Abstract
Purpose
Peripheral T cell lymphomas (PTCL) are a rare and heterogeneous group of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas, showing a generally poor prognosis. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to investigate the impact of autologous stem cell transplantation (autoSCT) in PTCL.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of 58 consecutive unselected PTCL patients aged 21–71 years undergoing autoSCT as first-line consolidation as well as in the relapse setting was performed.
Results
The median follow-up time was 67 months. A 5-year overall survival (OS) of 53% and a 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) after autoSCT of 44% was achieved. The overall relapse rate after autoSCT was 50%. On multivariate analysis, standard baseline characteristics such as age, disease stage and international prognostic index (IPI) score failed to predict outcome in our cohort. First-line treatment with autoSCT was not associated with a benefit in OS when compared to patients receiving autoSCT at relapse. Notably, autoSCT seemed to be a suitable approach even for older transplant-eligible patients (aged ≥ 60 years), with a similar 5-year OS of 49% when compared to younger patients.
Conclusions
Our study suggests that autoSCT can achieve long-term survival in PTCL patients even after relapse and should also be considered for eligible older patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Peripheral T cell lymphomas (PTCL) comprise a heterogenous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that are associated with a considerably poorer outcome when compared to their B cell counterparts (Coiffier et al. 1990; Foss et al. 2011; Project IT-CL 2008). Establishing a standard of care for patients with PTCL is difficult, given the rarity of the disease and the resulting paucity of comparative trials (Moskowitz et al. 2014). During the past decades, induction treatment with CHO(E)P (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone) followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (autoSCT) has often been practiced as a standard treatment for transplant eligible patients (d’Amore et al. 2015; Kharfan-Dabaja et al. 2017; Moskowitz et al. 2014). Nevertheless, despite several studies approaching this issue, the status of first-line autoSCT has not been settled (Foss et al. 2011; Gkotzamanidou and Papadimitriou 2014; Moskowitz et al. 2014). In fact, autoSCT as first-line consolidation therapy has been questioned again by recent reports, where no survival benefit was seen in respective patients (Fossard et al. 2017; Rohlfing et al. 2018). To identify patients with a high risk for relapse, who might gain a particular benefit from up-front treatment intensification, a number of prognostic scores have been evaluated in PTCL (Gutiérrez-García et al. 2010; Piccaluga et al. 2010). While some scores, such as the adopted international prognostic index (IPI) or the prognostic index for T cell lymphomas (PIT) have demonstrated some usefulness, they repeatedly showed only little prognostic value in subsequent reports (d’Amore et al. 2012; Gutiérrez-García et al. 2010; Piccaluga et al. 2010; Rohlfing et al. 2018). Of note, varying factors were associated with outcome in different patient cohorts, further emphasizing the heterogeneity of PTCL (Corradini et al. 2006; d’Amore et al. 2012; Fossard et al. 2017; Rohlfing et al. 2018). While CHO(E)P is generally accepted as standard induction regimen, the role of a defined mobilization regimen prior to stem cell harvest has not been addressed in PTCL patients (Corradini et al. 2006; d’Amore et al. 2012; Moskowitz et al. 2014). By including cytostatic agents different from induction therapy, these regimens might add to achieving optimal remission in the frontline setting. Nevertheless, peripheral stem cell harvest is usually performed following a regular induction cycle (d’Amore et al. 2012; Moskowitz et al. 2014). In this retrospective analysis, we give insight into a single-center experience regarding the treatment of 58 consecutive patients with PTCL who underwent autoSCT, either as first-line consolidation therapy or in the relapse setting and performed a multivariant analysis with the aim to determine predictive baseline characteristics.
Materials and methods
Patients, data collection and response assessment
For this retrospective analysis, we identified consecutive patients diagnosed with ALK± ALCL (anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive/negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma), PTCL-NOS (PTCL not otherwise specified), AITL (angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma), EATCL (enteropathy-associated T cell lymphoma) or NKTL (NK/T cell lymphoma), who received autoSCT at the Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen from 1998 to 2017. Histological diagnosis was made by an expert hematopathologist. The choice of treatment for induction and consolidation (up-front autoSCT or observation) was at the discretion of the treating physician. The response assessment was determined at the end of induction treatment based on the International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson et al. 1999). Computed tomography (CT) was used to assess tumor response and was analyzed by local radiologists.
