Table 1.
Main studies evaluating alternative therapeutic strategies to the CHOP regimen for MCTL in different clinical settings.
| Author | Study design | Population | Therapeutic strategies | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schmitz N, 2010 | Retrospective | 289 nMTCL (28 AITL) | CHOP vs CHOEP | 3y EFS: 50.0 vs 67.5% (for AITL) |
| Ellin F, 2014 | Retrospective | 755 nMTCL (104 AITL) | CHOP vs CHOEP | 5y PFS: 23.0 vs 40.0% (for AITL) |
| Lage L, 2022 | Retrospective | 124 nMTCL (13 AITL) | CHOP vs CHOEP | 2y PFS: 69.7 vs 25.0% (for all nMTCL) |
| Brink M, 2022 | Retrospective | 1427 nMTCL (294 AITL) | CHOP vs CHOEP | 5y OS: 44.0 vs 64.0% (for all nMTCL) |
| Gallamini A, 2007 | Prospective, Phase II | 24 MTCL (6 AITL) | CHOP plus alemtuzumab | 2y FFS: 48% |
| Ganjoo K, 2014 | Prospective, Phase II | 46 MTCL (17 AITL) | CHOP plus bevacizumab | 1y PFS: 44% (57% for AITL) |
| Lemonnier F, 2021 | Prospective, Phase II | 80 nMTCL (67 AITL) | CHOP plus lenalidomide | 2y PFS: 42% for AITL |
| Meewes FO, 2022 | Retrospective | 335 AITL | R-CHO(E)P vs R-CHOP | 2y PFS: 45.0 vs 40.0% |
| Horwitz S, 2019 | Prospective, Phase III | 452 MTCL (> 70% ALCL) | BV-CHP vs CHOP | Median PFS: 48.2 vs 20.8 months |
| Falchi L, 2021 | Prospective, Phase II | 25 R/R nMTCL (20 nMTCL-TFH) | 5-azacytidine plus romidepsin | Median PFS: 8.0 months |
| Ruan J, 2020 | Prospective, Phase II |
21 nMTCL (16 nMTCL-TFH) | 5-azacytidine plus CHOP | 1y PFS: 56.8% (61.1% for AITL) |
| Bachy E, 2022 | Prospective, Phase III | 421 MTCL | CHOP vs Romidepsin plus CHOP (Ro-CHOP) | Median PFS: 10.2 vs 12.0 months |
nMTCL, nodal mature T-cell lymphoma; AITL, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma; EFS, event-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; FFS, failure-free survival; ALCL, anaplastic large-cell lymphoma; nMTCL-TFH, nodal mature T-cell lymphoma with follicular T-helper phenotype; CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone; R, rituximab; BV, brentuximab-vedotin; (E), etoposide; Ro, romidepsin.