Background

We have previously reported and validated that the E-IPI, provided better discrimination of overall survival (OS) than the IPI for DLBCL patients > 60 years of age treated with R-CHOP (Advani et al., BJH 2010 and 12-ICML 2013 Abstract 222). Recent reports suggest that males > 60 years treated with R-CHOP have worse outcomes likely related to differences in rituximab clearance (Muller et al., Blood 2012). In this study, we explored if the addition of male sex to the E-IPI further improved risk stratification.

Methods

DLBCL patients > 60 years treated with R-CHOP on the E4494, RICOVER-60 and GELA 98-5 trials were included. A multivariate analysis was performed to assess whether male sex is an independent prognostic factor for OS in addition to the five E-IPI risk factors, E-IPI score, and E-IPI risk group. Male sex (S) was added as an additional risk factor to the E-IPI (S-EIPI, 0-6) and patients regrouped according to the number of risk factors: low (L)=0-1, low intermediate (LI)=2, high intermediate (HI)=3 and high (H)=4-6 based on the observed OS using Kaplan-Meier curves. C-statistic was used to compare the discrimination ability. The 5 year OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

1079 patients (E4494, n=267; RICOVER-60, n=610; GELA 98-5, n=202) with a median follow-up of 8.9 years were included. In multivariate analyses, male sex was a significant independent predictor for OS adjusting for all five E-IPI factors, (HR 1.5, p < 0.0001), E-IPI score (HR 1.42, p < 0.001), and E-IPI risk group (HR 1.42, p < 0.001) (Table 1). C-statistic was 0.66 for S-EIPI and 0.64 for EIPI. Incorporation of sex into the E-IPI shifted 35% patients to higher risk groups, including 110 patients into the highest risk group (Table 2). The estimated 5 year OS for the S-EIPI L, LI, HI, and H risk groups was 87%, 70%, 58%, and 40%, respectively (Table 3). Compared to E-IPI, the 95% C.I. did not overlap among S-EIPI risk groups.

Table 1

Multivariate Cox Models, Male Sex + Individual E-IPI Risk Factors, E-IPI Score, and E-IPI Risk Group

Overall Survival
HRP-value
LDH 1.9 <.0001 
PS 1.5 0.0005 
Stage 1.3 0.01 
Extra-nodal Sites 1.2 0.05 
Age>70 1.7 <.0001 
Male sex 1.5 <.0001 
 
E-IPI Score 1.5 < .0001 
Male Sex 1.4 0.0001 
 
E-IPI LI vs. L 1.8 <.0001 
E-IPI HI vs. L 2.7 <.0001 
E-IPI H vs. L 4.3 <.0001 
Male sex 1.4 0.0001 
Overall Survival
HRP-value
LDH 1.9 <.0001 
PS 1.5 0.0005 
Stage 1.3 0.01 
Extra-nodal Sites 1.2 0.05 
Age>70 1.7 <.0001 
Male sex 1.5 <.0001 
 
E-IPI Score 1.5 < .0001 
Male Sex 1.4 0.0001 
 
E-IPI LI vs. L 1.8 <.0001 
E-IPI HI vs. L 2.7 <.0001 
E-IPI H vs. L 4.3 <.0001 
Male sex 1.4 0.0001 
Table 2

Redistribution of patients by S-EIPI

S-EIPI
E-IPILLIHIHTotal
277 121* 398 
LI 152 144* 296 
HI 116 110* 226 
159 159 
Total 277 273 160 269 1079 
S-EIPI
E-IPILLIHIHTotal
277 121* 398 
LI 152 144* 296 
HI 116 110* 226 
159 159 
Total 277 273 160 269 1079 

*Patients Redistributed

Table 3

Estimate and 95% C.I. of 5-year OS by E-IPI vs. S-EIPI

Risk GroupE-IPI (95% C.I.)S-EIPI (95% C.I.)
82% (79-86%) 87% (83-91%) 
LI 63% (57-69%) 70% (65-76%) 
HI 52% (46-59%) 58% (52-64%) 
38% (31-46%) 40% (34-46%) 
Risk GroupE-IPI (95% C.I.)S-EIPI (95% C.I.)
82% (79-86%) 87% (83-91%) 
LI 63% (57-69%) 70% (65-76%) 
HI 52% (46-59%) 58% (52-64%) 
38% (31-46%) 40% (34-46%) 
Conclusion

For DLBCL patients >60 years treated with R-CHOP, our results suggest the addition of male sex to the E-IPI may improve categorization of patients into well-defined clinically relevant risk groups. Patients with low risk S-EIPI have an excellent outcome (5 year OS 87%). Patients with high risk S-EIPI have a 5 year OS of only 40% and therapies beyond standard R-CHOP need to be explored.

Disclosures:

Horning:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership.

Author notes

*

Asterisk with author names denotes non-ASH members.

Sign in via your Institution