| 1. |
- Dreyling, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
Ibrutinib combined with immunochemotherapy with or without autologous stem-cell transplantation versus immunochemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in previously untreated patients with mantle cell lymphoma (TRIANGLE) : a three-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network
- 2024
-
In: The Lancet. - 0140-6736. ; 403:10441, s. 2293-2306
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Adding ibrutinib to standard immunochemotherapy might improve outcomes and challenge autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger (aged 65 years or younger) mantle cell lymphoma patients. This trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of ibrutinib results in a superior clinical outcome compared with the pre-trial immunochemotherapy standard with ASCT or an ibrutinib-containing treatment without ASCT. We also investigated whether standard treatment with ASCT is superior to a treatment adding ibrutinib but without ASCT. Methods: The open-label, randomised, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority TRIANGLE trial was performed in 165 secondary or tertiary clinical centres in 13 European countries and Israel. Patients with previously untreated, stage II–IV mantle cell lymphoma, aged 18–65 years and suitable for ASCT were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to control group A or experimental groups A+I or I, stratified by study group and mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index risk groups. Treatment in group A consisted of six alternating cycles of R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 on day 1, and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1–5) and R-DHAP (or R-DHAOx, intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous or oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1–4, intravenous cytarabine 2 × 2 g/m2 for 3 h every 12 h on day 2, and intravenous cisplatin 100 mg/m2 over 24 h on day 1 or alternatively intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) followed by ASCT. In group A+I, ibrutinib (560 mg orally each day) was added on days 1–19 of R-CHOP cycles and as fixed-duration maintenance (560 mg orally each day for 2 years) after ASCT. In group I, ibrutinib was given the same way as in group A+I, but ASCT was omitted. Three pairwise one-sided log-rank tests for the primary outcome of failure-free survival were statistically monitored. The primary analysis was done by intention-to-treat. Adverse events were evaluated by treatment period among patients who started the respective treatment. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02858258. Findings: Between July 29, 2016 and Dec 28, 2020, 870 patients (662 men, 208 women) were randomly assigned to group A (n=288), group A+I (n=292), and group I (n=290). After 31 months median follow-up, group A+I was superior to group A with 3-year failure-free survival of 88% (95% CI 84–92) versus 72% (67–79; hazard ratio 0·52 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0–0·86]; one-sided p=0·0008). Superiority of group A over group I was not shown with 3-year failure-free survival 72% (67–79) versus 86% (82–91; hazard ratio 1·77 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0–3·76]; one-sided p=0·9979). The comparison of group A+I versus group I is ongoing. There were no relevant differences in grade 3–5 adverse events during induction or ASCT between patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP or ibrutinib combined with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. During maintenance or follow-up, substantially more grade 3–5 haematological adverse events and infections were reported after ASCT plus ibrutinib (group A+I; haematological: 114 [50%] of 231 patients; infections: 58 [25%] of 231; fatal infections: two [1%] of 231) compared with ibrutinib only (group I; haematological: 74 [28%] of 269; infections: 52 [19%] of 269; fatal infections: two [1%] of 269) or after ASCT (group A; haematological: 51 [21%] of 238; infections: 32 [13%] of 238; fatal infections: three [1%] of 238). Interpretation: Adding ibrutinib to first-line treatment resulted in superior efficacy in younger mantle cell lymphoma patients with increased toxicity when given after ASCT. Adding ibrutinib during induction and as maintenance should be part of first-line treatment of younger mantle cell lymphoma patients. Whether ASCT adds to an ibrutinib-containing regimen is not yet determined. Funding: Janssen and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Gisselbrecht, Christian, et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 30:36, s. 4462-4469
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Gisselbrecht, Christian, et al.
(author)
-
Salvage Regimens With Autologous Transplantation for Relapsed Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the Rituximab Era
- 2010
-
In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 28:27, s. 4184-4190
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Pfreundschuh, Michael, et al.
(author)
-
Prognostic significance of maximum tumour (bulk) diameter in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma treated with CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab: an exploratory analysis of the MabThera International Trial Group (MInT) study
- 2008
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - 1474-5488. ; 9:5, s. 435-444
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background The definition and role of bulky disease in young patients (ie, aged 18-60 years) with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), who have been treated with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone)-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab, remain controversial. We aimed to assess the effect of maximum tumour diameter (MTD) in these patients. Methods Patients from the MInT (Mabthera International Trial Group) study were eligible. We analysed event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) after CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab, according to MTD, by Martingale residual analyses and Cox regression models. Radiotherapy was given to sites of primary bulky disease according to national standards, and to primary extranodal disease at physician discretion. The primary endpoint was EFS and the secondary endpoint was OS. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT 00064116. Findings Of the 824 patients enrolled in the MInT study, the informed-consent form of one patient was missing, leaving 823 patients evaluable for intention-to-treat analysis. Data on MTD of involved sites were available for 802 patients. Martingale residual analysis showed an adverse prognostic effect of MTD on EFS and OS, which increased linearly. In a multivariable analysis with MTD as a linear regression variable, the effect of MTD was significant after CHOP-like treatment alone for EFS (hazard ratio 1.090 [95% CI 1.051-1-130], p<0.0001) and OS (1-119 [1-057-1-184], p=0.0001), and after CHOP-like treatment and rituximab for OS (1-089 [1-003-1-183],p=0.043), but not for EFS (1-044 [0-991-1-099], p=0.103). For CHOP-like treatment alone, 3-year EFS ranged from 78-2% (MTD <5.0 cm, 95% CI 68.3-85.4) to 41.3% (MTD >= 10.0 cm, 31.8-50.4). For CHOP-like treatment and rituximab, 3-year EFS ranged from 83.2% (MTD <5.0 cm, 72.8-89.9) to 72.7% (MTD >= 10.0 cm, 63.8-79.7). With CHOP-like treatment alone, 3-year OS decreased from 92.9% (MTD <5.0 cm, 84.9-96.8) to 73.5% (MTD >= 10.0 cm, 63.9-81.0); for CHOP-like treatment and rituximab, 3-year OS decreased from 98.0% (MTD <5.0 cm, 92.2-99.5) to 85.2% (MTD >= 10.0 cm, 77.0-90.6). For CHOP-like treatment, any cut-off point between 5.0 cm and 10.0 cm separated two populations with a significant EFS difference (p<0.0001 for all log-rank tests) and OS difference (p <= 0.003 for all log-rank tests). For CHOP-like treatment and rituximab, only a cut-off point of 10.0 cm separated two populations with a significant EFS difference (log-rank p=0.047), but any cut-off point of 6.0 cm or more separated two populations with a significant OS difference (log-rank p values 0.0009-0.037). Interpretation Rituximab decreased, but did not eliminate the adverse prognostic effect of MTD in young patients with good-prognosis DLBCL. Due to the linear prognostic effect of MTD on outcome, arbitrary cut-off points for bulky disease can be set between 5.0 cm and 10.0 cm, depending on clinical considerations. Based on this study, a cut-off point of 10.0 cm might be a suitable margin in the rituximab era to delineate those patients with bulky disease. Funding Roche, Basel, Switzerland (M39045).
|
|
