4.7 Article

Intensive chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation plus rituximab is superior to conventional chemotherapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage mantle-cell lymphoma: a matched pair analysis

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 283-290

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdh069

关键词

autologous stem-cell transplantation; mantle-cell lymphoma; matched-pair analysis; rituximab

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The outcome of 20 patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) treated on a prospective trial of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) and rituximab immunotherapy was compared with the outcome of 40 matched historical control patients treated with standard combination chemotherapy. Patients and methods: Control patients with MCL were identified from a lymphoma database, and pairs were matched with patients receiving ASCT-rituximab for stage of disease, gender and age ( 5 years). Only patients treated with an anthracycline- or cyclophosphamide-fludarabine-based regimen were included. Results: Seventeen of 20 patients who received ASCT-rituximab remain alive in remission at a median of 30 months from diagnosis; one patient relapsed 2 years post-ASCT, and two died at 7 and I I months post-ASCT without evidence of lymphoma. Of 40 patients treated with conventional chemotherapy, with a median follow-up of 80 months, 33 have relapsed or progressed and 29 have died. Overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival were superior in patients treated with ASCT-rituximab compared with those treated with conventional chemotherapy (PFS at 3 years, 89% versus 29%, P <0.00001; OS at 3 years, 88% versus 65%, P = 0.052). Conclusions: This matched-pair analysis suggests that patients with advanced-stage MCL treated with ASCT-rituximab had statistically significantly better PFS and a trend toward better OS than patients treated with conventional chemotherapy. Longer follow-up will determine response duration and the true impact of this treatment strategy on PFS and OS.

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