Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) mainly affects older people: the median age at diagnosis is > 70 years. Elderly patients with CLL are heterogeneous with regard both to the biology of their disease and aging. Following the diagnosis of CLL in an elderly individual, careful risk assessment is essential when treatment options are evaluated. This includes not only clinical staging and evaluation of disease-specific prognostic biomarkers such as 17p deletion and TP53 mutation, but also of comorbidities, physical capacity, nutritional status, cognitive capacity, ability to perform activities of daily living and social support. Comorbidity scoring and geriatric assessment tools are helpful in achieving such multidimensional evaluation in a systematic manner. The introduction of new drugs including novel monoclonal antibodies and kinase inhibitors offers enhanced opportunities for the treatment of elderly patients with CLL. This position paper of a Task Force of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) reviews currently available evidence relevant to such patients. All types of elderly patient (i.e. chronological age > 65-70 years) are considered, from robust (fit) to vulnerable (unfit) to the terminally ill. Among the topics covered are the following: (i) the relationship between chronological age, prognosis and survival, (ii) assessment of biological aging, (iii) biological age as a determinant of treatment feasibility and tolerance and (iv) tailoring of both first and further-line treatment to the circumstances of the individual patient.

BCD-020 is a proposed rituximab biosimilar, which has shown high similarity to rituximab in quality and nonclinical studies in vitro and in vivo.International multicenter clinical trial was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of BCD-020 and reference rituximab in adult (older than 18 years) patients with indolent lymphomas (follicular lymphoma grade 1-2, splenic marginal zone lymphoma, and nodal marginal zone lymphoma). Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity were also studied.Patients with no previous biologic treatment for lymphoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BCD-020 or comparator 375 mg/m 2 for 4 weeks.Primary study outcome was day 50 overall response rate defined as complete or partial remission. Equivalence range was −20% to 20% for 95% CI for overall response rates difference. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity.One hundred seventy-four patients were enrolled, 89 in BCD-020 arm and 85 in comparator arm. The overall response rate was 44.71% in BCD-020 arm and 41.89% in comparator arm. Limits of 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference of overall response rates between arms were (−12.62%-18.24%) showing equivalent efficacy.Sixty-one (68.54%) and 59 (69.41%) patients had at least one adverse event in BCD-020 arm or comparator arm, respectively. No unexpected adverse reactions were reported.Antidrug antibodies with no neutralizing activity were detected in two patients in comparator arm on day 14 further declining below detection threshold.Rituximab concentrations had equivalent pattern after intravenous administration of both drugs. Both drugs caused depletion of B-cells without significant influence on other blood cell lineages.In this study, we showed equivalent efficacy of BCD-020 and reference rituximab when used in patients with CD20-positive indolent lymphomas. We also confirmed pharmacokinetic equivalence of BCD-020 and reference rituximab. Safety profile,

Previous randomized trials have demonstrated that rituximab maintenance (R-maintenance) can prolong time to progressive disease in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). The phase IIIb MAXIMA study (NCT00430352) was a large prospective evaluation of R-maintenance in a daily care setting. The primary objective was safety. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival, overall survival, time to next lymphoma treatment, and partial response (PR) to complete response/unconfirmed (CR/CRu) conversion rate. Patients (n = 545) with first-line or relapsed FL who responded to 8 cycles of rituximab-based induction received R-maintenance every 2 months for 2 years. At study entry, 380 patients had CR or CRu, and 165 had PR. The median age was 57.0 years. The most common non-hematologic adverse events (AEs, excluding infusion-related reactions) were cough (9.9 % of patients), fatigue (7.5 %), nasopharyngitis (7.1 %), back pain (6.5 %), diarrhea (6.9 %), arthralgia (6.0 %), headache and hypertension (5.2 % each), and pyrexia (5.1 %). The majority of AEs were grade 1 or 2. Grade 3, 4, and 5 infections occurred in 21 (3.9 %), 2 (0.4 %), and 1 (0.2 %) patient, respectively. Fifty-one hematologic AEs occurred in 6.6 % (n = 35) of patients. Grade 3/4 prolonged neutropenia and hypogammaglobulinemia occurred in 13 (2.4 %) and 5 (0.9 %) patients, respectively. All cases of prolonged neutropenia or hypogammaglobulinemia were manageable and resolved. Fast infusion did not alter the safety profile. Efficacy was comparable with results from previous trials. R-maintenance is safe in a daily care setting for patients with first-line or relapsed FL.

Bendamustine is a uniquely structuredalkylating agent that lacks cross-resistance with other alkylators. This agent has a high degreeof activity against a variety of tumor cell lines.Based on clinical data from randomized phase III trials, bendamustine, with or without rituximab, hasbeen shown to be an appropriate option for first-line treatment or treatment of relapsed/refractory patients with indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or elderly patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Bendamustine treatment is associated with abetter therapeutic index and offers an improved overall quality of life compared to R-CHOP or R-CVP. It is now often used as achemotherapy backbone for combination with novel drugs including ibrutinib or idelalisib. This article provides a comprehensivesummaryof the clinical data along with practical adviceonhowto optimallymanagepatients with bendamustine therapy, includingdose recommendations, antiemetic prophylaxis, prevention of infusion and skin reactions, as well as prophylaxis of opportunisticinfections. This information might be helpful for clinicians using bendamustine in their daily practice.

Clinical recommendations.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract