Background
A combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is considered the standard treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, no standard treatment has been established for older patients (age ≥ 75 years). This study retrospectively analyzed different treatment strategies in older patients with DLBCL with different chemotherapy regimens and compared the survival rate of patients using oral or intravenous form cyclophosphamide and etoposide in a single center.
Methods
We reviewed the records of older patients with DLBCL, aged ≥ 75 years, from January 2010 to August 2019. The different treatment combinations, clinical characteristics, response rates, and toxicity profiles were analyzed. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Cox regression model was used to identify the risk factors.
Results
Eighty-four patients were included. One-quarter of the patients received cytoreduction treatment because of their poor medical condition at the time of diagnosis. Twenty-six percent of the patients were aged ≥ 85 at the time of diagnosis and 46.7% completed the treatment course. Patients receiving non-anthracycline-containing (non-ACR) treatment had worse Charlson comorbidity index, worse PFS, lower body mass index, or were older. The mean anthracycline accumulative dose in the anthracycline-containing (ACR) group was 134 mg/m
2
. The median OS was 17.2 months and median PFS was 7.7 months. The PFS of R-CHOP is better than R-mini-CHOP and R-CVOP without statistical significance, but OS of R-CHOP is not better than the other regimens.
Conclusion
The toxicity, efficacy, and KM curve for OS and PFS in the non-ACR group were lower compared to ACR group, without statistical significance. R-CVOP had similar OS with R-mini-CHOP in our study. The result does not mean etoposide could totally substitute for anthracycline, but etoposide did have lower early progression rate (12.5%), and it may be an option for frail patients with comorbidity. Oral form cyclophosphamide and etoposide could be considered as a substitute for intravenous administration because of the similar effect and toxic profile.
Background
Central venous catheter (CVC) placement is a common procedure used for the treatment of critically ill patients. However, ischemic stroke is a complication after CVC placement.
Aim
This study investigated the association between CVC placement and ischemic stroke risk in an Asian population.
Design
Population-based retrospective study.
Methods
We enrolled 37 623 patients who ever-received CVC placement over 2000–10 and propensity score-matched individuals without CVC placement as the comparison cohort from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. We determined the cumulative incidence rates and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for ischemic stroke.
Results
We finally identified and enrolled 34 164 propensity score-matched pairs of individuals. Compared with the comparison group, CVC placement increased the average annual ischemic stroke incidence [19.5 vs. 11.6 per 10 000 person-years; crude HR=1.28, 95%, confidence interval (CI)=1.21–1.35; adjusted subhazard ratio (aSHR)=1.4, 95% CI = 1.33–1.47; P<0.001). In addition, compared with those aged >35 years, stroke risk was significantly higher in <35-year-old patients with CVC placement (aSHR=14.3, 95% CI=6.11–33.4; P<0.001). After <1-year follow-up, the ischemic stroke incidence rate in the CVC placement group was ∼3.25-fold higher than that in the comparison group (aHR=3.25, 95% CI=2.9–3.63; P<0.0001).
Conclusion
CVC placement increases ischemic stroke risk, particularly in those aged ≤35 years; this trend warrants further investigation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.