but did not reach 4-year OS, both had high-risk IPI of 4, with one patient having additional risk with testicular involvement. There is limited literature on the value of radiotherapy in ARL apart from primary central nervous system lymphoma. Radiotherapy as a therapeutic tool in ARL management merits further investigation.

Both the IPI and aaIPI were associated with OS. The IPI also correlated with PFS (). These findings are supported by other studies [49-51]. However, unlike the latter studies, the individual components in the aaIPI in our cohort did not correlate with outcome, either in univariate or multivariate analysis. The skewed LDH results, with 96% of the study cohort having a raised LDH, would also account for it not being of predictive value.

Study limitations

The retrospective design of the study limited the nature and extent of patient and laboratory information available (viral load was only available for 65 patients). Data related to ART regimens and prior diagnosis of AIDS or opportunistic infection were not available for all patients and the significance of these variables could not be determined. The sample size, in assessing the value of rituximab and ART, was a further limitation, that will be addressed in a local, prospective study. The large number of patients lost to follow-up (38%) was a further limitation.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates reasonable 4-year survival outcomes with combination chemotherapy and ART in CD20 positive ARL. It validates the utility of the IPI and aaIPI in determining prognosis in ARL in an HIV endemic province in South Africa. Further studies are required to explore the prognostic significance of ART timing, gender and the feasibility of individualized chemotherapy as stratified by prognostic factors.

(ZIP)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jun 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zivanai Cuthbert Chapanduka, MBChB (M.D)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review thi manuscript entitled "Prognostic variables and 4-year survival outcomes in CD20 Positive AIDS Related Lymphoma in the Anti-retroviral treatment era: A Retrospective Review from a Single Centre in KwaZulu-66 Natal, South Africa".

This research is a well-designed retrospective study highlighting that established scoring systems for aggressive lymphomas are relevant in the context of AIDS related lymphomas. Additional findings were that a low viral load was associated with increased probability of CR and that male gender and 6 or more cycles of chemotherapy were associated with longer survival.

Assessing predictors of lymphoma outcome within the context of an HIV endemic setting is important and will be of interest to the readership of PLOSOne.

It is recommended that the manuscript be accepted for publication with revisions.

The following is unclear and should be addressed:

1. Within the abstract, it states that “attaining a CR and male gender were significantly associate with improved 4-year OS and PFS”. The p-value for male gender is stated. It is not clear where the impact of attaining CR on 4-year OS and PFS is stated; a HR and p-value were not calculated for this variable within Table 3.

2. In Figure 1

a. On the left (CR), there are 56 patients that achieved CR1 with 11 of these lost to follow up after CR1 and 21 patients required salvage therapy (2 of these were patients that had achieved CR1 – from the text), leaving 27 of the 102 patients unaccounted for. The authors should add into the flow chart what happened to these 27 patients. Were they lost to follow up before CR1, did they demise before achieving CR1 or before salvage therapy could be offered, or refuse salvage?

b. On the right (PFS), it should be added that 12 demised and 30 were lost to follow up, as per OS. Or the figure restructured to indicate that the demised/LTFU box is applicable to both OS and PFS.

3. Please elaborate within the method section as to why the cut-off values were chosen for analysis. Why was age <40 years chosen, if the IPI decision point is age <60? All of the other cut-offs are the same as the IPI. Why was CD4 count cut-off of 100 chosen for comparison?

4. In Table 1, the percentage of patients with CD4 count <100 and >100 are not stated, while percentages are stated for other categories. This should be remedied.

5. All data underlying the findings should be made available within the manuscript. The authors should consider adding percentages for each category in Table 2 to Table 4, as done for Table 1, as this information is not stated within the text. Additionally, data on which the interpretation were based may be incomplete. In all tables, it will be useful to add how many patients had available data for each variable. For example, we learn in the limitations that for VL only 65 patients had data. It will be valuable to know an n for all variables analysed, as this has impact on the calculated hazard ratios and p-values.

