Dataset Information

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab in patients with high-risk, relapsed, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive follicular lymphoma: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial.

ABSTRACT: The randomized phase 3 LYM3001 trial in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated higher overall (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. We report findings in high-risk patients (FL International Prognostic Index [FLIPI] score ?3, and high tumor burden by modified Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomas Folliculaires [GELF] criteria).Patients aged ?18 years with grade 1/2 FL, ?1 measurable lesion, and documented relapse or progression following prior therapy, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive, were enrolled at 164 centers in 29 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific. Patients were randomized (1:1) to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib-rituximab (bortezomib 1.6 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, all cycles; rituximab 375 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, cycle 1, and day 1, cycles 2-5; N=336) or rituximab alone (N=340). Randomization was stratified by FLIPI score, prior rituximab, time since last dose of anti-lymphoma therapy, and geographical region. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS.103 bortezomib-rituximab and 98 rituximab patients had high-risk FL. The ORR was 59% versus 37% (p=0.002), the CR/CRu rate was 13% versus 6% (p=0.145), and the durable response rate was 45% versus 26% (p=0.008) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. Median PFS was 9.5 versus 6.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.667, p=0.012) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab; median time to progression was 10.9 versus 6.8 months (HR 0.656, p=0.009); median time to next anti-lymphoma treatment was 14.8 versus 9.1 months (HR 0.762, p=0.103); and the 1-year Overall Survival rate was 83.1% versus 76.6%. Overall, 51% of bortezomib-rituximab and 32% of rituximab patients reported grade ?3 adverse events, including neutropenia (18%, 6%), anemia (4%, 5%), diarrhea (8%, 0%), thrombocytopenia (5%, 2%), and sensory neuropathy (1%, 0%).High-risk FL patients treated with bortezomib-rituximab had significantly higher ORR and longer PFS than patients receiving rituximab alone, with greater clinical benefit than in the overall study population; additional toxicity was acceptable and did not affect treatment feasibility.The phase 3 LYM3001 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT00312845.

SUBMITTER: Zinzani PL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3502148 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab in patients with high-risk, relapsed, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive follicular lymphoma: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial.

Zinzani Pier Luigi PL Khuageva Nuriet K NK Wang Huaqing H Garicochea Bernardo B Walewski Jan J Van Hoof Achiel A Soubeyran Pierre P Caballero Dolores D Buckstein Rena R Esseltine Dixie-Lee DL Theocharous Panteli P Enny Christopher C Zhu Eugene E Elsayed Yusri A YA Coiffier Bertrand B

Journal of hematology & oncology 20121022

<h4>Background</h4>The randomized phase 3 LYM3001 trial in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated higher overall (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. We report findings in high-risk patients (FL International Prognostic Index [FLIPI] score ≥3, and high tumor burden by modified Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomas Folliculaires [GELF] criteria).<h4>Methods</h4>Patients aged ≥18 years with grade 1/2 FL, ≥1 ...[more]

PMID: 23088650

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeLenalidomide and rituximab (LR) are active agents in follicular lymphoma (FL). Combination regimens have not been previously assessed in randomized studies.Patients and methodsThe Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance) 50401 trial is a randomized phase II trial studying rituximab (375 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 weeks), lenalidomide (15 mg per day on days 1 to 21, followed by 7 days of rest, in cycle 1 and then 20 mg per day on days 1 to 21, followed by 7 days of rest, in cycles 2 to 12), or LR. The rituximab-alone arm was discontinued as a result of poor accrual. Eligibility included recurrent FL and prior rituximab with time to progression of ≥ 6 months from last dose. Aspirin or heparin was recommended for patients at high thrombosis risk.ResultsNinety-one patients (lenalidomide, n = 45; LR, n = 46) received treatment; median age was 63 years (range, 34 to 89 years), and 58% were intermediate or high risk according to the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index. In the lenalidomide and LR arms, grade 3 to 4 adverse events occurred in 58% and 53% of patients, with 9% and 11% of patients experiencing grade 4 toxicity, respectively; grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (16% v 20%, respectively), fatigue (9% v 13%, respectively), and thrombosis (16% [n = 7] v 4% [n = 2], respectively; P = .157). Thirty-six percent of lenalidomide patients and 63% of LR patients completed 12 cycles. Lenalidomide alone was associated with more treatment failures, with 22% of patients discontinuing treatment as a result of adverse events. Dose-intensity exceeded 80% in both arms. Overall response rate was 53% (20% complete response) and 76% (39% complete response) for lenalidomide alone and LR, respectively (P = .029). At the median follow-up of 2.5 years, median time to progression was 1.1 year for lenalidomide alone and 2 years for LR (P = .0023).ConclusionLR is more active than lenalidomide alone in recurrent FL with similar toxicity, warranting further study in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a platform for addition of novel agents.

