- Correspondence
- Open access
- Published:
Impact of diagnosis to treatment interval on outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma - a US multisite study
Experimental Hematology & Oncology volume 14, Article number: 73 (2025)
Abstract
Diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) is an important prognostic factor in patients with newly diagnosed aggressive lymphomas, however the impact of DTI on outcomes in marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is unknown. In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we included adult patients with MZL who received first-line immunochemotherapy within 120 days of diagnosis at 10 US medical centers. Patients who received treatment within 60 days from their diagnosis were classified into the short DTI group and those who received treatment beyond 60 days into long DTI group. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of histologic transformation (HT) between the two groups. Of the 870 patients with newly diagnosed MZL, 177 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. Among these 144 (81%) were in the short DTI group and 33 (19%) in the long DTI group. In the univariable analysis, presence of B symptoms was associated with short DTI and remained significantly associated with short DTI in the multivariable analysis (OR = 11.91, p = 0.017). Short DTI was not associated with a statistically different PFS or OS compared to long DTI in the univariable or in multivariable analysis. The cumulative incidence of HT was not significantly different between the two groups. This is the first study to-date to report on the association of DTI on outcomes in MZL patients. This lack of prognostic utility of DTI in newly diagnosed MZL, in contrast to aggressive B-cell lymphomas, may be intrinsically linked to the underlying disease biology.
To the editor
Diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) is an important prognostic factor in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) [1, 2] where patients with short DTI (< 14 days) consistently show inferior survival. However, the impact of DTI in marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is unknown.
In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we included adult MZL patients who received first-line immunochemotherapy within 120 days of diagnosis at 10 US medical centers. In a sensitivity analysis, we observed no difference in the main results when varying this cutoff (Figure S1a, b). We collected variables known to be significantly associated with survival outcomes in all subtypes of MZL [3,4,5,6].
DTI was defined as the time in days from the date of diagnosis (biopsy confirmed) to the initiation of immunochemotherapy. Patients who received treatment within 60 days from their diagnosis were classified into short DTI group and those who received treatment > 60 days into long DTI group. Primary objective was evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) while secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of transformation between the two groups. For details on methods including statistical analysis, see Table S1.
Of the 870 patients with newly diagnosed MZL, 177 patients met the inclusion criteria (CONSORT diagram, Figure S2). Among these, 144 (81%) were in the short DTI group. Median age was 61 years with 43% EMZL (n = 77), 38% NMZL (n = 67), and 19% SMZL (n = 33) patients. 75% received bendamustine and rituximab (BR) as first-line treatment followed by rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (R-CHOP, 15%), and rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (R-CVP, 10%). Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the patient population according to DTI group.
In the univariable analysis, presence of B symptoms was associated with short DTI (Table S2) and remained significantly associated with short DTI in the multivariable analysis after controlling for other clinically relevant factors (OR = 11.91, p = 0.017, Table S2).
Short DTI was not associated with a statistically different PFS compared to long DTI in univariable assessment (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.39–1.25, p = 0.22), or in the multivariable analysis, (aHR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.35–1.16, p = 0.14, Fig. 1a). In the multivariable model (Table S3), factors independently associated with significantly inferior PFS included advancing age (aHR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.02–1.61, p = 0.035) and low albumin at diagnosis (aHR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.19–4.83, p = 0.01), while patients who received BR had significantly better PFS compared to those who received R-CHOP/RCVP (aHR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.17–0.51, p < 0.001, Figure S3a).
Short DTI was not associated with inferior OS compared to long DTI in either univariable assessment (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.29–2.12, p = 0.63, Fig. 1b) or multivariable analysis (aHR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.26–2.03, p = 0.55). In the multivariable model (Table S4), we did not identify any factors associated with significantly inferior OS including receipt of BR (Figure S3b), although advancing age trended towards inferior OS (aHR = 1.53, 95% CI = 0.99–2.36, p = 0.05, Table S4).
There was no evidence of statistically significant interaction between DTI and histologic MZL subtype for PFS (interaction P = 0.88) or OS (P = 0.53). The main results were not sensitive to the choice of specific DTI cutoff (ranging from 20 to 100 days) for group discrimination (Figure S4).
There were 12 transformation events in the study, 8 in the short DTI group and 4 in the long DTI group. The cumulative incidence of transformation was not significantly different between the two groups (10-year CIF 13% in the short DTI group vs. 12% in the long DTI group, p = 0.22, Figure S5).
In this multicenter retrospective cohort study evaluating the impact of DTI on outcomes in newly diagnosed MZL treated with immunochemotherapy, we made several important observations. First, a short DTI does not correlate with an inferior PFS, despite being associated with certain unfavorable characteristics such as the presence of B symptoms. Second, short DTI does not portend inferior OS. Lastly, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of transformation between short or longer DTI.