6. The manuscript should be carefully checked to make sure that all abbreviations are written out on first use.

Reviewer #2: -I suggest a clear definition of CD20 positive AIDS-related lymphomas and why that terminology has been preferred to (CD20 positive) lymphomas associated with HIV infection (as per WHO classification of lymphomas). This is more so given the stated limitation that the diagnosis of AIDS was not confirmed in a sizeable population in this cohort of patients

- In this study, what subtypes of CD20 ARLs were encountered and in which proportions?

- I see that the only chemo regimens used were CHOP or R-CHOP. Were these given at standard doses and frequency or there were dose & frequency modifications? (If dose &/or frequency modifications were done, did that have any impact on PFS or OS?) And were these the regimens also used to treat Burkitt lymphoma and primary CNS lymphoma, if you had any in this patient cohort? And were the other known prognostic factors in Burkitt lymphoma such as CNS involvement or tumour diameter assessed?

- Prognostic value of age >35 (rather than >40 years) is known to be poorer than <35 years for this patient population. What was the literature basis of using 40 years in this study rather than 35 years?

- I've concerns about two important findings in this study that contradict literature in which larger numbers of patients were assessed:

1) Impact of adding rituximab to CHOP - no beneficial effect in this cohort

2) Impact of starting chemo in ART naive vs patients already on ART - no effect of OS

Do you think this is the message you would want the paper to convey to the audience or you think this is artefactual due to small sample size? If the latter is true, don't you think it is better to get a more representative sample size before publishing this article?

- Table 1: please put percentages for patients with CD4 counts below and above 100

- I would think it is important to put the total number of patients with ARL seen during the study period and then state how many were selected for the study, the selection criteria and why the rest were excluded

- I notice that poor virological control had an impact on achieving CR. Why was that so, and what was the impact of confounders such as higher rates of neutropenia, delay in giving chemo as per protocol, compliance to chemo, opportunistic infections, etc? Were these confounding factors similar in those with HIV VL <50 and those with higher viral load and if not, did you test their prognostic impact independently?

- Line 283: You mention IMPROVED 4-year survival: do you have pre-HAART era survival rates in similar patient cohort to compare with? This is more so important given that you didn't find survival benefit in those patients on ART versus those not on ART when given chemo

- Line 349 may need to be relooked

- I suggest that you include absolute numbers in your results section for the readers to get context of some of your discussion points. e.g., you seem to be recommending readers to utilise radiotherapy more, but it is not clear how many of your patients received it and for what indication or stage of disease, and at palliative or curative doses.. If the numbers are small, your seemingly positive vibe with radiotherapy may just have been by chance.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 Jun 2022

Response to Reviewers PlosOne 27 June 2022

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript entitled "Prognostic variables and 4-year survival outcomes in CD20 Positive AIDS Related Lymphoma in the Anti-retroviral treatment era: A Retrospective Review from a Single Centre in KwaZulu-66 Natal, South Africa".

This research is a well-designed retrospective study highlighting that established scoring systems for aggressive lymphomas are relevant in the context of AIDS related lymphomas. Additional findings were that a low viral load was associated with increased probability of CR and that male gender and 6 or more cycles of chemotherapy were associated with longer survival.

Assessing predictors of lymphoma outcome within the context of an HIV endemic setting is important and will be of interest to the readership of PLOSOne.

It is recommended that the manuscript be accepted for publication with revisions.

The following is unclear and should be addressed:

1. Within the abstract, it states that “attaining a CR and male gender were significantly associate with improved 4-year OS and PFS”. The p-value for male gender is stated. It is not clear where the impact of attaining CR on 4-year OS and PFS is stated; a HR and p-value were not calculated for this variable within Table 3.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this omission; it has now been corrected. “Attaining a CR and male gender were significantly associated with improved 4-year OS (p<0.001 and p=0.028 respectively) and PFS (p<0.001 and 0.048 respectively).” has been amended in the abstract and “Attaining a CR was significantly associated with improved PFS (HR = 0.08 �  CI: 0.04, 0.16�  ; p-value <0.001) and OS (HR = 0.11 �  CI: 0.06, 0.22)�  ; p-value <0.001).” has been added to the Results section.

