4.6 Article

A multicentre phase II study of vorinostat in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 165, Issue 6, Pages 768-776

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.12819

Keywords

vorinostat; indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; follicular lymphoma; phase II trial; HAT mutation

Categories

Funding

  1. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, N.J., U.S.A
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24590441] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although initial rituximab-containing chemotherapies achieve high response rates, indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL), such as follicular lymphoma (FL), is still incurable. Therefore, new effective agents with novel mechanisms are anticipated. In this multicentre phase II study, patients with relapsed/refractory indolent B-NHL and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) received vorinostat 200mg twice daily for 14 consecutive days in a 21-d cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) in FL patients and safety and tolerability in all patients. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS). Fifty-six eligible patients were enrolled; 50 patients (39 with FL, seven with other B-NHL, and four with MCL) were evaluable for ORR, and 40 patients had received rituximab-containing prior chemotherapeutic regimens. For the 39 patients with FL, the ORR was 49% [95% confidence interval (CI): 324, 652] and the median PFS was 20months (95% CI: 112, 297). Major toxicities were manageable grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Vorinostat offers sustained antitumour activity in patients with relapsed or refractory FL with an acceptable safety profile. Further investigation of vorinostat for clinical efficacy is 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available