Statistical analysis
For statistical analysis, GraphPad Prism 7.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA) and JMP 12.0 (SAS Institute Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) were used. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier estimate. OS was defined as time from diagnosis to death from any cause and PFS was defined as time from autoSCT to relapse, progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. If no event occurred, data were censored and the time from primary diagnosis or autoSCT until the last recorded patient contact was calculated, respectively. The log-rank test was used for the comparison of Kaplan–Meier estimates between different groups of patients with a significance level α of 0.05. The median follow-up time was assessed using a reverse Kaplan–Meier estimate (Schemper and Smith 1996). The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess the effect of multiple variables on OS and PFS. All p values are two sided.
Results
Patient characteristics
Retrospective follow-up data were available for 58 consecutive PTCL patients aged between 21 and 71 years who underwent autologous stem cell transplantation at the Department of Oncology and Hematology at the University Hospital Tübingen from 1998 to 2017. 40 patients received up-front autoSCT, while 18 patients were treated with autoSCT at relapse. Patient characteristics for the two groups are shown in Table 1. Most common PTCL subtypes within our cohort were AITL (25.9%), followed by EATCL (22.4%), PTCL-NOS (20.7%) and ALK− ALCL (19.0%). Only 12% of PTCL patients presented with ALK+ ALCL or NKTL. The majority of patients (79.3%) presented with stage III or IV disease and 41.4% had a high-intermediate or high IPI (IPI ≥ 3) at diagnosis. Most patients received CHOP (51.7%) or CHOEP (22.4%) chemotherapy as induction treatment regimen. Less frequently used induction regimens were VACOP-B (etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, bleomycin) and methotrexate (MTX) containing regimens (in 10.3% and 12.1% of patients, respectively, Table 1). The median number of induction cycles was five (range 2–8), four (range 4–6) and six (range 4–6) in patients receiving CHOP, CHOEP and MTX-containing regimens, respectively. Patients treated for VACOP-B had a median of six weeks of therapy (range 6–8 weeks). Subsequently, DHAP (dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, cisplatin) or VIP-E (etoposide, ifosfamide, cisplatin, epirubicin (Brugger et al. 1992)) chemotherapy (each regimen 37.9% of patients) were most frequently used as stem cell mobilization therapy prior to peripheral blood stem cell harvest. 20.6% of patients received other mobilization regimens (10.3% VIP, 10.3% MTX containing regimens), in two patients peripheral blood stem cell harvest was performed after a regular induction cycle. PBSCT harvest was successful, yielding sufficient CD34+ cells for autoSCT in all patients in our cohort (median CD34+ hematopoietic stem cell harvest 8.2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg body weight (range 3.0–62.2), Supplementary Table S1). High-dose BEAM was the standard regimen before autoSCT in both settings and was administered in 56 of 58 patients (96.6%). Second line regimens for patients with relapse after conventional chemotherapy varied considerably. Again, DHAP and VIP-E were used most frequently (in 17/29 patients, 58.6%); brentuximab vedotin was administered in five patients (17.2%). Remission status was similar in both groups prior to autoSCT, with a complete remission (CR) in 44.8% and a partial remission (PR) in 53.4% of evaluated PTCL patients. Twelve patients in our cohort underwent alloSCT at relapse after autoSCT. One patient developed acute myeloid leukemia and, therefore, underwent alloSCT; three patients were treated with an auto/alloSCT concept (one patient as first-line therapy, two patients at relapse) (Fig. 1). All patients undergoing alloSCT in our cohort underwent myeloablative conditioning therapy. The most frequently used regimen was fludarabine/melphalan (in 50% of patients). Other patients received cyclophosphamide or fludarabine-based combination chemotherapy, which was combined with total body irradiation (TBI) in six of these patients (37.5%).