We included patients with MZL treated with immunochemotherapy to avoid heterogeneity related to first-line treatment (such as those treated with rituximab monotherapy) and avoid treatment bias. Despite being associated with high-risk factors, short DTI was not associated with inferior survival, which is in contrast to the literature in aggressive lymphomas (DLBCL and MCL) [1, 2]. This may be intrinsically linked to the differences in disease biology and future studies need to explore if there are any high-risk groups within MZL that may behave differently with regard to DTI. Furthermore, the observed improvement in PFS with BR compared to RCHOP/RCVP, as demonstrated in clinical trials like STiL [7] and BRIGHT [8], cannot be attributed to differences in DTI.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Maurer MJ, Ghesquières H, Link BK, et al. Diagnosis-to-treatment interval is an important clinical factor in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and has implication for bias in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(16):1603–10.
Epperla N, Switchenko J, Bachanova V, et al. Impact of diagnosis to treatment interval in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2023;7(11):2287–96.
Thieblemont C, Cascione L, Conconi A, et al. A MALT lymphoma prognostic index. Blood. 2017;130(12):1409–17.
Arcaini L, Lazzarino M, Colombo N, et al. Splenic marginal zone lymphoma: a prognostic model for clinical use. Blood. 2006;107(12):4643–9.
Epperla N, Zhao Q, Karmali R, et al. Impact of detectable monoclonal protein at diagnosis on outcomes in marginal zone lymphoma: a multicenter cohort study. Blood Adv. 2023;7(17):5038–46.
Grover NS, Annunzio K, Watkins M, et al. Evaluation of Ki-67 expression and large cell content as prognostic markers in MZL: a multicenter cohort study. Blood Cancer J. 2024;14(1):182.
Rummel MJ, Niederle N, Maschmeyer G, et al. Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9873):1203–10.
Flinn IW, van der Jagt R, Kahl BS, et al. Randomized trial of bendamustine-rituximab or R-CHOP/R-CVP in first-line treatment of indolent NHL or MCL: the BRIGHT study. Blood. 2014;123(19):2944–52.
Acknowledgements
None
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conception and design: NE Financial support: None Collection and assembly of data: All authors Data analysis: AJO and NE Interpretation: NE, GS, NSG, PT, KA, MW, AAG, BC, CT, SKB, PRG, RK, NLB, AJO. Manuscript writing: First draft prepared by NE. GS, NSG, PT, KA, MW, AAG, BC, CT, SKB, PRG, RK, NLB, AJO provided critical and insightful comments. Final approval of manuscript: NE, GS, NSG, PT, KA, MW, AAG, BC, CT, SKB, PRG, RK, NLB, AJO.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the institutional review board at OSU and was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Competing interests
PT: Honoraria/consulting/ad boards for Seagen, Pfizer, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, TG Therapeutics, ADC Therapeutics, Genentech, GenMab and Lilly USA NSG: Research funding: Regeneron, Cabaletta, BMS, Affimed, Poseida. Honoraria/consulting ad boards for ADC Therapeutics, Genentech, Novartis, BMS, Regeneron. RK: Advisory Board: BMS, Miltenyi, Abbvie, Genmab, Lilly USA, Genentech/Roche; Grants/Research Support: BMS. Speakers Bureau: AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Morphosys/Incyte BC: Research funding: Genentech, Acerta, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffman-La Roche; Advisory Board: Incyte, AstraZeneca SKB: Honoraria: Acrotech, Affimed, Daiichi Sankyo, Kyowa Kirin, Janssen, Seagen PRG: Consultancy services: Kite/Gilead Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). Advisory board: Pharmacyclics LLC, ADC Therapeutics, Cellectar Biosciences, Ono Pharma, CRISPR therapeutics, IPSEN Biopharma, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. NLB: Research funding: ADC Therapeutics, Autolus, BMS, Celgene, Forty Seven, Genentech, Immune Design, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Pharmacyclics, Affirmed Therapeutics, Dynavax, Gilead, MedImmune, Novartis; Consulting/Ad board: Kite Pharma, Pfizer, ADC Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, BTG, Acerta AJO: Genmab; Precision Bio; Adaptive Biotechnologies; Celldex; Acrotech Biopharma; Schrodinger; TG Therapeutics; Genentech. NE: Research funding (institutional): Beigene, Lilly, ADC Therapeutics, Ipsen and Incyte; Speakers Bureau for Beigene and Genetech, Ad boards for Ipsen and CRISPR Therapeutics.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Epperla, N., Shouse, G., Grover, N.S. et al. Impact of diagnosis to treatment interval on outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma - a US multisite study. Exp Hematol Oncol 14, 73 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40164-025-00666-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40164-025-00666-z