Article Sidebar
Article Details
Submission of a manuscript to this journal is a representation that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
All authors named in each manuscript would be required to sign a form (to be supplied by the Editor) so that they may retain their copyright in the article but to assign to us (the Publishers) and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known or created in the future) to (i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the contribution, (ii) translate the contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or abstracts of the contribution, (iii) create any other derivative works(s) based on the contribution, (iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the contribution, (v) the inclusion of electronic links from the contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located, and (vi) license any thrid party to do any or all of the above.
Main Article Content
Comparative efficacy of triple combination therapies containing either bortezomib or rituximab in treatment naïve patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, Bortezomib, Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Dexamethasone
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the comparative efficacy of triple combination therapies of cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone containing either bortezomib or rituximab in treatment-naïve patients diagnosed with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, LPL/WM).
Methods: Symptomatic, untreated patients with LPL/WM diagnosed in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University were enrolled in this study and divided into two groups (BCD and RCD). Group BCD consisted of 16 patients administered bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone, while group RCD (15 patients) received rituximab/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone. The efficacy of the two therapies and the Kaplan-Meier survival curve of the groups were evaluated.
Results: With regard to overall response rate (ORR) and minimal response rate (MRR), there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (100 vs 86.6 %, p = 0.226, and 81.25 vs 60.0 %, p = 0.252, respectively). The median time to minimal response (MR) in the BCD group was 1.3 months, which was shorter compared with that of RCD group (3.5 months, p = 0.026). Treatment-related toxicities (grade>2) were leukopenia, neutropenia, hypohepatia and pneumonia. With a median study follow-up of 27 months, disease in 18 patients (8 vs 10) progressed while 4 patients died (all in RCD group). The estimated median progression free survival (PFS) was 43 and 35 months in groups BCD and RCD, respectively, but the overall survival (OS) rate in 25 months significantly differed between the 2 groups (100 % vs 66.1 %，p = 0.033).
Conclusion: The two regimens are active, produced responses and are safe as primary therapies for patients with LPL/WM. However, the response median time was much shorter in group BCD patients, and thus might have better survival benefits.
