4.7 Article

Long-term results of the R-CHOP study in the treatment of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma:: A study by the groupe d'Etude des lymphomes de l'adulte

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 18, Pages 4117-4126

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.131

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To analyze the long-term outcome of patients included in the Lymphome Non Hodgkinien study 98-5 (LNH98-5) comparing cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) to rituximab plus CHOP (R-CHOP) in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients and Methods LNH98-5 was a randomized study that included 399 previously untreated patients, age 60 to 80 years, with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients received eight cycles of classical CHOP (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2), and prednisone 40 mg/m(2) for 5 days) every 3 weeks. In R-CHOP, rituximab 375 mg/m(2) was administered the same day as CHOP. Survivals were analyzed using the intent-to-treat principle. Results Median follow-up is 5 years at present, Event-free survival, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival remain statistically significant in favor of the combination of R-CHOP (P = .00002, P < .00001, P < .00031, and P < .0073, respectively, in the log-rank test). Patients with low-risk or high-risk lymphoma according to the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index have longer survivals if treated with the combination. No long-term toxicity appeared to be associated with the B-CHOP combination. Conclusion Using the combination of R-CHOP leads to significant improvement of the outcome of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, with significant survival benefit maintained during a 5-year follow-up. This combination should become the standard for treating these patients.

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