4.3 Article

Oncological outcome and recurrence pattern analysis after involved-field irradiation in combination with rituximab for early-stage nodal and extranodal follicular lymphoma

期刊

STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE
卷 196, 期 8, 页码 705-714

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-020-01624-w

关键词

Radioimmunotherapy; Immunotherapy; Indolent lymphoma; CD20 antibody; Grade 3A follicular lymphoma

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Combined radioimmunotherapy (RIT) in follicular lymphomas (FL) has shown promising treatment efficacy in the Mabthera (R) and Involved field Radiation (MIR) study. Aim of this study was to analyze treatment efficacy and recurrence patterns after RIT in early-stage nodal and extranodal FL. Methods We reviewed 107 patients who were treated with combined RIT in two centers. Treatment consisted of 4 & x202f;x rituximab followed by RIT with 4 & x202f;x rituximab and involved field (IF) radiotherapy with 30/40 & x202f;Gy. Median follow-up period was 71 months. In contrast to the MIR study, extranodal involvement and grade 3A histology were included in the analysis. Results Extranodal involvement and grade 3A histology were present in 21.8% and 13.1%, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) after 4 & x202f;x rituximab, after completion of RIT, and after 6 months was 78.1%, 98.8%, and 98.8%, respectively, with increasing rates of complete remissions (CR). Predictive factors associated with superior PFS were tumor size, completely excised lymphomas, and response to first 4 & x202f;x rituximab. 5-year PFS rate was 87.3%, with mostly outfield recurrences (94.1%). Second-line treatment was effective, with 53.3% CR and 46.7% partial remissions (PR). 5-year OS was 98.1%. RIT was tolerated well, with mainly grade 1-2 acute side effects. Conclusion The real-world efficacy of RIT is comparable with the results of the MIR study. Additionally, this analysis shows that extranodal involvement and grade 3A histology are not associated with inferior PFS.

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

4.3
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