2. In Figure 1

a. On the left (CR), there are 56 patients that achieved CR1 with 11 of these lost to follow up after CR1 and 21 patients required salvage therapy (2 of these were patients that had achieved CR1 – from the text), leaving 27 of the 102 patients unaccounted for. The authors should add into the flow chart what happened to these 27 patients. Were they lost to follow up before CR1, did they demise before achieving CR1 or before salvage therapy could be offered, or refuse salvage?

Response: At at end of 1st line chemotherapy, 56 patients were in CR, 7 had a partial response, 19 had disease progression, 9 demised and 11 were lost to follow up. This has now been included in Fig 1.

b. On the right (PFS), it should be added that 12 demised and 30 were lost to follow up, as per OS. Or the figure restructured to indicate that the demised/LTFU box is applicable to both OS and PFS.

Response: A box has been added to include these details ie. 30 were LTFU, 12 demised and 7 had disease progression.

3. Please elaborate within the method section as to why the cut-off values were chosen for analysis. Why was age <40 years chosen, if the IPI decision point is age <60? All of the other cut-offs are the same as the IPI. Why was CD4 count cut-off of 100 chosen for comparison?

Response: There was only 1 patient in the cohort who was 60 years old. All other patients were <60years. Manyau et al (Zimbabwe)32 assessing the impact of rituximab in ARL, found poorer outcome with age �  40 years.

In another South African paper by de Witt et al25, a CD4 of 100 was chosen as a comparison. A German study by Wyen et al41 found better PFS and OS with CD4 counts ≥100 cells/µL . In the HIV score by Mounier et al which was a third of the Barta et al16 cohort), a point was assigned for CD4 count < 100 cells/µL. In the Chinese analysis by Lim et al21, a CD4 count of <100 predicted poorer OS in the pre-ART era.

This clarity has now been added in Methods. “The cut-off for the age of 40 and CD4 of 100 cells/µL was chosen to allow for comparison with existing data, which shows prognostic significance to these variables at these limits.16,21,25,32”.

4. In Table 1, the percentage of patients with CD4 count <100 and >100 are not stated, while percentages are stated for other categories. This should be remedied.

Response: This omission has now been corrected in Table 1 CD4<100=26=25%, ≥ 100 =76 (75%)

5. All data underlying the findings should be made available within the manuscript. The authors should consider adding percentages for each category in Table 2 to Table 4, as done for Table 1, as this information is not stated within the text. Additionally, data on which the interpretation were based may be incomplete. In all tables, it will be useful to add how many patients had available data for each variable. For example, we learn in the limitations that for VL only 65 patients had data. It will be valuable to know an n for all variables analysed, as this has impact on the calculated hazard ratios and p-values.

Response: All data was available for all patients, apart from the viral load, hence it was stated as a limitation. This has also now been included in the Methods section “All records were available, except for viral load, where only 65 patients had information.”

The percentages have been included in Tables 2-4.

6. The manuscript should be carefully checked to make sure that all abbreviations are written out on first use.

Response: The abbreviations have been checked and corrected.

Reviewer #2: -

1.I suggest a clear definition of CD20 positive AIDS-related lymphomas and why that terminology has been preferred to (CD20 positive) lymphomas associated with HIV infection (as per WHO classification of lymphomas). This is more so given the stated limitation that the diagnosis of AIDS was not confirmed in a sizeable population in this cohort of patients

- In this study, what subtypes of CD20 ARLs were encountered and in which proportions?

Response: The reviewer’s interpretation is correct. A pre-existing diagnosis of AIDS (prior to lymphoma diagnosis) could not be established for most patients. However, all lymphomas included in this cohort were AIDS-defining, so AIDS was confirmed on diagnosis of the lymphoma. A better definition has now been included in the introduction “Lymphomas that occur more frequently in people living with HIV, are referred to as HIV-associated lymphomas (HAL). Three malignancies are considered AIDS-defining: high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Kaposi sarcoma and invasive cancer of the cervix. The AIDS-defining high-grade NHL are collectively called AIDS-related lymphomas (ARL) and are aggressive with diverse histologic characteristics.1 These ARL include diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Burkitt lymphoma (BL), plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) and less commonly, primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) and primary effusion lymphoma (PEL).2,3 DLBCL and BL usually express CD20, and the other ARL are generally CD20 negative.”

