| 1. |
- Gisselbrecht, Christian, et al.
(författare)
-
Rituximab Maintenance Therapy After Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation in Patients With Relapsed CD20(+) Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma : Final Analysis of the Collaborative Trial in Relapsed Aggressive Lymphoma
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 30:36, s. 4462-4469
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose The standard treatment for relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). The impact of maintenance rituximab after ASCT is not known. Patients and Methods In total, 477 patients with CD20(+) DLBCL who were in their first relapse or refractory to initial therapy were randomly assigned to one of two salvage regimens. After three cycles of salvage chemotherapy, the responding patients received high-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT. Then, 242 patients were randomly assigned to either rituximab every 2 months for 1 year or observation. Results After ASCT, 122 patients received rituximab, and 120 patients were observed only. The median follow-up time was 44 months. The 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rates after ASCT were 52% and 53% for the rituximab and observation groups, respectively (P=.7). Treatment with rituximab was associated with a 15% attributable risk of serious adverse events after day 100, with more deaths (six deaths v three deaths in the observation arm). Several factors affected EFS after ASCT (P<.05), including relapsed disease within 12 months (EFS: 46% v 56% for relapsed disease after 12 months), secondary age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (saaIPI) more than 1 (EFS: 37% v 61% for saaIPI < 1), and prior treatment with rituximab (EFS: 47% v 59% for no prior rituximab). A significant difference in EFS between women (63%) and men (46%) was also observed in the rituximab group. In the Cox model for maintenance, the saaIPI was a significant prognostic factor (P<.001), as was male sex (P=.01). Conclusion In relapsed DLBCL, we observed no difference between the control group and the rituximab maintenance group and do not recommend rituximab after ASCT.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gisselbrecht, Christian, et al.
(författare)
-
Salvage Regimens With Autologous Transplantation for Relapsed Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the Rituximab Era
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 28:27, s. 4184-4190
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose Salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment for relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Salvage regimens have never been compared; their efficacy in the rituximab era is unknown. Patients and Methods Patients with CD20(+) DLBCL in first relapse or who were refractory after first-line therapy were randomly assigned to either rituximab, ifosfamide, etoposide, and carboplatin (R-ICE) or rituximab, dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin (R-DHAP). Responding patients received high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT. Results The median age of the 396 patients enrolled (R-ICE, n = 202; R-DHAP, n = 194) was 55 years. Similar response rates were observed after three cycles of R-ICE (63.5%; 95% CI, 56% to 70%) and R-DHAP (62.8%; 95 CI, 55% to 69%). Factors affecting response rates (P < .001) were refractory disease/relapse less than versus more than 12 months after diagnosis (46% v 88%, respectively), International Prognostic Index (IPI) of more than 1 versus 0 to 1 (52% v 71%, respectively), and prior rituximab treatment versus no prior rituximab (51% v 83%, respectively). There was no significant difference between R-ICE and R-DHAP for 3-year event-free survival (EFS) or overall survival. Three-year EFS was affected by prior rituximab treatment versus no rituximab (21% v 47%, respectively), relapse less than versus more than 12 months after diagnosis (20% v 45%, respectively), and IPI of 2 to 3 versus 0 to 1 (18% v 40%, respectively). In the Cox model, these parameters were significant (P < .001). Conclusion In patients who experience relapse more than 12 months after diagnosis, prior rituximab treatment does not affect EFS. Patients with early relapses after rituximab-containing first-line therapy have a poor prognosis, with no difference between the effects of R-ICE and R-DHAP.
|
|
