Recombinant IFN-α2a-NGR exhibits higher inhibitory function on tumor neovessels formation compared with IFN-α2a in vivo and in vitro

Purpose We compared the efficacy of ofatumumab (O) versus rituximab (R) in combination with cisplatin, cytarabine, and dexamethasone (DHAP) salvage treatment, followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients and Methods Patients with CD201 DLBCL age >= 18 years who had experienced their first relapse or who were refractory to first-line R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone)-like treatment were randomly assigned between three cycles of R-DHAP or O-DHAP. Either O 1,000 mg or R 375 mg/m2 was administered for a total of four infusions (days 1 and 8 of cycle 1; day 1 of cycles 2 and 3 of DHAP). Patients who experienced a response after two cycles of treatment received the third cycle, followed by high-dose therapy and ASCT. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), with failure to achieve a response after cycle 2 included as an event. Results Between March 2010 and December 2013, 447 patients were randomly assigned. Median age was 57 years (range, 18 to 83 years); 17% were age >= 65 years; 63% had stage III and IV disease; 71% did not achieve complete response (CR) or experience response for, 1 year on first-line R-CHOP. Response rate for O-DHAP was 38% (CR, 15%) versus 42% (CR, 22%) for R-DHAP. ASCT on protocol was completed by 74 patients (33%) in the O arm and 83 patients (37%) in the R arm. PFS, event-free survival, and overall survival were not significantly different between O-DHAP versus R-DHAP: PFS at 2 years was 24% versus 26% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.42; P = .33); event-free survival at 2 years was 16% versus 18% (HR, 1.10; P=.35); and overall survival at 2 years was 41% versus 38% (HR, 0.90; P=.38). Positron emission tomography negativity before ASCT was highly predictive for superior outcome. Conclusion No difference in efficacy was found between O-DHAP and R-DHAP as salvage treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL. (C) 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

Optimal use of bendamustine in hematologic disorders: Treatment recommendations from an international consensus panel - an update

Bendamustine has achieved widespread international regulatory approval and is a standard agent for the treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Since approval, the number of indications for bendamustine has expanded to include aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma and novel targeted therapies, based on new bendamustine regimens/combinations, are being developed against CLL and lymphomas. In 2010, an international panel of bendamustine experts met and published a set of recommendations on the safe and effective use of bendamustine in patients suffering from hematologic disorders. In 2014, this panel met again to update these recommendations since the clarification of issues including optimal dosing and management of bendamustine-related toxicities. The aim of this report is to communicate the latest consensus on the use of bendamustine, permitting the expansion of its safe and effective administration, particularly in new combination therapies

Efficacy and Safety of CT-P10 Versus Rituximab in Untreated Low-Tumor-Burden Follicular Lymphoma : Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Study

Introduction: This double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled phase III trial (NCT02260804) assessed CT-P10 and rituximab safety and efficacy in patients with previously untreated low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (LTBFL), including after a single switch from rituximab to CT-P10. Patients and Methods: LTBFL patients were randomized (1:1) to receive CT-P10 or rituximab (375 mg/m intravenously; day 1 of 4 7-day cycles). Patients achieving disease control entered a 2-year maintenance period. CT-P10 or rituximab were administered every 8 weeks (6 cycles) in year 1; all patients could receive CT-P10 (every 8 weeks; 6 cycles) in year 2. Secondary endpoints (reported here) were overall response rate (ORR) during the study period, progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). Safety and immunogenicity were evaluated. Results: Between November 9, 2015 and January 4, 2018, 258 patients were randomized (130 for CT-P10; 128 for rituximab). ORR was similar between groups over the study period (CT-P10: 88%; rituximab: 87%). After 29.2 months' median follow-up, median PFS, TTP, and OS were not estimable; 24-month Kaplan-Meier estimates suggested similarity between groups. Overall, 114 (CT-P10: 88%), and 104 (rituximab: 81%) patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events. The single switch was well tolerated. Conclusion: These updated data support therapeutic similarity of CT-P10 and rituximab and support the use of CT-P10 monotherapy for previously untreated LTBFL