![]() There were no differences in outcome between R-CHOP-14 and R-CHOP-21. Results were not different when the analysis was restricted to patients with bulky disease only. 93%, p=0.506) was not different, which was confirmed in a multivariate analysis adjusting for elevated LDH, stage III/IV, B and E involvement (HR EFS=0.5, p=0.001 HR PFS=0.7, p=0.174 HR OS=1.2, p=0.674). 3-year PFS of pts assigned to RT was not significantly better (89% vs. 2%) triggering additional treatment (mostly RT) as an EFS event. After 66 months median observation 3-year EFS was worse in pts not assigned to RT (68% vs. EFS, PFS and OS after R-CHOP-14 and R-CHOP-21 were not different. There were no relevant differences in protocol adherence and toxicity between the two chemotherapy regimens. 305 pts (R-CHOP-21: 155 R-CHOP-14: 150) assigned to RT and 162 (R-CHOP-21: 81, R-CHOP-14: 81) assigned to observation were evaluable for this final analysis. Primary endpoint was event-free survival.Ī planned interim analysis of the first 285 patients had revealed a significantly better EFS of patients assigned to RT (p=0.004) resulting in the pre-defined closing of the non-RT arms. The aim of the study was to determine the role of radiotherapy to bulky and extranodal disease and compare the efficacy of R-CHOP-14 and R-CHOP-21 in young DLBCL patients.ġ8-60 year-old patients (aaIPI=0 with B, aaIPI 1) qualifying for radiotherapy to B or E were randomized to 6xR-CHOP-14 or 6x-R-CHOP-21 followed by RT (39.6 Gy) to B and E sites or observation in a 2x2 factorial design. The role of RT to B and E for young patients with good-prognosis DLBCL is ill-defined. Presentation during EHA23: On Sunday, Jfrom 08:00 - 08:15
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |