4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Retrospective analysis of intravascular large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab-containing chemotherapy as reported by the IVL study group in Japan

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 19, Pages 3189-3195

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.4278

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab-containing chemotherapies for intravascular large B-cell lymphoma (IVLBCL). Patients and Methods We retrospectively analyzed 106 patients (59 men, 47 women) with IVLBCL who received chemotherapy either with rituximab (R-chemotherapy, n = 49) or without rituximab (chemotherapy, n = 57) between 1994 and 2007 in Japan. The median patient age was 67 years (range, 34 to 84 years). The International Prognostic Index was high-intermediate/high in 97% of patients. Results The complete response rate was higher for patients in the R-chemotherapy group (82%) than for those in the chemotherapy group (51%; P = .001). The median duration of follow-up for surviving patients was 18 months (range, 1 to 95 months). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 2 years after diagnosis were significantly higher for patients in the R-chemotherapy group (PFS, 56%; OS, 66%) than for patients in the chemotherapy group (PFS, 27% with P = .001; OS, 46% with P = 0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that the use of rituximab was favorably associated with PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.80; P = .006) and OS (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.85; P = .016). Treatment-related death was observed in three patients (6%) who received R-chemotherapy and in five patients (9%) who received chemotherapy. Conclusion Our data suggest improved clinical outcomes for patients with IVLBCL in the rituximab era. Future prospective studies of rituximab-containing chemotherapies are warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available