User login
Credit: Bill Branson
New research suggests maintenance therapy may not be necessary for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who have a low tumor burden.
Investigators compared rituximab re-treatment with rituximab maintenance in nearly 300 FL patients, and results showed no significant difference between the treatment groups in the time to disease recurrence.
The researchers also noted that the re-treatment strategy was more cost-effective.
“For those 2 reasons, we recommend a retreatment strategy over a maintenance strategy in this patient population,” said Brad S. Kahl, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison.
Dr Kahl and his colleagues described this research—the RESORT trial—in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Early results from this trial were previously presented at the 2011 ASH Annual Meeting.
The team evaluated 289 patients with previously untreated, low-tumor-burden FL. All patients responded to initial treatment with rituximab (4 doses).
Patients were then randomized to receive maintenance therapy—a single dose of rituximab every 3 months until treatment failure—or rituximab re-treatment upon disease recurrence. Patients receiving re-treatment could receive rituximab every time they experienced progression, until treatment failure.
The median number of rituximab doses was 4 in the re-treatment arm and 18 in the maintenance arm. Three-year freedom from cytotoxic therapy was 84% in the re-treatment arm and 95% in the maintenance arm (P=0.03).
There was no significant difference between the arms in the time to disease recurrence. With a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the estimated median time to treatment failure was 3.9 years in the re-treatment arm and 4.3 years in the maintenance arm (P=0.54).
The researchers found no difference in health-related quality of life or anxiety between the treatment arms.
They also said grade 3 to 5 adverse events were infrequent in both arms. One patient developed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy after the 15th maintenance dose of rituximab and died.
Second malignancies were reported in 16 patients receiving re-treatment and 14 patients on maintenance therapy, but there were no obvious trends toward specific cancers.
“The study shows that a rituximab re-treatment strategy provides comparable disease control to a maintenance strategy in low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma,” Dr Kahl said. “In addition, a re-treatment strategy is more cost-effective, as it requires about a quarter as much drug utilization.”
The study was accompanied by an editorial saying these results should change clinical practice. 
Credit: Bill Branson
New research suggests maintenance therapy may not be necessary for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who have a low tumor burden.
Investigators compared rituximab re-treatment with rituximab maintenance in nearly 300 FL patients, and results showed no significant difference between the treatment groups in the time to disease recurrence.
The researchers also noted that the re-treatment strategy was more cost-effective.
“For those 2 reasons, we recommend a retreatment strategy over a maintenance strategy in this patient population,” said Brad S. Kahl, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison.
Dr Kahl and his colleagues described this research—the RESORT trial—in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Early results from this trial were previously presented at the 2011 ASH Annual Meeting.
The team evaluated 289 patients with previously untreated, low-tumor-burden FL. All patients responded to initial treatment with rituximab (4 doses).
Patients were then randomized to receive maintenance therapy—a single dose of rituximab every 3 months until treatment failure—or rituximab re-treatment upon disease recurrence. Patients receiving re-treatment could receive rituximab every time they experienced progression, until treatment failure.
The median number of rituximab doses was 4 in the re-treatment arm and 18 in the maintenance arm. Three-year freedom from cytotoxic therapy was 84% in the re-treatment arm and 95% in the maintenance arm (P=0.03).
There was no significant difference between the arms in the time to disease recurrence. With a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the estimated median time to treatment failure was 3.9 years in the re-treatment arm and 4.3 years in the maintenance arm (P=0.54).
The researchers found no difference in health-related quality of life or anxiety between the treatment arms.
They also said grade 3 to 5 adverse events were infrequent in both arms. One patient developed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy after the 15th maintenance dose of rituximab and died.
Second malignancies were reported in 16 patients receiving re-treatment and 14 patients on maintenance therapy, but there were no obvious trends toward specific cancers.
“The study shows that a rituximab re-treatment strategy provides comparable disease control to a maintenance strategy in low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma,” Dr Kahl said. “In addition, a re-treatment strategy is more cost-effective, as it requires about a quarter as much drug utilization.”
The study was accompanied by an editorial saying these results should change clinical practice.
Credit: Bill Branson
New research suggests maintenance therapy may not be necessary for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who have a low tumor burden.
Investigators compared rituximab re-treatment with rituximab maintenance in nearly 300 FL patients, and results showed no significant difference between the treatment groups in the time to disease recurrence.
The researchers also noted that the re-treatment strategy was more cost-effective.
“For those 2 reasons, we recommend a retreatment strategy over a maintenance strategy in this patient population,” said Brad S. Kahl, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison.
Dr Kahl and his colleagues described this research—the RESORT trial—in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Early results from this trial were previously presented at the 2011 ASH Annual Meeting.
The team evaluated 289 patients with previously untreated, low-tumor-burden FL. All patients responded to initial treatment with rituximab (4 doses).
Patients were then randomized to receive maintenance therapy—a single dose of rituximab every 3 months until treatment failure—or rituximab re-treatment upon disease recurrence. Patients receiving re-treatment could receive rituximab every time they experienced progression, until treatment failure.
The median number of rituximab doses was 4 in the re-treatment arm and 18 in the maintenance arm. Three-year freedom from cytotoxic therapy was 84% in the re-treatment arm and 95% in the maintenance arm (P=0.03).
There was no significant difference between the arms in the time to disease recurrence. With a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the estimated median time to treatment failure was 3.9 years in the re-treatment arm and 4.3 years in the maintenance arm (P=0.54).
The researchers found no difference in health-related quality of life or anxiety between the treatment arms.
They also said grade 3 to 5 adverse events were infrequent in both arms. One patient developed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy after the 15th maintenance dose of rituximab and died.
Second malignancies were reported in 16 patients receiving re-treatment and 14 patients on maintenance therapy, but there were no obvious trends toward specific cancers.
“The study shows that a rituximab re-treatment strategy provides comparable disease control to a maintenance strategy in low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma,” Dr Kahl said. “In addition, a re-treatment strategy is more cost-effective, as it requires about a quarter as much drug utilization.”
The study was accompanied by an editorial saying these results should change clinical practice.