Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2008
Phase III study of R-CVP compared with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone alone in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma.
Клиническое исследование III фазыСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marcus Robert, Imrie Kevin, Solal-Celigny Philippe, Catalano John V, Dmoszynska Anna, Raposo João C, Offner Fritz C, Gomez-Codina José, Belch Andrew, Cunningham David, Wassner-Fritsch Elisabeth, Stein George
Аннотация
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.
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.