Outcome and survival
Figure 1 summarizes the outcome after autoSCT in our PTCL cohort. The median follow-up time was 67 (range 13–153) months in the frontline autoSCT group and 163 (range 48–278) months in the relapse autoSCT group. Only 8.6% (5/58) patients had a follow-up time of less than one year. AutoSCT was generally well tolerated in both groups with no occurrence of transplant-related deaths and timely regeneration of hematopoiesis in all patients. Overall relapse rate after autoSCT regardless of the transplant setting was 50.0% with a 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) after autoSCT of 44.4% (median 37 months) and a 5-year overall survival (OS) of 53.3% (median 92 months) (Fig. 2a, b). Main cause of death was disease progression (19/31 patients, 61.3%). In the frontline autoSCT group (n = 40), the estimated 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) after autoSCT was 34.5% (median 26 months) and the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 40.7% (median 33 months) (Fig. 2c, d). Of note, the group of patients receiving autoSCT at first relapse (n = 18) showed a more favorable outcome with a 5-year PFS after autoSCT of 60.6% (median 77 months) and a 5-year OS of 77.4% (median 141 months) (Fig. 2e, f). Patients with the ALK− ALCL subtype showed a significantly longer time to progression when compared to the EATL subtype (median PFS “not reached” versus 13 months, p = 0.01). No significant differences were seen in overall survival between PTCL subtypes, although the AITL and ALK− ALCL subtypes were associated with a slightly better OS compared to EATL and PTCL-NOS (Fig. 3a, b). Patient age ≥ 60 years was not associated with a significant difference in OS and PFS when compared to younger patients in our cohort (Fig. 3c, d). The estimated 5-year OS was 48.7% (median OS 58 months) in the ≥ 60 cohort (n = 25) and 56.5% (median OS 141 months) in the < 60 cohort (n = 33). Noteworthy, there was a very high transplant-related mortality (TRM) of 75.0% (9/12) in the twelve patients in our cohort undergoing allogenic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) at relapse after autoSCT. The most common cause of death in this setting were infections (6/9), with five deaths due to infectious complications in the immediate context of alloSCT (range 2–25 days after transplantation). Other causes included graft versus host disease (1/9), heart failure (1/9) and intracranial bleeding (1/9). No patient experienced lymphoma relapse after alloSCT. Patients who relapsed after autoSCT and were not able to proceed to alloSCT had a median survival after relapse of only three months and all but one (16/17) of these patients had died at the time of assessment.
Multivariate analysis
To evaluate the impact of baseline characteristics and the choice of treatment on the outcome in our heterogenous group of PTCL patients and diseases, a multivariate analysis was performed. Statistical analysis of the individually assessed factors regarding their correlation with OS and PFS is shown in Table 2. Of note, standard baseline characteristics such as age, disease stage and IPI failed to predict outcome in our PTCL cohort. As already mentioned, the ALK− ALCL subtype was associated with a significantly longer PFS (when compared to EATL), while no other significant differences in PFS or OS among PTCL subtypes were observed. The choice of mobilization treatment, in particular whether or not the regimen contained anthracyclines, did not correlate with outcome in our cohort. Although statistical significance was just missed, a longer time to autoSCT was associated with a better OS (HR 0.04) and PFS (HR 0.05) in our cohort.
Discussion
The poor prognosis of PTCL patients after treatment with conventional chemotherapy entails the need for alternative treatment strategies. Although new drugs have been evaluated recently (Dueck et al. 2010; Fanale et al. 2014; Gallamini et al. 2007; Horwitz et al. 2014; Piekarz et al. 2011), high-dose chemotherapy followed by autoSCT is still the mainstay of treatment intensification in PTCL. Nevertheless, despite numerous studies investigating its role in the treatment of PTCL (Corradini et al. 2006; d’Amore et al. 2006, 2012; Reimer et al. 2009; Rodriguez et al. 2007; Rodríguez et al. 2007), the status of frontline autoSCT after induction therapy has not been settled (Moskowitz et al. 2014). In this study, we present a single-center experience of 58 patients who underwent autoSCT either in the frontline or relapse setting, with the choice of treatment with regard to up-front autoSCT or observation at the discretion of the treating physician. Previous studies have shown that autoSCT, mostly in the context of progressive disease, is performed in only about two-thirds of patients with an intention to transplant at diagnosis (d’Amore et al. 2012; Ellin et al. 2014; Rohlfing et al. 2018). Our focus in this analysis on patients who actually underwent autoSCT allowed us to further characterize this group of patients and to evaluate outcomes after autoSCT in the both settings. Our cohort showed a markedly different distribution of PTCL subtypes when compared to other pro- and retrospective studies (Cederleuf et al. 2017; Corradini et al. 2006; d’Amore et al. 2012; Ellin et al. 2014; Fossard et al. 2017; Rohlfing et al. 2018). In particular, our cohort comprised a higher percentage of patients with the generally poor prognosis EATL and AITL subtypes. Only 8.6% of patients showed the more favorable ALK+ ALCL subtype, where autoSCT is not routinely performed (Moskowitz et al. 2014). Despite the adverse risk profile, overall and progression-free survival was comparable to similar previous analyses of unselected patient cohorts undergoing autoSCT (Nickelsen et al. 2009; Rohlfing et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2013). The more favorable prognosis of ALK+ ALCL has often been reason to exclude this subtype from analysis in PTCL studies (d’Amore et al. 2012; Fossard et al. 2017; Nickelsen et al. 2009; Reimer et al. 2009; Rohlfing et al. 2018). To give a realistic insight into a single center experience and considering the similar treatment approach, we decided to include these patients in our analysis. Other baseline characteristics in our study were similar to those of previous retrospective reports, with the exception of a slightly more favorable IPI distribution at diagnosis (Cederleuf et al. 2017; Ellin et al. 2014; Fossard et al. 2017; Rohlfing et al. 2018). The role of mobilization therapy prior to stem cell harvest is unsettled and frequently no defined mobilization regimen is applied, as the feasibility of PBSCT harvest following a regular induction cycle has been demonstrated (Corradini et al. 2006; d’Amore et al. 2012; Moskowitz et al. 2014; Reimer et al. 2009). At our center, we aim to perform PBSCT harvest at the end of induction therapy, which entails the lowest risk for lymphoma contamination (Jacquy et al. 2000). A routinely implemented mobilization regimen allows for a reliable PBSCT harvest in these pretreated patients, as cytotoxic induction chemotherapy adversely affects the yield of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells (Haas et al. 1994). Nevertheless, possible complications, such as infections due to prolonged neutropenia and transfusion requirements following mobilization therapy, have to be taken into consideration. No difference regarding outcome was observed between the two most common regimens used (DHAP and VIP-E) and whether the regimen included anthracyclines or not. In our cohort, no baseline characteristics other than ALK− ALCL subtype correlated significantly with outcome. This is partly in line with previous reports, where only few and varying factors (i.e. IPI, age, response to induction) have shown predictive value in multivariate analyses (Corradini et al. 2004; d’Amore et al. 2012; Rohlfing et al. 2018). This observation underscores the difficulty of establishing a universal prognostic tool for this heterogenous group of diseases and explains why adopted scores from B cell lymphomas have not shown the same prognostic value in PTCL (Gutiérrez-García et al. 2010; Piccaluga et al. 2010). Baseline characteristics were similar in the frontline and relapse autoSCT groups, arguing against a selection bias in deciding for and against up-front autoSCT. Considering the similar remission statuses prior to transplant in both patient groups, this allows for a cautious comparison of outcome after autoSCT, whilst keeping the natural limitations of a retrospective study in mind. Although widely practiced as standard of care and being recommended for transplant-eligible patients by several guidelines (d’Amore et al. 2015; Kharfan-Dabaja et al. 2017), no benefit for up-front autoSCT could be deduced from our data. In fact, a striking number of patients achieved long-time remission from autoSCT in the relapse setting, pointing towards a benefit for those patients eligible for autoSCT at relapse and thereby resembling the pattern seen in B cell lymphomas (Philip et al. 1995). However, it should be considered that a substantial fraction of relapsing patients may be ineligible for autoSCT due to disease progression or chemoresistant disease (Chihara et al. 2017; Ellin et al. 2014; Mak et al. 2013). Therefore, the markedly better OS and PFS seen in our relapse autoSCT group is likely exaggerated owing to a selection bias, as only fit patients with renewed chemosensitive disease were treated within this group. Nevertheless, delaying high-dose chemotherapy and autoSCT to a relapse setting might be a suitable approach for patients with a complete remission after conventional induction chemotherapy. While several studies have reported a survival benefit for autoSCT in first remission (Corradini et al. 2006; d’Amore et al. 2012; Reimer et al. 2009), our observations are comparable with more recent reports, where no such benefit was observed (Cederleuf et al. 2017; Fossard et al. 2017). Of note, nearly half of our patient cohort was ≥ 60 years old and no significant difference in OS and PFS was seen when compared to younger patients. This illustrates that autoSCT can also be considered in eligible older patients. As expected, patients relapsing after autoSCT had a particularly poor outcome. Remarkably, although no disease reoccurrence was observed, survival was only marginally improved through allogenic stem cell transplant in this setting. This observation is easily explained by the high transplant-related mortality observed in our cohort, which has not been reported to the same extend in previous studies (Hamadani et al. 2008; Kanakry et al. 2013; Le Gouill et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2013). Infectious complications were the main cause of TRM, mostly occurring in the immediate context of alloSCT. Resulting in an increased risk and reduced resilience to infections, this is likely a reflection of the impaired bone marrow and organ functions in this heavily pretreated patient collective. Reduced intensity conditioning might therefore contribute to reducing TRM in these patients (Corradini et al. 2004). Furthermore, the frequently severe immune dysfunction observed in T cell lymphomas (Advani et al. 1980) has to be considered as a contributing factor. Our single-center experience adds another piece to the still incomplete picture on the role of autologous stem cell transplant in PTCL. Our study shows that long-term remission can be achieved through autoSCT in both the up-front and relapse setting. While no definitive conclusion can be drawn from our retrospective data, our study does not support autoSCT as an up-front treatment in patients with chemosensitive disease. The persistently inconsistent results obtained from retro- and prospective studies on the role of autoSCT in the frontline therapy of PTCL more than ever call for evaluation in a large randomized trial.
