Rituximab combined with chemotherapy is the first-line induction therapy of CD20 positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (CD20+ B-NHL). Recently new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been developed, but their efficacy and safety compared with rituximab are still controversial. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared new anti-CD20 mAbs with rituximab in induction therapy of B-NHL. The primary outcomes are progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), additional outcomes include event-free survival (EFS), disease-free survival (DFS), overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR) and incidences of adverse events (AEs). Time-to-event data were pooled as hazard ratios (HRs) using the generic inverse-variance method and dichotomous outcomes were pooled as odds ratios (ORs) using the Mantel–Haenszel method with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI). Eleven RCTs comprising 5261 patients with CD20+ B-NHL were included. Compared with rituximab, obinutuzumab significantly prolonged PFS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73–0.96, P = 0.01), had no improvement on OS, ORR, and CRR, but increased the incidences of serious AEs (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13–1.48, P < 0.001). Ofatumumab was inferior to rituximab in consideration of ORR (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.96, P = 0.02), and had no significant differences with rituximab in regard to PFS, OS and CRR. 131I-tositumomab yielded similar PFS, OS, ORR and CRR with rituximab. 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan increased ORR (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.47–6.43, P = 0.003), but did not improve PFS, DFS, OS and CRR compared with rituximab. In conclusion, compared with rituximab in induction therapy of CD20+ B-NHL, obinutuzumab significantly improves PFS but with higher incidence of AEs, ofatumumab decreases ORR, 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan increases ORR.

Background Efficient mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from bone marrow niche into circulation is the key to successful collection and transplantation in patients with hematological malignancies. The efficacy of various HSCs mobilization regimens has been widely investigated, but the results are inconsistent. Methods We performed comprehensive databases searching for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that comparing the efficacy of HSCs mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with WinBUGS. Standard dose of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF SD) was chosen as the common comparator. Estimates of relative treatment effects for other regimens were reported as mean differences (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with associated 95% credibility interval (95% CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were obtained to present rank probabilities of all included regimens. Results Databases searching and study selection identified 44 eligible RCTs, of which the mobilization results are summarized. Then we compared the efficacy of mobilization regimens separately for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) by including 13 eligible trials for network meta-analysis, involving 638 patients with MM and 592 patients with NHL. For patients with MM, data are pooled from 8 trials for 6 regimens, including G-CSF in standard dose (SD) or reduced dose (RD) combined with cyclophosphamide (CY), intermediate-dose cytarabine (ID-AraC) or plerixafor. The results show that compared with G-CSF SD alone, 3 regimens including ID-AraC + G-CSF SD (MD 14.29, 95% CrI 9.99–18.53; SUCRA 1.00), G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD (MD 4.15, 95% CrI 2.92–5.39; SUCRA 0.80), and CY + G-CSF RD (MD 1.18, 95% CrI 0.29–2.07; SUCRA 0.60) are associated with significantly increased total number of collected CD34+ cells (× 106/kg), among which ID-AraC + G-CSF SD ranked first with a probability of being best regimen of 100%. Moreover, ID-AraC + G-CSF SD and G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD are associated with significantly higher successful rate of achieving optimal target (collecting ≥ 4–6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg). For patients with NHL, data are pooled from 5 trials for 4 regimens, the results show that compared with G-CSF SD alone, G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD (MD 3.62, 95% CrI 2.86–4.38; SUCRA 0.81) and G-CSF SD plus the new CXC chemokine receptor-4 (CXCR-4) antagonist YF-H-2015005 (MD 3.43, 95% CrI 2.51–4.35; SUCRA 0.69) are associated with significantly higher number of total CD34+ cells collected. These 2 regimens are also associated with significantly higher successful rate of achieving optimal target. There are no significant differences in rate of achieving optimal target between G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD and G-CSF + YF-H-2015005. Conclusions In conclusion, ID-AraC plus G-CSF is associated with the highest probability of being best mobilization regimen in patients with MM. For patients with NHL, G-CSF in combination with plerixafor or YF-H-2015005 showed similar improvements in HSCs mobilization efficacy. The relative effects of other chemotherapy-based mobilization regimens still require to be determined with further investigations.

No abstract