Salvage regimens with autologous transplantation for relapsed large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era.

Details

Serval ID
serval:BIB_7639F25E40FA
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Salvage regimens with autologous transplantation for relapsed large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era.
Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Author(s)
Gisselbrecht C., Glass B., Mounier N., Singh Gill D., Linch D.C., Trneny M., Bosly A., Ketterer N., Shpilberg O., Hagberg H., Ma D., Brière J., Moskowitz C.H., Schmitz N.
ISSN
1527-7755[electronic], 0732-183X[linking]
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2010
Volume
28
Number
27
Pages
4184-4190
Language
english
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.
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
25/08/2010 13:46
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:33
Usage data