All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the Lymphoma Coalition.
The lym Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the lym Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The lym and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Lymphoma & CLL Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by AbbVie, BeOne Medicines, Johnson & Johnson, Roche and sobi, and supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte and Lilly. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View lymphoma & CLL content recommended for you
EHA 2019 | MABCUTE study: Extended maintenance with subcutaneous rituximab vs observation in iNHL
Featured:
Simon RuleAt the 24th Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA), Simon Rule, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK, talks about MABCUTE phase III study with the Lymphoma Hub. The MABCUTE study compared the use of subcutaneous (SC) rituximab and intravenous (IV) rituximab, and also extended maintenance with SC rituximab compared to observation, in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL).
Following two years of rituximab treatment, patients who remained responsive were randomized to either extended maintenance with SC rituximab, or cessation of treatment and observation.
The study found no additional toxicity associated with SC rituximab compared to IV, including in the extended maintenance vs observation portion. There was also no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) between arms and near superimposable overall survival curves.
Statistically, it may be stated that longer follow-up is needed, but based on this study of over 300 patients, it can be concluded that extending maintenance does not improve outcomes and so patients can stop treatment after 2 years, as is currently the standard-of-care.
MABCUTE study: Extended maintenance with subcutaneous rituximab vs observation in iNHL
Your opinion matters
In your experience, when do most CRS/ICANS events occur after lisocabtagene maraleucel infusion?