References
Advani S et al (1980) Immune dysfunction in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer 45:2843–2848
Brugger W, Bross K, Frisch J, Dern P, Weber B, Mertelsmann R, Kanz L (1992) Mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells by sequential administration of interleukin-3 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor following polychemotherapy with etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin [see comments]. Blood 79:1193–1200
Cederleuf H et al (2017) Outcome of peripheral T cell lymphoma in first complete remission: a Danish–Swedish population-based study. Leuk Lymphoma 58:2815–2823
Cheson BD et al (1999) Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Clin Oncol 17:1244
Chihara D et al (2017) The survival outcome of patients with relapsed/refractory peripheral T cell lymphoma-not otherwise specified and angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma. Br J Haematol 176:750–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.14477
Coiffier B, Brousse N, Peuchmaur M, Berger F, Gisselbrecht C, Bryon P, Diebold J (1990) Peripheral T cell lymphomas have a worse prognosis than B cell lymphomas: a prospective study of 361 immunophenotyped patients treated with the LNH-84 regimen. Ann Oncol 1:45–50
Corradini P et al (2004) Graft-versus-lymphoma effect in relapsed peripheral T cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas after reduced-intensity conditioning followed by allogeneic transplantation of hematopoietic cells. J Clin Oncol 22:2172–2176
Corradini P et al (2006) Long-term follow-up of patients with peripheral T cell lymphomas treated up-front with high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation. Leukemia 20:1533
d’Amore F et al (2006) Dose-dense induction followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) as 1st line treatment in peripheral T cell lymphomas (PTCL)-a phase II Study of the Nordic Lymphoma Group (NLG). Blood 108(11):401
d’Amore F et al (2012) Up-front autologous stem-cell transplantation in peripheral T cell lymphoma: NLG-T-01. J Clin Oncol 30:3093–3099
d’Amore F et al (2015) Peripheral T cell lymphomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26:v108–v115
Dueck G et al (2010) Interim report of a phase 2 clinical trial of lenalidomide for T cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer 116:4541–4548
Ellin F, Landstrom J, Jerkeman M, Relander T (2014) Real-world data on prognostic factors and treatment in peripheral T cell lymphomas: a study from the Swedish Lymphoma Registry. Blood 124:1570–1577. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2014-04-573089
Fanale MA et al (2014) Brentuximab vedotin in the front-line treatment of patients with CD30+ peripheral T cell lymphomas: results of a phase I study. J Clin Oncol 32:3137
Foss FM, Zinzani PL, Vose JM, Gascoyne RD, Rosen ST, Tobinai K (2011) Peripheral T cell lymphoma. Blood 117:6756–6767. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-05-231548
Fossard G et al (2017) Role of up-front autologous stem-cell transplantation in peripheral T cell lymphoma for patients in response after induction: an analysis of patients from LYSA centers. Ann Oncol 29:715–723
Gallamini A et al (2007) Alemtuzumab (campath-1H) and CHOP chemotherapy as first-line treatment of peripheral T cell lymphoma: results of a GITIL (Gruppo Italiano Terapie Innovative nei Linfomi) prospective multicenter trial. Blood 110:2316–2323
Gkotzamanidou M, Papadimitriou CA (2014) Peripheral T cell lymphoma: the role of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol 89:248–261
Gutiérrez-García G et al (2010) Comparison of four prognostic scores in peripheral T cell lymphoma. Ann Oncol 22:397–404
Haas R et al (1994) Patient characteristics associated with successful mobilizing and autografting of peripheral blood progenitor cells in malignant lymphoma. Blood 83:3787–3794
Hamadani M, Awan FT, Elder P, Lin TS, Porcu P, Blum KA, Devine SM (2008) Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for peripheral T cell lymphomas; evidence of graft-versus-T cell lymphoma effect. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 14:480–483
Horwitz SM et al (2014) Objective responses in relapsed T cell lymphomas with single agent brentuximab vedotin. Blood 123:3095–3100. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-2012-542142