Project description:BackgroundRituximab has been shown to improve response rates and progression free survival when added to chemotherapy in patients with indolent and mantle cell lymphoma. However, the impact of R on overall survival (OS) when given in combination with chemotherapy (R-chemo) has remained unclear so far.ObjectivesWe thus performed a comprehensive systematic review in this group of patients to compare R-chemo with chemotherapy alone with respect to OS. Other endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), toxicity and disease control as assessed by measures such as time to treatment failure (TTF), event free-survival (EFS), progression free-survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP).Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference proceeding from 1990 to 2005.Selection criteriaOnly randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing R-chemo with chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed indolent lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) were included.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors extracted data and assessed the study quality. Number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated to facilitate interpretation.Main resultsSeven randomised controlled trials involving 1943 patients with follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, or other indolent lymphomas were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies were published as full-text articles, and two were in abstract form. Patients treated with R-chemo had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] for mortality 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.78), overall response (relative risk of tumour response 1.21; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.27), and disease control (HR of disease event 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.71) than patients treated with chemotherapy alone. R-chemo improved overall survival in patients with follicular lymphoma (HR for mortality 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79) and in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (HR for mortality 0.60; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98). However, in the latter case, there was heterogeneity among the trials (P 0.07), making the survival benefit less reliable.Authors' conclusionsThe systematic review demonstrated improved OS for patients with indolent lymphoma, particularly in the subgroups of follicular and in mantle cell lymphoma when treated with R-chemo compared to chemotherapy alone.

Project description:BackgroundIn the clinical use of third-line treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the combination treatment is increasingly used due to problems such as drug resistance, and while their efficacy has been proven, whether they are economical has become a new issue. A recent trial showed copanlisib plus rituximab combination therapy (CRCT) had better efficacy in the treatment of relapsed indolent NHL (iNHL) compared to rituximab monotherapy (RM). However, the long-term cost and effectiveness of this regimen is not known. We are the first to evaluate the cost effectiveness of CRCT in third-line treatment of relapsed iNHL from the perspective of US payers.MethodsWe used a Markov model to evaluate cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which included a population from CHRONOS-3 with mean age of 62.5 years and total cycle length of 16.3 years. The cycle length was 1 month, adverse reaction rates were from CHRONOS-3, mean body surface area was referenced from published literature, cost values are referenced from published literature and Drugbank, utility values were referenced from the published literature, and the primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was set at $150,000 per QALYs, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to verify the robustness of the model. All costs are expressed in 2021 dollars and costs and utilities have been calculated at a discount rate of 3% per year.ResultsCRCT and RM obtained 6.53 QALYs and 5.15 QALYs, respectively, and the ICER of CRCT vs. RM was $358,895.2/QALYs. Parameters having the greatest impact on the robustness of the model were the drug cost of copanlisib and the utility value of the progression-free survival (PFS) state. When the WTP threshold was $150,000, the probability of CRCT and RM being the most cost effective was 0.4% and 99.6% respectively.ConclusionsFrom a US payer perspective, CRCT is not cost-effective in treating relapsed iNHL at current prices compared to RM. But given its positive clinical efficacy, appropriate price discounts or assistance programs should be considered to make CRCT more affordable to patients with relapsed iNHL.

Dataset Information

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab in patients with high-risk, relapsed, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive follicular lymphoma: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial.

Publications

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab in patients with high-risk, relapsed, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive follicular lymphoma: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets