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, Johnson & Johnson, Roche and sobi, and supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Lilly, and Pfizer. 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 moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View lym content recommended for you
The standard treatment for patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) and high tumor burden is often immunochemotherapy followed by maintenance. However, the phase III RELEVANCE trial (NCT01650701; previously reported on the Lymphoma Hub) demonstrated that the chemotherapy-free option of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) was as efficacious as immunochemotherapy (rituximab plus chemotherapy [R-Chemo]) in this subset of patients.1
In the latest publication of the RELEVANCE trial in Blood Advances, Marie-Helene Delfau-Larue and colleagues performed a measurable residual disease (MRD) analysis to assess the ability of the chemotherapy-free regimen R2 to induce molecular responses compared with R-Chemo. 1
Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics per treatment arm1
β2M, β2 microglobulin; BM, bone marrow; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; FLIPI, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; R2, lenalidomide plus rituximab; R-Chemo, rituximab plus chemotherapy; ULN, upper limit of normal |
||||
Characteristic |
All (N = 222) |
R2 (n = 122) |
R-Chemo (n = 100) |
p value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Median age (range), years |
60 (30–89) |
60 (33–78) |
60 (30–89) |
0.90 |
Male, % |
54 |
53 |
55 |
0.89 |
ECOG PS, % |
|
|
|
0.34 |
0 |
67 |
70 |
63 |
|
1 |
31 |
27 |
36 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Not evaluated |
0.5 |
0.8 |
0 |
|
Ann Arbor stage, % |
|
|
|
0.47 |
I–II |
4 |
2 |
5 |
|
III–IV |
96 |
98 |
95 |
|
Nodal mass > 6 cm, % |
50 |
47 |
52 |
0.59 |
FLIPI score, % |
|
|
|
0.46 |
0–1 |
9 |
11 |
6 |
|
2 |
41 |
39 |
43 |
|
3–5 |
50 |
49 |
51 |
|
Missing data |
0.5 |
0.8 |
0 |
|
FLIPI2 score, % |
|
|
|
0.73 |
0–1 |
26 |
28 |
24 |
|
2 |
29 |
30 |
28 |
|
3–5 |
43 |
41 |
45 |
|
Missing data |
2 |
0.8 |
3 |
|
Number of peripheral lymph nodes, % |
|
|
|
0.23 |
≤ 4 |
47 |
43 |
52 |
|
> 4 |
53 |
57 |
48 |
|
β2M, % |
|
|
|
0.67 |
< 3 mg/L |
62 |
61 |
63 |
|
≥ 3 mg/L |
35 |
37 |
33 |
|
Missing data |
3 |
2 |
4 |
|
Elevated LDH (> ULN), % |
|
|
|
0.77 |
No |
71 |
70 |
73 |
|
Yes |
28 |
30 |
27 |
|
Missing data |
0.5 |
0.8 |
0 |
|
BM involvement, % |
|
|
|
0.43 |
No |
34 |
30 |
39 |
|
Yes |
62 |
65 |
58 |
|
Unspecified |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Not done |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
In agreement with the previously-reported clinical data of the RELEVANCE trial, these MRD analysis results indicate that the chemotherapy-free R2 regimen can lead to high rates of CMR in terms of MRD negativity, as detected by quantitative BCL2-JH PCR in patients with naïve FL. This effect was seen as early as 6 months of treatment and was as effective as R-Chemo in this respect.
Limitations to this study include the possibility of the analyzed population to have had more severe disease than the entire RELEVANCE cohort, since the probability of detecting BCL2-JH increases with disease spread. However, the baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms and PFS was similar across the groups as reported in the original RELEVANCE analysis. A longer follow-up is required to better analyze the prognostic impact of MRD as a marker for treatment efficacy in this patient subset.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content
Your opinion matters
What types of support services or resources do you think would best facilitate the safe implementation of the BrECADD regimen in clinical practice?