PURPOSE: To prospectively validate the use of a simplified geriatric assessment (sGA) at diagnosis and to integrate it into a prognostic score for older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).METHODS: We conducted the prospective Elderly Project study on patients with DLBCL older than 64 years who underwent our Fondazione Italiana Linfomi original geriatric assessment (oGA) (age, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics, activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living) before treatment. Treatment choice was left to the physician's discretion. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02364050 ).RESULTS: We analyzed 1,163 patients (median age 76 years), with a 3-year OS of 65% (95% CI, 62 to 68). Because at multivariate analysis on oGA, age > 80 years retained an independent correlation with OS, we also developed a new, simplified version of the GA (sGA) that classifies patients as fit (55%), unfit (28%), and frail (18%) with significantly different 3-year OS of 75%, 58%, and 43%, respectively. The sGA groups, International Prognostic Index, and hemoglobin levels were independent predictors of OS and were used to build the Elderly Prognostic Index (EPI). Three risk groups were identified: low (23%), intermediate (48%), and high (29%), with an estimated 3-year OS of 87% (95% CI, 81 to 91), 69% (95% CI, 63 to 73), and 42% (95% CI, 36 to 49), respectively. The EPI was validated using an independent external series of 328 cases.CONCLUSION: The Elderly Project validates sGA as an objective tool to assess fitness status and defines the new EPI to predict OS of older patients with DLBCL.

Lymphoma represents a heterogeneous hematological malignancy (HM), which is characterized by severe immunosuppression. Patients diagnosed of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the course of HM have been described to have poor outcome, with only few reports specifically addressing lymphoma patients. Here, we investigated the clinical behavior and clinical parameters of a large multicenter cohort of adult patients with different lymphoma subtypes, with the aim of identifying predictors of death. The study included 856 patients, of whom 619 were enrolled prospectively in a 1-year frame and were followed-up for a median of 66 days (range 1-395). Patients were managed as outpatient (not-admitted cohort, n = 388) or required hospitalization (n = 468), and median age was 63 years (range 19-94). Overall, the 30- and 100-days mortality was 13% (95% confidence interval (CI), 11% to 15%) and 23% (95% CI, 20% to 27%), respectively. Antilymphoma treatment, including anti-CD20 containing regimens, did not impact survival. Patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma had the more favorable survival, but this was partly related to significantly younger age. The time interval between lymphoma diagnosis and COVID-19 was inversely related to mortality. Multivariable analysis recognized 4 easy-to-use factors (age, gender, lymphocyte, and platelet count) that were associated with risk of death, both in the admitted and in the not-admitted cohort (HR 3.79 and 8.85 for the intermediate- and high-risk group, respectively). Overall, our study shows that patients should not be deprived of the best available treatment of their underlying disease and indicates which patients are at higher risk of death. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04352556.

This retrospective study included 246 patients with a new diagnosis of Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) with a localized‐stage (IA‐IIA), consecutively admitted from January 2002 to December 2008, by twelve Italian hematological centers on behalf of Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL). Patients were staged at baseline and after two cycles of chemotherapy with PET. All patients were treated with four cycles of ABVD followed by involved‐field radiotherapy. No treatment change, based on PET‐2 results was allowed. Endpoint of the study was the predictive role of PET‐2 on 2‐y failure‐free survival (FFS). PET‐2 was positive in 36 patients (15%) and negative in 210. After a mean follow‐up of 46 (3–105) months 19/36 PET‐2 positive patients progressed or relapsed and 17 achieved and maintained a CCR. The positive and negative predictive value of a PET2 was 53% and 95%, respectively. The sensibility, specificity and accuracy of PET2 were 65.5%, 92% and 89%, respectively. PET‐2 positive scans were centrally reviewed according to the recently defined Deauville Criteria. Upon review the PPV and NPV was 73% and 96% overall. Factors with prognostic significance for progression in univariate analysis were a positive PET‐2 (P = 0.000) and the presence of bulky disease (P < 0.01). In a multivariate analysis the only factor that affected negatively FFS was a positive PET‐2 (P = 0.000). This study confirms that interim‐PET could be considered a prognostic test also in early stage HL, but is unlikely to be a factor that will justify the change of therapeutical approach. Am. J. Hematol. 90:499–503, 2015.