Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul 17;10(7):74.
doi: 10.1038/s41408-020-00340-z.

Follicular lymphoma in the modern era: survival, treatment outcomes, and identification of high-risk subgroups

Affiliations

Follicular lymphoma in the modern era: survival, treatment outcomes, and identification of high-risk subgroups

Connie L Batlevi et al. Blood Cancer J. .

Abstract

Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) frequently require multiple treatments during their disease course; however, survival based on lines of treatment remains poorly described in the post-rituximab era. Also, the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score was developed to predict survival at diagnosis, yet it remains unknown whether increase in FLIPI score following an initial observation period is associated with less-favorable outcomes. To address these knowledge gaps, we retrospectively studied 1088 patients with FL grade 1-3A managed between 1998 and 2009 at our institution. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after first-line treatment were not reached and 4.73 years, respectively. Following successive lines of treatment, years of median OS and PFS were, respectively: after second-line, 11.7 and 1.5; third-line, 8.8 and 1.1; fourth-line, 5.3 and 0.9; fifth-line, 3.1 and 0.6; sixth-line, 1.9 and 0.5. In initially observed, subsequently treated patients, FLIPI score increase after observation was associated with inferior survival following first-line treatment. The reduced survival we observed after second-line and later therapy supports the development of new treatments for relapsed patients and benchmarks historical targets for clinical endpoints. This study also highlights the utility of changes in FLIPI score at diagnosis and after observation in identifying patients likely to have worse outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

C.L.B. has received research support from Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomic, and Bayer; has received honoraria from Dava Oncology; and has a consultancy role with Kite Pharma and Juno Therapeutics. J.D.S. has received research support from Genentech/Roche, BeiGene, TG Therapeutics, and BostonGene; and has a consultancy role with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Verastem. L.F. has received research support from Roche. P.A.H. has received research support from Portola Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Templates, Incyte, and J&J Pharmaceuticals; and has a consultancy role with Portola Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, and Juno Therapeutics. S.M.H. has received research support from ADC Therapeutics, Aileron Therapeutics, Celgene, Forty Seven, Infinity Pharmaceuticals/Verastem Oncology, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium Pharmaceuticals/Takeda Oncology, Seattle Genetics, and Trillium; and has a consultancy role with ADC Therapeutics, Aileron, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Forty Seven, Innate Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium/Takeda, Mundipharma, Portola, and Seattle Genetics. A.K. has received research support from AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics; and has an advisory role with Celgene. M.J.M. has received research support from Genentech, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Rocket Medical, and Seattle Genetics; has received honoraria from Genentech, Roche, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline; and has a consultancy role with Genentech, Bayer, Merck, Juno, Roche, Teva, Rocket Medical, and Seattle Genetics. A.J.M. has received research support from Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck; and has a consultancy role with Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma, Miragen Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Cell Medica, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Erytech Pharma. C.H.M. has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Seattle Genetics; has a consultancy role with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Vaniam Group; and has an advisory role with AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Vaniam Group. A. Noy has received research support from Pharmacyclics and Rafael Pharmaceuticals; has a consultancy role with Morphoysis; and received honoraria from Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Prime Oncology, Medscape, and Targeted Oncology. L.M.P. has received research support from Genentech, Juno, and Regeneron; and has received honoraria from Novartis, Merck, Celgene, Juno, and Pharmacyclics. D.S. has an advisory role with Seattle Genetics. G.v.K. has received research support from Pharmacyclics, Genentech, and Bayer. A.D.Z. has received research support from MEI Pharma, MorphoSys, Sandoz, Celgene, Roche, and Gilead Sciences; has a consultancy role with Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Novartis, and Adaptive Biotechnologies; and serves on the board of directors (Data Monitoring Committee Chair) for BeiGene. A.Y. has received research support from Janssen, Curis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, and Roche; has received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Merck, Curis, Epizyme, Roche, and Takeda; and has a consultancy role with BioPath, Xynomic, Epizyme, and Roche. The remaining authors (F.S., A.A., A. Ni, K.S., Z.Y., P.C.C., A.H., E.J., C.O., and V.E.S.) declare no competing financial interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of FL patients included in our analysis.
Patients diagnosed during the years 1998−2009 were assessed for eligibility. We analyzed 1088 patients while excluding 358 patients for active concurrent malignancy, a composite histology at diagnosis, grade 3B histology, or inadequate follow-up. Nine hundred and twenty-four patients were treated, either initially or after an observation period, and 164 patients never required treatment.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Survival outcomes.
a OS from time of diagnosis for 1088 patients. b OS from time of diagnosis for 1078 patients based on stage at diagnosis. Ten patients excluded for an unknown stage at diagnosis. Stage III disease included patients with provisional stage III, as bone marrow biopsy was not performed for 21% of all patients. c OS from time of diagnosis for 851 patients with FLIPI score at time of diagnosis; FLIPI score at diagnosis unknown for 237 patients. d OS from time of first-line treatment for 731 patients with FLIPI score at time of first treatment; FLIPI score at treatment unknown for 191 patients while 2 patients had incomplete data for survival analysis.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. OS, PFS, and EFS outcomes based on lines of therapy for 922 patients.
a OS from commencement of line of therapy. b PFS from commencement of line of therapy. c EFS from commencement of line of therapy.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Flow diagram of patients for stable vs increased FLIPI analysis.
a Treated patients with FLIPI score at time of diagnosis and treatment (n = 684) were excluded if they were treated within 6 months or had unknown treatment dates (n = 496). Stable FLIPI included patients whose FLIPI risk category did not change between diagnosis and first treatment (low to low, or intermediate to intermediate). Increased FLIPI included patients whose FLIPI score increased between diagnosis and first treatment (low to intermediate, low to high, or intermediate to high). We excluded patients whose FLIPI score decreased between diagnosis and first treatment or remained high (high to high, high to intermediate, high to low, or intermediate to low). Patients observed ≥6 months (n = 188) and ≥12 months (n = 146) were evaluated for stable or increased FLIPI scores. b Patients who never required treatment were evaluated using FLIPI at diagnosis and the highest FLIPI during the initial 5 years of observation to obtain their status of stable or increased FLIPI.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Comparison of outcomes for patients with stable vs dynamic FLIPI.
a OS from time of diagnosis in patients who were never treated and had an annual FLIPI score within first 5 years of observation. b OS since time of first-line treatment in treated patients observed ≥6 months. c PFS since time of first-line treatment in treated patients observed ≥6 months. d OS since time of first-line treatment in treated patients observed ≥12 months. e PFS since time of first-line treatment in treated patients observed ≥12 months.

References

    1. Morton LM, et al. Lymphoma incidence patterns by WHO subtype in the United States, 1992−2001. Blood. 2006;107:265–276. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-06-2508. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2015;65:5–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21254. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Provencio M, et al. Impact of treatment in long-term survival patients with follicular lymphoma: a Spanish Lymphoma Oncology Group registry. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0177204. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177204. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nooka AK, et al. Examination of the follicular lymphoma international prognostic index (FLIPI) in the National LymphoCare study (NLCS): a prospective US patient cohort treated predominantly in community practices. Ann. Oncol. 2013;24:441–448. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds429. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Federico M, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2: a new prognostic index for follicular lymphoma developed by the international follicular lymphoma prognostic factor project. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:4555–4562. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.3991. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms