Bortezomib maintenance after R-CHOP, cytarabine and autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed patients with mantle cell lymphoma, results of a randomised phase II HOVON trial

Rituximab-containing induction followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard first-line treatment for young mantle cell lymphoma patients. However, most patients relapse after ASCT. We investigated in a randomised phase II study the outcome of a chemo-immuno regimen and ASCT with or without maintenance therapy with bortezomib. Induction consisted of three cycles R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), two cycles high-dose cytarabine, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and ASCT. Patients responding were randomised between bortezomib maintenance (1·3 mg/m2 intravenously once every 2 weeks, for 2 years) and observation. Of 135 eligible patients, 115 (85%) proceeded to ASCT, 60 (44%) were randomised. With a median follow-up of 77·5 months for patients still alive, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) was 51% (95% CI 42–59%); 5-year overall survival (OS) was 73% (95% CI 65–80%). The median follow-up of randomised patients still alive was 71·5 months. Patients with bortezomib maintenance had a 5-year EFS of 63% (95% CI 44–78%) and 5-year OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). The patients randomised to observation had 5-year PFS of 60% (95% CI, 40–75%) and OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). In conclusion, in this phase II study we found no indication of a positive effect of bortezomib maintenance after ASCT

Impact of rituximab on treatment outcomes of patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma: a population-based analysis

Background: Patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) are treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone with or without etoposide (CHO(E)P). In the majority of cases, Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)-positive B-cells are present in the tumour. There is paucity of research examining the effect of rituximab when added to CHO(E)P. In this nationwide, population-based study, we analysed the impact of rituximab on overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with AITL. Methods: Patients with AITL diagnosed between 2014 and 2020 treated with ≥one cycle of CHO(E)P with or without rituximab were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Survival follow-up was up to 1st February 2022. Baseline characteristics, best response during first-line treatment and survival were collected. PFS was defined as the time from diagnosis to relapse or to all-cause-death. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis to all-cause-death. Multivariable analysis for the risk of mortality was performed using Cox regression. Findings: Out of 335 patients, 146 patients (44%) received R–CHO(E)P. Rituximab was more frequently used in patients with a B-cell infiltrate (71% versus 89%, p < 0·01). The proportion of patients who received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was similar between CHO(E)P and R–CHO(E)P (27% versus 30%, respectively). The ORR and 2-year PFS for patients who received CHO(E)P and R–CHO(E)P were 71% and 78% (p = 0·01), and 40% and 45% (p = 0·12), respectively. The 5-year OS was 47% and 40% (p = 0·99), respectively. In multivariable analysis, IPI-score 3–5, no B-cell infiltrate and no ASCT were independent prognostic factors for risk of mortality, whereas the use of rituximab was not. Interpretation: Although the addition of rituximab to CHO(E)P improved ORR for patients with AITL, the PFS and OS did not improve

Bortezomib maintenance after R-CHOP, cytarabine and autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed patients with mantle cell lymphoma, results of a randomised phase II HOVON trial

Rituximab-containing induction followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard first-line treatment for young mantle cell lymphoma patients. However, most patients relapse after ASCT. We investigated in a randomised phase II study the outcome of a chemo-immuno regimen and ASCT with or without maintenance therapy with bortezomib. Induction consisted of three cycles R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), two cycles high-dose cytarabine, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and ASCT. Patients responding were randomised between bortezomib maintenance (1·3 mg/m2 intravenously once every 2 weeks, for 2 years) and observation. Of 135 eligible patients, 115 (85%) proceeded to ASCT, 60 (44%) were randomised. With a median follow-up of 77·5 months for patients still alive, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) was 51% (95% CI 42–59%); 5-year overall survival (OS) was 73% (95% CI 65–80%). The median follow-up of randomised patients still alive was 71·5 months. Patients with bortezomib maintenance had a 5-year EFS of 63% (95% CI 44–78%) and 5-year OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). The patients randomised to observation had 5-year PFS of 60% (95% CI, 40–75%) and OS of 90% (95% CI 72–97%). In conclusion, in this phase II study we found no indication of a positive effect of bortezomib maintenance after ASCT