The histological detail has now been included in the Results. “There were 102 patients with CD20 positive ARL included in this analysis (histological subtypes were 70 DLBCL, 31 high-grade B cell lymphoma, and 1 high-grade B cell lymphoma not otherwise specified)”

- I see that the only chemo regimens used were CHOP or R-CHOP. Were these given at standard doses and frequency or there were dose & frequency modifications? (If dose &/or frequency modifications were done, did that have any impact on PFS or OS?) And were these the regimens also used to treat Burkitt lymphoma and primary CNS lymphoma, if you had any in this patient cohort? And were the other known prognostic factors in Burkitt lymphoma such as CNS involvement or tumour diameter assessed?

Response: The cohort did not include any patients with Burkitt lymphoma, as this lymphoma in not managed in this hospital(more intensive chemotherapy at another institution). PCNSL was not included in this description. This is now added in the Methods section: “Patients with Burkitt lymphoma were not included in this study, as these patients are treated with a more intensive chemotherapy protocol. Patients with primary CNS lymphoma were excluded from this analysis”

The only 2 regimens used were CHOP and R-CHOP, in standard doses, apart from Prednisone which is given at 60mg x 8 days, rather than 100mg x 5 days. This has now been added in the Methods section “Patients were treated with standard doses of CHOP and RCHOP, apart from prednisone, which was given at a dose of 60mg daily orally for 8 days, instead of 100mg for 5 days, according to the centre practice.”

- Prognostic value of age >35 (rather than >40 years) is known to be poorer than <35 years for this patient population. What was the literature basis of using 40 years in this study rather than 35 years?

Response: This was to allow comparison with another study from Africa, by Manyau et al (Zimbabwe)32 who in assessing the impact of rituximab in ARL, found poorer outcome with age �  40 years. This has now been clarified in the Methods section “The cut-off for the age of 40 and CD4 of 100 cells/µL was chosen to allow for comparison with existing data, which shows prognostic significance to these variables at these limits.16,21,25,32”.

- I've concerns about two important findings in this study that contradict literature in which larger numbers of patients were assessed:

1) Impact of adding rituximab to CHOP - no beneficial effect in this cohort

Response: This concern is noted. This will be addressed more clearly in the Discussion: “In this study, there was no improvement in outcome with the use of rituximab, in contrast to the clearly proven benefit in multiple international studies.16,41,42,43 and in the Study limitations as follows: “The sample size, in assessing the value of rituximab and ART, was a further limitation, that will be addressed in a local prospective study.”

2) Impact of starting chemo in ART naive vs patients already on ART - no effect of OS

Do you think this is the message you would want the paper to convey to the audience or you think this is artefactual due to small sample size? If the latter is true, don't you think it is better to get a more representative sample size before publishing this article?

Response: This lack of prognostic significance will be re-worded more strongly in our discussion, as follows: “This lack of prognostic significance in our study may be due to the smaller number of patients not on ART (n=16).” has now been changed to: “Barta et al demonstrated that survival increased from 24% pre-ART to 67% in the ART era.22 All 3 studies show a clear survival benefit to ART, which is not evident in our cohort. A similarly matched South African cohort to our study cohort also showed poor outcome pre-ART.17 This lack of prognostic significance in our study is therefore most likely due to the smaller number of patients not on ART (n=16), rather than a true lack of significance.”

This will also be added as a study limitation “The sample size, in assessing the value of rituximab and ART, was a further limitation, that will be addressed in a local prospective study.”

- Table 1: please put percentages for patients with CD4 counts below and above 100

Response: This has now been included.

