4.7 Article

Phase 2 study of VcR-CVAD with maintenance rituximab for untreated mantle cell lymphoma: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study (E1405)

期刊

BLOOD
卷 123, 期 11, 页码 1665-1673

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2013-08-523845

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Health Service Grants [CA21115, CA23318, CA66636, CA27525, CA21076, CA14958]
  2. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health
  3. Department of Health and Human Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rituximab, bortezomib, modified hyper-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, dexamethasone (VcR-CVAD) induction chemoimmunotherapy and maintenance rituximab (MR) were evaluated for efficacy and safety in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group protocol E1405. Patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma received VcR-CVAD chemotherapy every 21 days for 6 cycles, followed by MR for 2 years. Transplant-eligible patients had the option of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) consolidation instead of MR. The primary end point was the complete response (CR) rate to VcR-CVAD. The secondary end points were overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities. Seventy-five eligible patients with a median age of 62 (range 40-76) were enrolled. The ORR was 95% and a CR was achieved in 68% of patients. After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 3-year PFS and OS were 72% and 88%, respectively. No substantial difference in PFS or OS was observed between patients treated with MR (n = 44) vs ASCT (n = 22). There were no unexpected toxicities. VcR-CVAD produced high ORR and CR rates in mantle cell lymphoma. MR after VcR-CVAD induction performed similarly to ASCT and may improve response duration. Randomized clinical trials comparing MR against ASCT should be considered and randomized clinical trials evaluating bortezomib's contribution to conventional therapy are under way. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00433537.

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