Ross D.M.,Flinders Medical Center |
Ross D.M.,Australasian Leukaemia Lymphoma Group |
Ross D.M.,University of Adelaide |
Ross D.M.,Flinders University |
And 22 more authors.
Leukemia | Year: 2010
Around 40-50% of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who achieve a stable complete molecular response (CMR; undetectable breakpoint cluster region-Abelson leukemia gene human homolog 1 (BCR-ABL1) mRNA) on imatinib can stop therapy and remain in CMR, at least for several years. This raises the possibility that imatinib therapy may not need to be continued indefinitely in some CML patients. Two possible explanations for this observation are (1) CML has been eradicated or (2) residual leukemic cells fail to proliferate despite the absence of ongoing kinase inhibition. We used a highly sensitive patient-specific nested quantitative PCR to look for evidence of genomic BCR-ABL1 DNA in patients who sustained CMR after stopping imatinib therapy. Seven of eight patients who sustained CMR off therapy had BCR-ABL1 DNA detected at least once after stopping imatinib, but none has relapsed (follow-up 12-41 months). BCR-ABL1 DNA levels increased in all of the 10 patients who lost CMR soon after imatinib cessation, whereas serial testing of patients in sustained CMR showed a stable level of BCR-ABL1 DNA. This more sensitive assay for BCR-ABL1 provides evidence that even patients who maintain a CMR after stopping imatinib may harbor residual leukemia. A search for intrinsic or extrinsic (for example, immunological) causes for this drug-free leukemic suppression is now indicated. © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved.
PubMed | Landesklinikum Wiener Neustadt, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Wels Grieskirchen Hospital, Hanusch Hospital and 15 more.
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Haematologica | Year: 2015
We investigated rituximab maintenance therapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=662) or follicular lymphoma grade 3b (n=21) in first complete remission. Patients were randomized to rituximab maintenance (n=338) or observation (n=345). At a median follow-up of 45 months, the event-free survival rate (the primary endpoint) at 3 years was 80.1% for rituximab maintenance versus 76.5% for observation. This difference was not statistically significant for the intent-to-treat population (likelihood ratio P=0.0670). The hazard ratio by treatment arm was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.57-1.08; P=0.1433). The secondary endpoint, progression-free survival was also not met for the whole statistical model (likelihood ratio P=0.3646). Of note, rituximab maintenance was superior to observation when treatment arms only were compared (hazard ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.90; P=0.0120). Overall survival remained unchanged (92.0 versus 90.3%). In subgroup analysis male patients benefited from rituximab maintenance with regards to both event-free survival (84.1% versus 74.4%) (hazard ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.94; P=0.0267) and progression-free survival (89.0% versus 77.6%) (hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.79; P=0.0058). Women had more grade 3/4 adverse events (P=0.0297) and infections (P=0.0341). Men with a low International Prognostic Index treated with rituximab had the best outcome. In summary, rituximab maintenance in first remission after R-CHOP-like treatment did not prolong event-free, progression-free or overall survival of patients with aggressive B-non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The significantly better outcome of men warrants further studies prior to the routine use of rituximab maintenance in men with low International Prognostic Index. This trial is registered under EUDRACT #2005-005187-90 and www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00400478.