- I would think it is important to put the total number of patients with ARL seen during the study period and then state how many were selected for the study, the selection criteria and why the rest were excluded

Response: Now included in Methods: “Patients with Burkitt lymphoma were not included in this study, as these patients are treated with a more intensive chemotherapy protocol. Patients with primary CNS lymphoma were excluded from this analysis” and in Results “During the study time period, 157 ARL were managed at this hospital. There were 102 patients with CD20 positive ARL included in this analysis (histological subtypes were 70 DLBCL, 31 high-grade B cell lymphoma, and 1 high-grade B cell lymphoma not otherwise specified). 13 patients were excluded due to missing data (either histology or HIV results), 9 patients for receiving an alternative chemotherapy regimen, 5 patients who did not receive chemotherapy and 2 patients with primary effusion lymphoma. The data for 26 plasmablastic patients has been published”

- I notice that poor virological control had an impact on achieving CR. Why was that so, and what was the impact of confounders such as higher rates of neutropenia, delay in giving chemo as per protocol, compliance to chemo, opportunistic infections, etc? Were these confounding factors similar in those with HIV VL <50 and those with higher viral load and if not, did you test their prognostic impact independently?

Response: The neutropenic rate and infections in patients with poor virological control were not compared with those with good virological control. There was no difference or delay with chemotherapy in the protocol according to virological response. These confounding factors will be studied further prospectively.

- Line 283: You mention IMPROVED 4-year survival: do you have pre-HAART era survival rates in similar patient cohort to compare with? This is more so important given that you didn't find survival benefit in those patients on ART versus those not on ART when given chemo.

Response: A South African study by Patel et al 17 showed a median OS of 11 months in a cohort of 198 ARL, with 85% (169/198)of patients not on ART. In the De Witt25 paper (also from South Africa), 78% of the patients were on ART and the 2 year OS was 40.5%. Of the prognostic variables assessed, good response to ART predicted a statistically significant 2 year OS and PFS ie. (54% versus 18% 2-year OS, p=0.03) and PFS 45% vs 14% (p=0.03).

This has now been revised in the manuscript Discussion: “This improved 4-year survival in the ART era, compared with the 11-month median OS described in Gauteng, South Africa with 85% of the cohort not on ART17, highlights the need for an accurate prognostic system to guide therapy in ARL”

- Line 349 may need to be relooked

- I suggest that you include absolute numbers in your results section for the readers to get context of some of your discussion points. e.g., you seem to be recommending readers to utilise radiotherapy more, but it is not clear how many of your patients received it and for what indication or stage of disease, and at palliative or curative doses.. If the numbers are small, your seemingly positive vibe with radiotherapy may just have been by chance.

Response: This has now been moved to the Results section, and edited to include numbers and indications. “Of the total cohort, 9% (n=9) received radiotherapy; 4 patients with bulky disease, 1 patient with a tonsillar relapse (who received salvage chemotherapy and radiotherapy) and progressive disease treated with salvage chemotherapy in the remaining four patients. A third of our study patients who received radiotherapy (3/9) had a good response with the sole addition of curative dose radiotherapy to 1st line chemotherapy, converting partial responses to CR in all three patients (all 3 had bulky disease). There was a 78% (7/9) 4-year OS for patients receiving radiotherapy compared with 47% (44/93) for patients who did not receive radiotherapy (p=0.071).”

The line in the Discussion has been re-worded: “Although the numbers are small, with only 9% receiving radiotherapy, the trend toward significance in survival is …” and re-worded more cautiously “Radiotherapy as a therapeutic tool in ARL management merits further investigation.”

Submitted filename: PO Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Jul 2022

Prognostic variables and 4-year survival outcomes in CD20 Positive AIDS Related Lymphoma in the Anti-retroviral treatment era: A Retrospective Review from a Single Centre in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

PONE-D-22-12668R1

Dear Dr. Rapiti

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Zivanai Cuthbert Chapanduka, MBChB (M.D)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations on the acceptance of your manuscript by both reviewers who expressed satisfaction with your responses. If you find anything that must be corrected, please point it out to the Academic Editor or other Editor as soon as possible.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Academic editor opinion: Yes

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Academic editor opinion: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Academic editor opinion: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed and clarified all previous concerns.