Jacquy C et al (2000) A quantitative study of peripheral blood stem cell contamination in diffuse large-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: one-half of patients significantly mobilize malignant cells. Br J Haematol 110:631–637
Kanakry JA et al (2013) Outcomes of related donor HLA-identical or HLA-haploidentical allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation for peripheral T cell lymphoma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 19:602–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.01.006
Kharfan-Dabaja MA et al (2017) Clinical practice recommendations on indication and timing of hematopoietic cell transplantation in mature T cell and NK/T cell lymphomas: an international collaborative effort on behalf of the Guidelines Committee of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 23:1826–1838
Le Gouill S et al (2008) Graft-versus-lymphoma effect for aggressive T cell lymphomas in adults: a study by the Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle et de Therapie Cellulaire. J Clin Oncol 26:2264–2271. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.14.1366
Mak V et al (2013) Survival of patients with peripheral T cell lymphoma after first relapse or progression: spectrum of disease and rare long-term survivors. J Clin Oncol 31:1970–1976
Moskowitz AJ, Lunning M, Horwitz SM (2014) How I treat the peripheral T cell lymphomas. Blood 123:2636–2644. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-2012-516245
Nickelsen M et al (2009) High-dose CHOP plus etoposide (MegaCHOEP) in T cell lymphoma: a comparative analysis of patients treated within trials of the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group (DSHNHL). Ann Oncol 20:1977–1984
Philip T et al (1995) Autologous bone marrow transplantation as compared with salvage chemotherapy in relapses of chemotherapy-sensitive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 333:1540–1545
Piccaluga PP, Agostinelli C, Gazzola A, Mannu C, Bacci F, Sabattini E, Pileri SA (2010) Prognostic markers in peripheral T cell lymphoma. Curr Hematol Malig Rep 5:222–228
Piekarz RL et al (2011) Phase 2 trial of romidepsin in patients with peripheral T cell lymphoma. Blood 117:5827–5834
Project IT-CL (2008) International peripheral T cell and natural killer/T cell lymphoma study: pathology findings and clinical outcomes. J Clin Oncol 26:4124–4130. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.16.4558
Reimer P et al (2009) Autologous stem-cell transplantation as first-line therapy in peripheral T cell lymphomas: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 27:106–113
Rodriguez J et al (2007) The results of consolidation with autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL) in first complete remission: the Spanish Lymphoma and Autologous Transplantation Group experience. Ann Oncol 18:652–657
Rodríguez J et al (2007) Frontline autologous stem cell transplantation in high-risk peripheral T cell lymphoma: a prospective study from The Gel-Tamo Study Group. Eur J Haematol 79:32–38
Rohlfing S et al (2018) The impact of stem cell transplantation on the natural course of peripheral T cell lymphoma: a real-world experience. Ann Hematol 97:1241–1250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-018-3288-7
Schemper M, Smith TL (1996) A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Contemp Clin Trials 17:343–346
Smith SM et al (2013) Hematopoietic cell transplantation for systemic mature T cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 31:3100
Funding
No Funding was received for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
432_2019_2999_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Supplementary Table S1 Peripheral blood stem cell harvest. CHO(E)P cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, (etoposide), prednisone, VACOP-B etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, bleomycin, DHAP dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, cisplatin, VIPE etoposide, ifosfamide, cisplatin, epirubicin, bw body weight (DOCX 16 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roerden, M., Walz, J.S., Müller, M.R. et al. The role of autologous stem cell transplantation in peripheral T cell lymphoma: a long-term follow-up single-center experience. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 145, 2595–2604 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-019-02999-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-019-02999-9