1 / 6

Rituximab Maintenance: Stage III/IV Follicular Lymphoma (ECOG/CALGB E1496)

R A N D O M I Z E. Observation (OBS) vs Rituximab Maintenance (MR). CVP x 6-8 → PR/CR (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone). Rituximab Maintenance: Stage III/IV Follicular Lymphoma (ECOG/CALGB E1496). Subset: 237 FL pts. P = .03 (one-sided).

elden
Download Presentation

Rituximab Maintenance: Stage III/IV Follicular Lymphoma (ECOG/CALGB E1496)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. R A N D O M I Z E Observation (OBS) vs Rituximab Maintenance (MR) CVP x 6-8 → PR/CR (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) Rituximab Maintenance: Stage III/IV Follicular Lymphoma (ECOG/CALGB E1496) Subset: 237 FL pts P = .03 (one-sided) • Hochster H et al. ASH 2005. Abstract 349.

  2. R A N D O M I Z E R E S T A G E CVP x 4 vs R-CVP x4 CVP x 4 vs R-CVP x 4 Stage III/IV FL→ CR/PR → CVP + Rituximab:Stage III/IV Follicular Lymphoma CVP = cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone • Solal-Celigny P et al. ASH 2005. Abstract 350.

  3. Maintenance Rituximab:Relapsed Stage III/IV Follicular Lymphoma • Intergroup Phase 3 (update) CHOP vs R-CHOP → Observation vs Maintenance Rituximab • Randomization 1: R-CHOP vs CHOP • CR: 29% vs 16% (P < .0001) • PFS, median: 33 months vs 20 months • Randomization 2: Maintenance Rituximab vs Observation • PFS: 52 months vs 15 months, P < .0001 • OS, 3 years: 85 months vs 77 months, P = .01 Benefit with maintenance rituximab even after R-CHOP • GLGLSG Phase 3: Relapsed/refractory FL; Mantle cell FCM vs R-FCM → Observation vs Maintenance Rituximab • Overall benefit of MR: median response duration for MR not reached ( vs 17 months in the observation arm) • Role of MR following R-FCM in FL: median response duration for MR not reached(vs 26 months in the observation arm) Van Oers et al. ASH 2005. Abstract 353. Hiddemann et al. ASH 2005. Abstract 920.

  4. R-CHOP-14 vs CHOP-14: DLBCL* RICOVER-60:Interim analysis (n=828) Results 6 CYCLES vs 8 CYCLES -No differences for entire population -Small nonsignificant benefit for CHOP-14, 8 vs 6 -No benefit for R-CHOP-14, 8 vs 6 R-CHOP-14 vs CHOP-14 -CR, 81% vs 73% (P = .008) -Time to treatment failure (at 26 months), 70% vs 57% (P = .000025) HOVON/Nordic Lymphoma Group:Interim analysis (n=250)–DLBCL, FL, MCL Results CHOP-14 x 8 v R-CHOP-14 x 8 -CR, No difference Failure-free survival (at 18 months) favors R-CHOP-14: 51% vs 33%, P = .005 Conclusion: Dose-dense R-CHOP is feasible and produces results superior to dose-dense CHOP. Results need to be confirmed. *61-80 years of age • Pfreundschuh M et al. ASH 2005. Abstract 13. • Sonneveld, P et al. ASH 2005. Abstract 16.

  5. Immunomodulatory Drugs in CLL Phase 1/2 Initial Therapy With Fludarabine and Thalidomide in Stage I-IV CLL N=13 (evaluable) -10 CR (77%), 3 PR (23%) -Overall response rate, intent-to-treat population 100% • Flare reaction, 46% • Nonhematologic grade 3/4 toxicities, 11% (diarrhea, fatigue, pedal edema) Phase 2 Study of Lenalidomide in Relapsed/Refractory CLL N=17 (evaluable) -2 CR (11.7%), 9 PR (52.9%), 5 SD (24.9%), 1 PD • Flare reaction, most patients • Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity (7), tumor lysis syndrome (2), febrile neutropenia (3) • Chanan-Khan AA. ASH 2005. Abstracts 2974 and 447.

More Related