Prognostic value of circulating Bcl-2/IgH levels in patients with follicular lymphoma receiving first-line immunochemotherapy.

Bcl-2/IgH rearrangements can be quantified in follicular lymphoma (FL) from peripheral blood (PB) by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The prognostic value of Bcl-2/IgH levels in FL remains controversial. We therefore prospectively studied PB Bcl-2/IgH levels from 173 first-line FL patients who were consecutively enrolled, randomized, and treated within the multicenter phase 3 clinical trial NHL1-2003 comparing bendamustine-rituximab (B-R) with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone. From April 2005 to August 2008, 783 pre- and posttreatment PB samples were quantified by quantitative PCR. At inclusion, 114 patients (66%) tested positive and 59 (34%) were negative for Bcl-2/IgH. High pretreatment Bcl-2/IgH levels had an adverse effect on progression-free survival (PFS) compared with intermediate or low levels (high vs intermediate: hazard [HR], 4.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-10.77; P = .002; high vs low: HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.55-5.86; P = .001). No PFS difference between treatment arms was observed in Bcl-2/IgH-positive patients. A positive posttreatment Bcl-2/IgH status was associated with shorter PFS (8.7 months vs not reached; HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.51-6.58; P = .002). By multivariate analysis, the pretreatment Bcl-2/IgH level was the strongest predictor for PFS. Our data suggest that pre- and posttreatment Bcl-2/IgH levels from PB have significant prognostic value for PFS in FL patients receiving first-line immunochemotherapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00991211 and at the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices as #BfArM-4021335.

Influence of body mass index on survival in indolent and mantle cell lymphomas: analysis of the StiL NHL1 trial.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for the development of cancer, but its influence on the course of disease is still controversial. We investigated the influence of body mass index (BMI) on overall survival (OS) in 502 patients with indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or mantle cell lymphoma in a subgroup analysis of the StiL (Study Group Indolent Lymphomas) NHL1 trial. We defined a cut-off of 22.55 kg/m2 by ROC calculation and Youden Index analysis and stratified patients into "low BMI" and "high BMI". Five-year OS was significantly longer in the high BMI group (82.2%) when compared to that of the low BMI group (66.2%) (HR 0.597; 95%CI 0.370-0.963; p = 0.034). BMI was also an independent prognostic factor for OS in multivariate analysis (HR 0.541; 95%CI 0.332-0.883; p = 0.014). Of note, patients had a significantly lower BMI in the presence than patients in the absence of B-symptoms (p = 0.025). BMI significantly impacts on OS in indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma, which may be influenced by the effect of B-symptoms on BMI.

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus fludarabine plus rituximab for patients with relapsed indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Fludarabine-based chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab is frequently used in patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas who relapse after alkylating chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of rituximab with bendamustine or fludarabine in patients with relapsed, indolent, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and mantle-cell lymphoma. METHODS: For this randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 55 centres in Germany, who were subsequently randomised centrally according to prespecified randomisation lists with permuted blocks of randomly variable block size to rituximab (375 mg/m(2), day 1) plus either bendamustine (90 mg/m(2), days 1 and 2) or fludarabine (25 mg/m(2), days 1-3) every 28 days for a maximum of six 28-day cycles. Patients were aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 0-2 and had relapsed or refractory indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma; patients refractory to regimens that included rituximab, bendamustine, or purine analogue drugs were excluded. Patients were stratified by histological subtypes of lymphoma and by their latest previous therapies. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and the final analysis was completed per protocol. Non-inferiority of bendamustine plus rituximab versus fludarabine plus rituximab was defined as a difference of less than 15% in 1-year progression-free survival. The protocol was amended in July, 2006, after approval of rituximab maintenance (375 mg/m(2) every 3 months for up to 2 years), which was then given to patients achieving a response to either trial treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01456351 (closed to enrolment, follow-up is ongoing). FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2003, and Aug 5, 2010, we randomly assigned 230 patients to treatment groups (116 bendamustine plus rituximab, 114 fludarabine plus rituximab). 11 patients were excluded for protocol violations and were not followed up further (two in the bendamustine plus rituximab group and nine in the fludarabine plus rituximab group). Thus, 219 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis (114 bendamustine plus rituximab, 105 fludarabine plus rituximab). 1-year progression-free survival with bendamustine plus rituximab was 0·76 (95% CI 0·68-0·84) and 0·48 (0·39-0·58) with fludarabine plus rituximab (non-inferiority p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 96 months (IQR 73·2-112·9), median progression-free survival with bendamustine plus rituximab was 34·2 months (95% CI 23·5-52·7) and 11·7 months (8·0-16·1) with fludarabine plus rituximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·38-0·72], log-rank test p<0·0001). Safety outcomes were similar in both groups, with 46 serious adverse events recorded (23 in the bendamustine plus rituximab group and 23 in the fludarabine plus rituximab group), most commonly myelosuppression and infections. INTERPRETATION: In combination with rituximab, bendamustine was more effective than fludarabine, suggesting that bendamustine plus rituximab may be the preferred treatment option for patients with relapsed indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. FUNDING: Roche Pharma AG, Ribosepharm GmbH, Mundipharma GmbH, Studiengruppe indolente Lymphome (StiL).

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab plus chemotherapy, most often CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced indolent lymphoma, and for elderly patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. Bendamustine plus rituximab is effective for relapsed or refractory disease. We compared bendamustine plus rituximab with CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP) as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial at 81 centres in Germany between Sept 1, 2003, and Aug 31, 2008. Patients aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 2 or less were eligible if they had newly diagnosed stage III or IV indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma. Patients were stratified by histological lymphoma subtype, then randomly assigned according to a prespecified randomisation list to receive either intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of a 4-week cycle) or CHOP (cycles every 3 weeks of cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) on day 1, and prednisone 100 mg/day for 5 days) for a maximum of six cycles. Patients in both groups received rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00991211, and the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices of Germany, BfArM 4021335. FINDINGS: 274 patients were assigned to bendamustine plus rituximab (261 assessed) and 275 to R-CHOP (253 assessed). At median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 25-57), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in the R-CHOP group (69.5 months [26.1 to not yet reached] vs 31.2 months [15.2-65.7]; hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.74; p<0.0001). Bendamustine plus rituximab was better tolerated than R-CHOP, with lower rates of alopecia (0 patients vs 245 (100%) of 245 patients who recieved ≥3 cycles; p<0.0001), haematological toxicity (77 [30%] vs 173 [68%]; p<0.0001), infections (96 [37%] vs 127 [50%]); p=0.0025), peripheral neuropathy (18 [7%] vs 73 [29%]; p<0.0001), and stomatitis (16 [6%] vs 47 [19%]; p<0.0001). Erythematous skin reactions were more common in patients in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in those in the R-CHOP group (42 [16%] vs 23 [9%]; p=0.024). INTERPRETATION: In patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoma, bendamustine plus rituximab can be considered as a preferred first-line treatment approach to R-CHOP because of increased progression-free survival and fewer toxic effects. FUNDING: Roche Pharma AG, Ribosepharm/Mundipharma GmbH.

The association between perceived sensitivity to medicines, reported side effects and personal characteristics: A secondary analysis of an RCT.

INTRODUCTION: A patient's perceived sensitivity to medicines (PSM) might influence the reported side effects of a treatment. The experience of side effects can result in personal and structural costs (such as nonadherence). Research on nocebo mechanisms and the workings of side effect reporting has been disproportionally smaller compared to the emerging evidence of the individual and clinical impact of the matter. In this study, we explored and re-examined the association between PSM and reported side effects within a specific population (chronic low back pain patients receiving acupuncture treatment), including possible mediating variables (i.e., gender, medical and nonmedical care utilization, optimism, pessimism, anxiety, depression and treatment expectation). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial that examined the influence of treatment outcome expectations in chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients. All measures in the analysis were self-assessments. We explored the association between PSM, reported side effects and personal characteristics using correlational and regression analyses. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 152 CLBP patients (65.8% female), the mean age was 39.5 years (SD = 12.5). We found positive correlations between PSM and reported side effects (r = 0.24; p < 0.01) and between PSM and anxiety (r = 0.21; p < 0.05). However, the subsequent regression analyses did not confirm a mediating or moderating effect of anxiety between PSM and reported side effects. CONCLUSION: We confirmed and extended earlier research on PSM. Our study involved a specific pain population receiving a nonpharmacological intervention. Our results highlight the importance of targeting PSM and anxiety within a treatment to take measures to mitigate the prevalence of side effects.