• The complete response rate for first-line bendamustine/ rituximab was statistically noninferior to R-CHOP or R-CVP in indolent NHL or MCL.• The safety profile of bendamustine/rituximab is distinct from that of R-CHOP/ R-CVP.This randomized, noninferiority (NI), global, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) vs a standard rituximab-chemotherapy regimen (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone [R-CHOP] or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone [R-CVP]) for treatmentnaive patients with indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or mantle cell lymphoma. Investigators preassigned the standard treatment regimen they considered most appropriate for each patient; patients were randomized to receive BR (n 5 224) or standard therapy (R-CHOP/R-CVP, n 5 223) for 6 cycles; 2 additional cycles were permitted at investigator discretion. Response was assessed by a blinded independent review committee. BR was noninferior to R-CHOP/R-CVP, as assessed by the primary end point of complete response rate (31% vs 25%, respectively; P 5 .0225 for NI [0.88 margin]). The overall response rates for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP were 97% and 91%, respectively (P 5 .0102). Incidences of vomiting and drug-hypersensitivity reactions were significantly higher in patients treated with BR (P < .05), and incidences of peripheral neuropathy/paresthesia and alopecia were significantly higher in patients treated with standard-therapy regimens (P < .05). These data indicate BR is noninferior to standard therapy with regard to clinical response with an acceptable safety profile.

Purpose Rituximab (R) plus CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy is the standard of care in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Obinutuzumab (G) is a glycoengineered, type II, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. GOYA was a randomized phase III study that compared G-CHOP with R-CHOP in patients with previously untreated advanced-stage DLBCL. Methods Patients (N = 1,418) were randomly assigned to receive eight 21-day cycles of G (n = 706) or R (n = 712), plus six or eight cycles of CHOP. Primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results After median observation of 29 months, the number of investigator-assessed PFS events was similar between G (201; 28.5%) and R (215; 30.2%), stratified hazard ratio was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.11; P = .39), and 3-year PFS rates were 70% and 67%, respectively. Secondary end points of independently reviewed PFS, other time-to-event end points, and tumor response rates were similar between arms. In exploratory subgroup analyses, patients with germinal-center B cell-like subtype had a better PFS than did patients with activated B cell-like subtype, irrespective of treatment. Frequencies of grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs; 73.7% v 64.7%, respectively) and serious AEs (42.6% v 37.6%, respectively) were higher with G-CHOP compared with R-CHOP. Fatal AE frequencies were 5.8% for G-CHOP and 4.3% for R-CHOP. The most common AEs were neutropenia (G-CHOP, 48.3%; R-CHOP, 40.7%), infusion-related reactions (G-CHOP, 36.1%; R-CHOP, 23.5%), nausea (G-CHOP, 29.4%; R-CHOP, 28.3%), and constipation (G-CHOP, 23.4%; R-CHOP, 24.5%). Conclusion G-CHOP did not improve PFS compared with R-CHOP in patients with previously untreated DLBCL. AEs reported with G were consistent with the known safety profile. Biomarker analyses may help define a future role for G in DLBCL.

BACKGROUND Patients with renal-cell carcinoma who undergo nephrectomy have no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence. METHODS In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who were at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy, to receive either adjuvant pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year). The primary end point was disease-free survival according to the investigator's assessment. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS A total of 496 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab, and 498 to receive placebo. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median time from randomization to the data-cutoff date was 24.1 months. Pembrolizumab therapy was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo (disease-free survival at 24 months, 77.3% vs. 68.1%; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.87; P = 0.002 [two-sided]). The estimated percentage of patients who remained alive at 24 months was 96.6% in the pembrolizumab group and 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 32.4% of the patients who received pembrolizumab and in 17.7% of those who received placebo. No deaths related to pembrolizumab therapy occurred. CONCLUSIONS Pembrolizumab treatment led to a significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo after surgery among patients with kidney cancer who were at high risk for recurrence. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

Median time to tumor progression was 9.9 months for schedule 4/2 and 7.1 months for the CDD schedule (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.04; P = .090). No significant difference was observed in overall survival (23.1 v 23.5 months; P = .615), commonly reported adverse events, or patient-reported kidney cancer symptoms. Schedule 4/2 was statistically superior to CDD in time to deterioration, a composite end point of death, progression, and disease-related symptoms (P = .034). CONCLUSION; There was no benefit in efficacy or safety for continuous dosing of sunitinib compared with the approved 50 mg/d dose on schedule 4/2. Given the numerically longer time to tumor progression with the approved 50 mg/d dose on schedule 4/2, adherence to this dose and schedule remains the treatment goal for patients with advanced RCC.

No abstract

PURPOSE The BRIGHT study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00877006) was initiated to compare the efficacy and safety of bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) with either rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP) for treatment-naive patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma or mantle-cell lymphoma. This publication provides long-term follow-up data. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were monitored for a minimum of 5 years after completion of study treatment for the time-to-event end points of progression-free survival (PFS), event-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival per investigator assessment. Data on the number of patients who received second-line anticancer treatment and the occurrence of other malignancies were also collected. RESULTS The medians were not reached for any of the time-to event end points for either the BR or R-CHOP/R-CVP study treatment groups by study completion. PFS rates at 5 years were 65.5% in the BR treatment group and 55.8% in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group. The difference in PFS was considered significant with a hazard ratio of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.85; P = .0025). The hazard ratio for event-free survival and duration of response ( P = .0020 and .0134, respectively) also favored the BR regimen over R-CHOP/R-CVP. However, no significant difference in overall survival was observed. The overall safety profiles of BR, R-CHOP, and R-CVP were as expected; no new safety data were collected during long-term follow-up. A higher number of secondary malignancies was noted in the BR treatment group. CONCLUSION Overall, BR demonstrated better long-term disease control than R-CHOP/R-CVP and should be considered as a first-line treatment option for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphoma.

The purpose of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) is to advance human health by extending the frontiers of clinical pharmacy. Consistent with this mission and its core values, ACCP is committed to ensuring that clinical pharmacists possess the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to deliver comprehensive medication management (CMM) in team-based, direct patient care environments. These components form the basis for the core competencies of a clinical pharmacist and reflect the competencies of other direct patient care providers. This paper is an update to a previous ACCP document and includes the expectation that clinical pharmacists be competent in six essential domains: direct patient care, pharmacotherapy knowledge, systems-based care and population health, communication, professionalism, and continuing professional development. Although these domains align with the competencies of physician providers, they are specifically designed to better reflect the clinical pharmacy expertise required to provide CMM in patient-centered, team-based settings. Clinical pharmacists must be prepared to complete the education and training needed to achieve these competencies and must commit to ongoing efforts to maintain competence through ongoing professional development. Collaboration among stakeholders will be needed to ensure that these competencies guide clinical pharmacists' professional development and evaluation by educational institutions, postgraduate training programs, professional societies, and employers.

AT-101 was tolerable but did not extend OS when combined with DP in mCRPC; a potential benefit was observed in high-risk patients.