Background Six cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) are the standard treatment for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the FLYER trial, we assessed whether four cycles of CHOP plus six applications of rituximab are non-inferior to six cycles of R-CHOP in a population of patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with favourable prognosis. Methods This two-arm, open-label, international, multicentre, prospective, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial was done at 138 clinical sites in Denmark, Israel, Italy, Norway, and Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18-60 years, with stage I-II disease, normal serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, ECOG performance status 0-1, and without bulky disease (maximal tumour diameter <7•5 cm). Randomisation was computer-based and done centrally in a 1:1 ratio using the Pocock minimisation algorithm after stratification for centres, stage (I vs II), and extralymphatic sites (no vs yes). Patients were assigned to receive either six cycles of R-CHOP or four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab. CHOP comprised cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m²), doxorubicin (50 mg/m²), and vincristine (1•4 mg/m², with a maximum total dose of 2 mg), all administered intravenously on day 1, plus oral prednisone or prednisolone at the discretion of the investigator (100 mg) administered on days 1-5. Rituximab was given at a dose of 375 mg/m² of body surface area. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. No radiotherapy was planned except for testicular lymphoma treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after 3 years. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned treatment. A non-inferiority margin of-5•5% was chosen. The trial, which is completed, was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00278421.

No abstract

Background: 6 cycles CHOP-like chemotherapy plus rituximab (6x R-CHOP) are the standard treatment for young patients with DLBCL. The MInT trial established a subgroup with favourable prognosis as defined as aaIPI=0 and no bulky disease [Pfreundschuh et al., Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 379-391] with a 3-year EFS of 89%, PFS of 95% and OS of 98%. We hypothesized that 4 cycles of CHOP plus 6 applications of rituximab are non-inferior to the standard treatment of 6x R-CHOP in this population. Patients and Methods: 18 to 60 year-old patients, aaIPI =0 without bulky (≥7.5 cm) disease were randomized to receive 6x R-CHOP or 4x R-CHOP+2xR at 21-day cycles. Radiotherapy was not planned to be given except for prophylactic radiotherapy of the contralateral testis in patients with testicular lymphoma. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) with events defined as progressive disease, relapse or death. Assuming a 93% 3-years PFS for the 6x R-CHOP arm, it was planned to tolerate an impairment of 5.5% by reducing the number of courses to 4x R-CHOP+2xR to prove non-inferiority with a power of 80% and an alpha-error of 5% (one-sided). Results: Between 12/2005 and 10/2016, 592 patients were randomized in the international multi-center FLYER trial and 588 patients were evaluable for this final analysis. 295 patients were assigned to receive 6x R-CHOP and 293 were assigned to receive 4x R-CHOP+2xR. There were no relevant differences in demographics (median age: 48 years, 99% aaIPI=0, 1% aaIPI=1, 0.3% bulky disease), protocol adherence and toxicity between the two arms. PFS, EFS and OS after 4x R-CHOP+2xR were as good as after 6x R-CHOP. After 66 months median observation, the 3-year PFS rate of the patients receiving 4x R-CHOP+2xR was 96% vs. 94% of patients receiving 6x R-CHOP (p=0.760). The lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference between treatment arms was 0% and excludes -5.5% demonstrating the non-inferiority. The 3-year EFS was identical (89%) in both treatment arms. The 3-years OS was 99% in patients receiving 4x R-CHOP+2xR and 98% in patients receiving 6x R-CHOP. In a multivariable analysis adjusting for strata (stage and E-involvement), the hazard ratio of 4x R-CHOP+2xR compared to 6x R-CHOP was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.7-1.6; p=0.896) for EFS, 0.9 (95% CI: 0.5-1.6; p=0.797) for PFS, and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.4-1.9; p=0.671) for OS. With respect to relapse rate there was also no significant difference between the two treatment arms. 4% (95% CI 2-7%) of the patients in the 4x R-CHOP+2xR arm relapsed vs. 5% (95% CI 3-8%) of the patients in the 6x R-CHOP arm. 33% of relapses occurred in the first two years after study inclusion but continue to be seen with longer follow-up in both arms. Conclusion: In young patients with favourable prognosis DLBCL outcome after 4x R-CHOP+ 2xR is non-inferior compared to the previous standard 6x R-CHOP. Thus, chemotherapy can be spared without compromising prognosis in this population. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe Figure. Figure. Disclosures Poeschel: Roche: Other: Travel grants; Amgen: Other: Travel grants. Held:BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding. Holte:Roche, Norway: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Viardot:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Borchmann:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Keller:Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Roche: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy. Schmidt:Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants. Marks:Merck: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria. Stilgenbauer:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmcyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffmann La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Schmitz:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants; Roche: Honoraria. Murawski:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Travel grants.

Background: Survival of patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is suboptimal, and the risk of central nervous system (CNS) progression is relatively high. We investigated the efficacy of dose-dense chemoimmunotherapy and systemic CNS prophylaxis in two completed Nordic trials including patients less than 65 years with high-risk DLBCL. We combined individual patient data from these studies to compare clinical outcome and prognostic factors in patients treated with CNS prophylaxis given in the beginning (CHIC) vs at the end (CRY-04) of therapy.Patients and Methods: Inclusion criteria were age 18-65 years, primary DLBCL or grade 3 follicular lymphoma without signs of CNS involvement, WHO performance score 0-3, age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI 2-3) and/or involvement of anatomical sites associated with an increased risk for CNS recurrence (e.g. testis, facial sinuses, orbita). In CRY-04, six courses of R-CHOEP14 were followed by HD-Mtx and HD-Ara-C. In CHIC, treatment consisted of two courses of HD-Mtx in combination with R-CHOP14, followed by four courses of R-CHOEP14 and one course of R-HD-AraC. In addition, liposomal AraC was administered intrathecally at courses 1, 3 and 5.Primary end points were failure free survival (FFS; disease progression, discontinuation of protocolled therapy due to toxicity, death from any cause) at 3 years and CNS progression rate at 1.5 years. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS; disease progression or death from any cause) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years. Conclusions:Our results derived from trial data with homogenous treatment support the use of HD-Mtx in the beginning rather than at the end of therapy. Superior outcome seems to be primarily due to better systemic control of the disease. In addition, number of CNS recurrences is reduced.

7539 Background: To study if anti-infective prophylaxis with aciclovir and cotrimoxazole is effective in preventing infections in pts. receiving R-CHOP, we compared infections and treatment-related deaths in two prospective DSHNHL trials with different anti-infective strategies. Methods: 61-80-yo. pts. in RICOVER-60 study [Lancet Oncol 2008; 9:105-116] received 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP-14 with or without 8 applications of rituximab. Anti-infective prophylaxis consisted of ciprofloxazine (500 mg/d) during days of severe leukocytopenia ( < 1000 / mm3). In OPTIMAL > 60, pts. were randomized to 6xCHOP-14 or 6xCHLIP-14 (conventional substituted by liposomal vincristine) in combination with rituximab, 8 applications q 2 wks. or 12 applications between days -4 and 238 /2x2 factorial design). In OPTIMAL > 60, anti-infective prophylaxis consisted of cotrimoxazole (2 double strength doses twice every week p. o.) and aciclovir (4 x 400 mg/d p.o.) in addition to ciprofloxazine. Results: In RICOVER-60, grade 3&4 infections in 232 patients (IPI = 1 and bulky disease or IPI > 1) receiving 6xCHOP-14+8R were 6% (76/1200) per cycle and 28% (60/218) per patient. With intensified anti-infective prophylaxis in OPTIMAL > 60 there were no differences with respect to infections between the 4 treatment arms. Grade 3&4 infections were 4% (83/1987) per cycle (p = 0.007) and 18% (64/365 pts. with toxicity documentation) per patient (p = 0.004). Treatment-related deaths (defined as all non-lymphoma associated deaths during and within 2 months after the end of chemotherapy) went down from 15/232 (7%) in RICOVER-60 to 7/385 (2%; p = 0.003) in OPTIMAL > 60. Conclusions: Anti-infective prophylaxis with cotrimoxazole and aciclovir in addition to ciprofloxazine significantly reduced the rates of severe infections and treatment-related deaths in elderly patients receiving R-CHOP supporting the use of this anti-infective strategy in all DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP. Clinical trial information: NCT01478542.