Retrospective study reveals standard R-CHOP therapy and baseline risk scores predict survival in elderly lymphoma patients, highlighting the importance of tailored treatment regimens.
Elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) show substantial heterogeneity in disease characteristics, treatment tolerance, and survival outcomes. This study aimed to identify prognostic factors and evaluate their time-dependent impact on survival in elderly DLBCL patients. This retrospective study included 120 elderly DLBCL patients diagnosed between January 2020 and February 2026. Clinical, pathological, and treatment-related characteristics were collected. Patients were classified according to first-line treatment strategy as R-CHOP, reduced-dose/palliative chemotherapy, or non-chemotherapy. Kaplan–Meier analysis, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression models were performed to evaluate factors associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year PFS rates were 76.67%, 58.33%, and 47.50%, respectively, while corresponding OS rates were 81.67%, 67.50%, and 59.17%. Higher IPI scores were independently associated with inferior PFS (HR = 25.28, P < 0.001) and OS (HR = 55.77, P < 0.001). Component-based analysis identified advanced age, Ann Arbor stage III–IV, multiple extranodal involvement, and elevated LDH as independent predictors of poorer survival. The prognostic relevance of individual factors varied across follow-up periods. Patients receiving R-CHOP had better 3-year OS than those receiving reduced-dose/palliative chemotherapy or no chemotherapy (75.00% vs. 46.15% vs. 15.38%, P < 0.001). In elderly DLBCL patients, IPI remains a robust prognostic tool, while individual clinical factors demonstrate differential prognostic relevance over time. Tumor burden, disease extent, and host vulnerability jointly contribute to long-term outcomes. Treatment strategies should be individualized considering disease risk and patient fitness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
金亦 et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: