Overview of important clinical studies in first line for PTCL and the representation of rare PTCL subtypes
| Investigational agent used . | Total number of patients . | EATL/MEITL, n (best response) . | SPTCL n (best response) . | HSTCL n (best response) . | Responses in other/unspecified subtypes in publication . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brentuximab + CHP followed by ASCT (EATL-001, Sibon et al)49 | 14 | 14 (ORR = 79%, CR = 64%, 2-y PFS = 63%, 2-y OS = 68%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | NA |
| Brentuximab + CHP followed by ASCT (ECHELON-2, Horwitz et al)106 | 452 | 3 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Romidepsin + CHOP vs CHOP (Bachy et al)107 | 421 | 16 (5 Ro-CHOP, 11 CHOP) (NR) | 9 (7 Ro-CHOP, 2 CHOP) (NR) | 2 (1 Ro-CHOP, 1 CHOP) | No significant difference in PFS between Ro-CHOP and CHOP for “other” PTCL histologies |
| CHOP/ICE/IVAC followed by Auto/Allo (Voss et al)99 | 14 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14 (ORR =64%, CR = 35%, 5-y OS = 50%) | NA |
| CHOEP followed by Auto/Allo (Schmitz et al)54 | 103 | 3 (NR) | 1 (NR) | 2 (NR) | 1 primary cutaneous γ/δ T-cell lymphoma (outcome NR) |
| CHEOP followed by ASCT (NLG-T-01, d’Amore et al)46 | 160 | 21 (5-y PFS = 38%, 5-y OS = 48%) | 6 (3-y OS = 44%) ∗3-y OS for SPTCL and HSTCL estimated as composite of all patients with SPTCL, HSTCL, and ENKTL | 5 (3-y OS = 44%) ∗3-y OS for SPTCL and HSTCL estimated as composite of all patients with SPTCL, HSTCL, and ENKTL | 5 patients with ENKTL |
| Investigational agent used . | Total number of patients . | EATL/MEITL, n (best response) . | SPTCL n (best response) . | HSTCL n (best response) . | Responses in other/unspecified subtypes in publication . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brentuximab + CHP followed by ASCT (EATL-001, Sibon et al)49 | 14 | 14 (ORR = 79%, CR = 64%, 2-y PFS = 63%, 2-y OS = 68%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | NA |
| Brentuximab + CHP followed by ASCT (ECHELON-2, Horwitz et al)106 | 452 | 3 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Romidepsin + CHOP vs CHOP (Bachy et al)107 | 421 | 16 (5 Ro-CHOP, 11 CHOP) (NR) | 9 (7 Ro-CHOP, 2 CHOP) (NR) | 2 (1 Ro-CHOP, 1 CHOP) | No significant difference in PFS between Ro-CHOP and CHOP for “other” PTCL histologies |
| CHOP/ICE/IVAC followed by Auto/Allo (Voss et al)99 | 14 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14 (ORR =64%, CR = 35%, 5-y OS = 50%) | NA |
| CHOEP followed by Auto/Allo (Schmitz et al)54 | 103 | 3 (NR) | 1 (NR) | 2 (NR) | 1 primary cutaneous γ/δ T-cell lymphoma (outcome NR) |
| CHEOP followed by ASCT (NLG-T-01, d’Amore et al)46 | 160 | 21 (5-y PFS = 38%, 5-y OS = 48%) | 6 (3-y OS = 44%) ∗3-y OS for SPTCL and HSTCL estimated as composite of all patients with SPTCL, HSTCL, and ENKTL | 5 (3-y OS = 44%) ∗3-y OS for SPTCL and HSTCL estimated as composite of all patients with SPTCL, HSTCL, and ENKTL | 5 patients with ENKTL |
ASCT, autologous stem cell transplant; CAR, chimeric antigen receptor; CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone; ICE, ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; SD, stable disease.