Page 182 - Haematologica Vol. 110 - January 2025

LETTER TO THE EDITOR A
B
Figure 1. Impact on SARS-CoV-2 infection according to the first-line treatment administered: bendamustine-based versus cy- clophosphamide-based strategies. (A) Differences according to SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes of the patients from the total cohort. (B) Differences according to SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes of the patients from the total cohort using a propensity analysis based on inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). BR + RM: bendamustine plus rituximab and rituximab main- tenance; RCHOP/RCVP + RM: RCHOP/RCVP and rituximab maintenance; ICU: intensive care unit.
evaluated based on the positivity of spike glycoprotein antibody titers after vaccination within the entire cohort. All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.2.2.
The full population included 215 patients: 178 (83%) with FL and 37 (17%) with MCL. Baseline characteristics were analyzed according to the first-line treatment they received (Table 1). In the FL group, 14 (7%) patients were treated with BR induction while 164 (76%) patients had received cyclophosphamide-containing regimens. The MCL cohort included 6 (3%) patients treated with bendamustine and 31 (14%) patients with cyclophosphamide regimens. Median
age for the full cohort was 59 years (interquartile range [IQR], 52-68), without significant differences between groups (62 years bendamustine vs. 59 years cyclophos- phamide). In the cyclophosphamide group, 8 (4%) patients received the RCVP regimen (2 MCL and 6 FL) due to cardiac comorbidities while 187 (96%) received RCHOP. Patients treated with BR received this treatment by the center’s choice, and only one patient was given this regimen be- cause of cardiac comorbidities. Response to the first-line of treatment was similar between cohorts, with a complete response (CR) rate after induction of 80% versus 77% for bendamustine and cyclophosphamide, respectively. Au-
Haematologica | 110 January 2025
174