Central Nervous System Prophylaxis Utilization in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Within a Large Community Health System

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Michael J. Williams, Sol Atienza, Renee H. Aranda, Kayleigh B. Flint, S. Sana, S. C. Medlin, Zartash Gul, Federico A. Sanchez, Michael A. Thompson
{"title":"Central Nervous System Prophylaxis Utilization in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Within a Large Community Health System","authors":"Michael J. Williams, Sol Atienza, Renee H. Aranda, Kayleigh B. Flint, S. Sana, S. C. Medlin, Zartash Gul, Federico A. Sanchez, Michael A. Thompson","doi":"10.17294/2330-0698.2060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"the form of intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy and/or high-dose intravenous (IV) methotrexate. CNS-IPI scores were calculated for all patients who received CNS prophylaxis or those who experienced CNS disease. Long-term outcomes at five years from diagnosis included CNS progression/relapse and survival. Results Of 234 patients who met criteria, 20 (8.6%) received either IV methotrexate or IT chemotherapy; most received IT methotrexate. No patients in the IT prophylaxis group developed CNS disease, while two of eight IV methotrexate patients experienced CNS disease involvement. The incidence of CNS progression was 3.7% in the no prophylaxis group and 10% in those who received prophylaxis. Conclusions This study revealed low utilization of CNS prophylaxis and CNS-IPI documentation in a community hospital system. Given large differences between groups, claims of CNS prophylaxis efficacy are unable to be made. CNS relapse rates were consistent with existing literature and promote continued evaluation of the utility of current CNS prophylaxis approaches in DLBCL. New unambiguously effective therapeutic approaches are needed and may encourage a higher rate of standardized use. ( J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2024;11:81-87.)","PeriodicalId":16724,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17294/2330-0698.2060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

the form of intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy and/or high-dose intravenous (IV) methotrexate. CNS-IPI scores were calculated for all patients who received CNS prophylaxis or those who experienced CNS disease. Long-term outcomes at five years from diagnosis included CNS progression/relapse and survival. Results Of 234 patients who met criteria, 20 (8.6%) received either IV methotrexate or IT chemotherapy; most received IT methotrexate. No patients in the IT prophylaxis group developed CNS disease, while two of eight IV methotrexate patients experienced CNS disease involvement. The incidence of CNS progression was 3.7% in the no prophylaxis group and 10% in those who received prophylaxis. Conclusions This study revealed low utilization of CNS prophylaxis and CNS-IPI documentation in a community hospital system. Given large differences between groups, claims of CNS prophylaxis efficacy are unable to be made. CNS relapse rates were consistent with existing literature and promote continued evaluation of the utility of current CNS prophylaxis approaches in DLBCL. New unambiguously effective therapeutic approaches are needed and may encourage a higher rate of standardized use. ( J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2024;11:81-87.)
大型社区医疗系统中新确诊的弥漫大 B 细胞淋巴瘤患者使用中枢神经系统预防药物的情况
鞘内化疗和/或大剂量静脉注射甲氨蝶呤。对所有接受中枢神经系统预防治疗或出现中枢神经系统疾病的患者计算中枢神经系统-IPI评分。诊断后五年的长期结果包括中枢神经系统疾病进展/复发和存活率。结果 在符合标准的 234 名患者中,20 人(8.6%)接受了静脉注射甲氨蝶呤或 IT 化疗;大多数人接受了 IT 甲氨蝶呤。IT预防组没有患者出现中枢神经系统疾病,而8名静脉注射甲氨蝶呤的患者中有2名出现中枢神经系统疾病。未接受预防治疗组的中枢神经系统疾病进展发生率为 3.7%,而接受预防治疗组的中枢神经系统疾病进展发生率为 10%。结论 本研究显示,在社区医院系统中,中枢神经系统预防和中枢神经系统 IPI 文件的使用率较低。由于各组之间存在巨大差异,因此不能断言中枢神经系统预防措施具有疗效。中枢神经系统复发率与现有文献一致,因此需要继续评估当前中枢神经系统预防方法在DLBCL中的效用。需要新的明确有效的治疗方法,并鼓励提高标准化使用率。( J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2024;11:81-87.)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews
Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信