Platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy improved overall survival and recurrence-free survival at 5 years in this combined group of patients with early-stage ovarian cancer defined by the inclusion criteria of the ICON1 and ACTION trials.
A B S T R A C T PurposeIn 2006, we published the results of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial EORTC 20981 on the role of rituximab in remission induction and maintenance treatment of relapsed/resistant follicular lymphoma (FL). At that time, the median follow-up for the maintenance phase was 33 months. Now, we report the long-term outcome of maintenance treatment, with a median follow-up of 6 years.
Patients and MethodsOverall, 465 patients were randomly assigned to induction with either six cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP) or rituximab plus CHOP (R-CHOP). Those in complete remission or partial remission after induction (n ϭ 334) were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with rituximab (375 mg/m 2 intravenously once every 3 months) or observation.
ResultsRituximab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with observation (median, 3.7 years v 1.3 years; P Ͻ .001; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55), both after CHOP induction (P Ͻ .001; HR, 0.37) and R-CHOP (P ϭ .003; HR, 0.69). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 74% in the rituximab maintenance arm, and it was 64% in the observation arm (P ϭ .07). After progression, a rituximab-containing salvage therapy was given to 59% of patients treated with CHOP followed by observation, compared with 26% after R-CHOP followed by rituximab maintenance. Rituximab maintenance was associated with a significant increase in grades 3 to 4 infections: 9.7% v 2.4% (P ϭ .01).
ConclusionWith long-term follow-up, we confirm the superior PFS with rituximab maintenance in relapsed/ resistant FL. The improvement of OS did not reach statistical significance, possibly because of the unbalanced use of rituximab in post-protocol salvage treatment.
First-line intravenous chemotherapy (CT) following debulking surgery is associated with prolonged survival, in particular in patients who achieve a pathological complete remission (pCR) at second-look surgery but in whom a high rate of relapses still occurs. Between 1988 and 1997, 153 patients in pCR following platinum-based intravenous CT were randomized between four courses of intraperitoneal cisplatin (P) (90 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) or observation. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, while progression-free survival (PFS) was a secondary endpoint. This intent-to-treat analysis includes 16 patients who were not eligible and 17 patients who had protocol violations. The two groups were well balanced in terms of age (median = 55 years), performance status (78% P.S. O), FIGO stage (96% stage III), histology (serous in 66%), grade (2 or 3 in 80%), and residuum before intravenous CT (>1 cm in 40%). Intraperitoneal CT was delivered mainly through intraperitoneal catheters (Port-a-Cath 61% and Tenckhoff 25%). Side effects of intraperitoneal cisplatin included vomiting [> or =grade 2 (82%)], rise in serum creatinine [> or =grade 2 (14%)], abdominal pain [grade 1-2 (38%)], and neurotoxicity [grade 2-3 (15%)]. After a median follow-up of 8 years, 80 patients (52%) have progressed with no difference in the pattern of relapse between the two groups and 75 patients (49%) have died; the respective hazard ratios for PFS and OS with 95% CI are 0.89 (0.59-1.33) and 0.82 (0.52-1.29). These results are suggestive of a treatment benefit but do not support a change in clinical practice. Other randomized clinical trials of intraperitoneal CT are reviewed and briefly discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.