4.7 Article

Phase III study of R-CVP compared with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone alone in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 28, 页码 4579-4586

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.5376

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10154] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To compare the long-term outcome of patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) needing therapy, after treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone (CVP) versus CVP plus rituximab (R-CVP) and to evaluate the predictive value of known prognostic factors after treatment with R-CVP. Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated CD20-positive stage III/ IV FL were randomly assigned to eight cycles of R-CVP (n = 159) or CVP alone (n = 162). The median follow-up period was 53 months. Results The primary end point-time to treatment failure (TTF), which included patients without a response after four cycles as an event-was significantly prolonged in patients receiving R-CVP versus CVP (P < .0001). Improvements in all other end points, including overall and complete response rates (P < .0001), time to progression (TTP; P < .0001), response duration (P < .0001), time to next antilymphoma treatment (P < .0001), and overall survival (OS; P = .029; 4-year OS: 83% v 77%;) were achieved with R-CVP versus CVP alone. Univariate analyses demonstrated an improvement in TTP with R-CVP versus CVP irrespective of the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) subgroup, the International Prognostic Index (IPI) subgroup, baseline histology, and the presence or absence of B symptoms or bulky disease. By multivariate analysis, FLIPI retains a strong predictive power for TTP in the presence of the trial treatment effect. Conclusion Analysis of all outcome measures, including OS, confirm the benefit of adding R to CVP in the front-line treatment of FL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据