Rituximab versus a watch-and-wait approach in patients with advanced-stage, asymptomatic, non-bulky follicular lymphoma: an open-label randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced-stage, low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma have conventionally undergone watchful waiting until disease progression. We assessed whether rituximab use could delay the need for chemotherapy or radiotherapy compared with watchful waiting and the effect of this strategy on quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Asymptomatic patients (aged ≥18 years) with low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma (grades 1, 2, and 3a) were randomly assigned centrally (1:1:1), by the minimisation approach stratified by institution, grade, stage, and age, to watchful waiting, rituximab 375 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 weeks (rituximab induction), or rituximab induction followed by a maintenance schedule of 12 further infusions given at 2-monthly intervals for 2 years (maintenance rituximab). On Sept 30, 2007, recruitment into the rituximab induction group was closed and the study was amended to a two-arm study. The primary endpoints were time to start of new treatment and QoL at month 7 (ie, 6 months after completion of rituximab induction). All randomly assigned patients were included in the analysis of time to start of new treatment on an intention-to-treat basis. The main study is now completed and is in long-term follow-up. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00112931. FINDINGS: Between Oct 15, 2004, and March 25, 2009, 379 patients from 118 centres in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, and Poland were randomly assigned to watchful waiting or maintenance rituximab. 84 patients were recruited to the rituximab induction group before it was closed early. There was a significant difference in the time to start of new treatment, with 46% (95% CI 39-53) of patients in the watchful waiting group not needing treatment at 3 years compared with 88% (83-92) in the maintenance rituximab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·21, 95% CI 0·14-0·31; p<0·0001). 78% (95% CI 69-87) of patients in the rituximab induction group did not need treatment at 3 years, which was significantly more than in the watchful waiting group (HR 0·35, 95% CI 0·22-0·56; p<0·0001), but no different compared with the maintenance rituximab group (0·75, 0·41-1·34; p=0·33). Compared with the watchful waiting group, patients in the maintenance rituximab group had significant improvements in the Mental Adjustment to Cancer scale score (p=0·0004), and Illness Coping Style score (p=0·0012) between baseline and month 7. Patients in the rituximab induction group did not show improvements in their QoL compared with the watchful waiting group. There were 18 serious adverse events reported in the rituximab groups (four in the rituximab induction group and 14 in the maintenance rituximab group), 12 of which were grade 3 or 4 (five infections, three allergic reactions, and four cases of neutropenia), all of which fully resolved. INTERPRETATION: Rituximab monotherapy should be considered as a treatment option for patients with asymptomatic, advanced-stage, low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Lymphoma Research Trust, Lymphoma Association, and Roche.

Rituximab plus chlorambucil as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Final analysis of an open-label phase II study.

PURPOSE: Most patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are elderly and/or have comorbidities that may make them ineligible for fludarabine-based treatment. For this population, chlorambucil monotherapy is an appropriate therapeutic option; however, response rates with chlorambucil are low, and more effective treatments are needed. This trial was designed to assess how the addition of rituximab to chlorambucil (R-chlorambucil) would affect safety and efficacy in patients with CLL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with first-line CLL were treated with rituximab (375 mg/m(2) on day 1, cycle one, and 500 mg/m(2) thereafter) plus chlorambucil (10 mg/m(2)/d all cycles; day 1 through 7) for six 28-day cycles. For patients not achieving complete response (CR), six additional cycles of chlorambucil alone could be administered. The primary end point of the study was safety. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were treated with R-chlorambucil, with a median follow-up of 30 months. Median age of patients was 70 years (range, 43 to 86 years), with patients having a median of seven comorbidities. Hematologic toxicities accounted for most grade 3/4 adverse events reported, with neutropenia and lymphopenia both occurring in 41% of patients and leukopenia in 23%. Overall response rates were 84%, with CR achieved in 10% of patients. Median progression-free survival was 23.5 months; median overall survival was not reached. CONCLUSION: These results compare favorably with previously published results for chlorambucil monotherapy, suggesting that the addition of rituximab to chlorambucil may improve efficacy with no unexpected adverse events. R-chlorambucil may improve outcome for patients who are ineligible for fludarabine-based treatments.