Line 211: "The data for 26 plasmablastic lymphoma patients has been published." Please supply the reference.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

23 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-12668R1

Prognostic variables and 4-year survival outcomes in CD20 Positive AIDS-Related Lymphoma in the Anti-retroviral treatment era: A Retrospective Review from a Single Centre in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Dear Dr. Rapiti:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Zivanai Cuthbert Chapanduka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 2

Impact of patient and HIV variables on outcome for CD20 positive ARL.

	PFS			OS
Predictor (%)	UnadjustedHR(95% CI)	Adjusted HR(95% CI)	p- value	UnadjustedHR(95% CI)	Adjusted HR(95% CI)	p-value
Age in years<40 (55%)≥40 (45%)	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
	0.91 (0.54, 1.52)	1.02 (0.47, 2.22)	0.952	0.93 (0.53, 1.61)	0.95 (0.43, 2.10)	0.906
GenderFemale (54%)Male (46%)	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
	0.77 (0.46, 1.29)	0.46 (0.21, 0.99)	0.048	0.78 (0.45, 1.37)	0.41 (0.19, 0.91)	0.028
B symptomsAbsent (70%)Present (30%)	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
	1.04 (0.59, 1.81)	0.95 (0.41, 2.21)	0.901	1.18 (0.66, 2.12)	1.02 (0.43, 2.41)	0.959
ARTPre-diagnosis (53%)Concurrent with chemotherapy (47%)	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
	1.01 (0.56, 1.82)	0.84 (0.35, 2.04)	0.702	0.96 (0.51, 1.78)	0.85 (0.34, 2.11)	0.719
CD4 count in cells/μL< 100 (25%)≥ 100 (75%)	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
	0.81 (0.45, 1.44)	1.28 (0.38, 4.35)	0.694	0.93 (0.50, 1.74)	1.18 (0.35, 4.06)	0.787
VLUndetectable or <50 copies/ml (49%)≥50copies/ml (51%)	0.45 (0.23, 0.88)	0.45 (0.19, 1.07)	0.070	0.41 (0.21, 0.82)	0.43 (0.18, 1.05)	0.063
	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref

Abbreviations: ARL = AIDS related lymphoma, HR = hazard ratio, CR = complete response, PFS = progression free survival, OS = overall survival, ART = antiretroviral therapy, VL = viral load.

Table 3

Lymphoma and treatment related variables in CD20 positive ARL.

	PFS			OS
Predictor (%)	UnadjustedHR(95% CI)	AdjustedHR(95% CI)	p- value	UnadjustedHR(95% CI)	AdjustedHR(95% CI)	p-value
CNS involvement by lymphomaAbsent (93%)Present (7%)	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
	1.20 (0.48, 3.00)	1.04 (0.35, 3.10)	0.951	1.04 (0.38)	1.58 (0.49, 5.04)	0.444
Rituximab useNo (49%)Yes (51%)	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
	0.81 (0.48, 1.36)	0.76 (0.45, 1.27)	0.289	1.04 (0.60, 1.80)	0.89 (0.51, 1.55)	0.675
Radiotherapy useNo (91%)Yes (9%)	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref	ref
	0.86 (0.34, 2.16)	0.70 (0.23, 2.09)	0.519	0.33 (0.08, 1.37)	0.23 (0.05, 1.14)	0.071
Number of chemotherapy cycles< 6 (30%)6–8 (70%)	ref 0.16 (0.10, 0.29)	ref 0.17 (0.10, 0.29)	ref <0.001	ref 0.13 (0.07, 0.23)	ref 0.12 (0.07, 0.22)	ref <0.001

Abbreviations: ARL = AIDS related lymphoma, HR = hazard ratio, ARL = AIDS related lymphoma, CR = complete response, PFS = Progression free survival, OS = overall survival, CNS = central nervous system.