Résumé
Background: Immunochemotherapy induction followed by rituximab maintenance is the standard of care in previously untreated symptomatic follicular lymphoma (FL). The phase 3 RELEVANCE study of chemotherapy-free combination immunotherapy with lenalidomide and rituximab (R 2) showed promising activity comparable to standard rituximab + chemotherapy (R-chemo) options (Morschhauser, F and Fowler, NH, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018). Reported here are the results of the second interim analysis.
Methods: RELEVANCE is a global, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT01650701) of R 2 vs R-chemo followed by rituximab in patients with previously untreated grade 1-3a FL requiring therapy according to GELF criteria. Lenalidomide dose was 20 mg/d, d2-22/28 for 6-12 cycles (c), continued in responders at 10 mg/d for a total of 18 c. Rituximab dose was 375 mg/m 2 weekly c1 and d1 c2-6 and continued in responders for 12 additional c (q8wk). R-chemo was given per investigator's choice of standard R + cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), R + bendamustine (R-B), or R-CVP, followed by 12 c of rituximab (q8wk). Co-primary endpoints were complete response (CR)/CR unconfirmed (CRu) at 120 wk and progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee (IRC) based on 1999 IWG criteria. The prespecified second interim analysis was done after 75% of total PFS events were reached.
Results: 1030 patients with high tumor burden were randomized to R 2 (n = 513) and R-chemo (n = 517; 72% R-CHOP, 23% R-B, 5% R-CVP); baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. As of October 30, 2020, at median follow-up of 72 mo, 6-year PFS, according to IRC assessment using FDA censoring rules, was 60% for R 2 and 59% for R-chemo with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84-1.27). Data according to investigator assessment and EMA censoring rules are shown in the table. Median PFS was not reached for both groups. CR/CRu rates at 120 wk by IRC was 48% for R 2 and 53% for R-chemo (P = 0.10). Secondary endpoints, including overall survival, event free survival, and time to next antilymphoma treatment, were also similar in both groups. 162 (32%) R 2 and 166 (32%) R-chemo patients experienced progression/relapse according to investigator assessment of which 107 and 99 patients received additional treatment(s), respectively. Histological transformation was documented in 13/513 patients the R 2 group and 11/517 patients in the R-chemo group over the 72 mo follow-up period. ORR and overall survival after subsequent treatment(s) for relapse/progression were similar in both groups. The overall safety profile in both groups was consistent with the 1st interim analysis. The number of patients with second primary malignancies (SPMs) were similar between both groups, occurring in 57 (11%) R 2-treated and 67 (13%) R-chemo-treated safety population patients. The total number of SPMs was 64 in the R 2 group and 87 in the R-chemo group, with invasive SPM accounting for 43 (67%) and 52 (60%), respectively. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in 9 (2%) R 2 and 6 (1%) R-chemo treated patients.
Conclusions: R 2 continues to demonstrate comparable efficacy vs R-chemo in patients with previously untreated grade 1-3a FL requiring therapy with similar 6-year PFS (60% and 59%) and 6-year OS (89% in both groups). Also, response and overall survival after subsequent treatment were similar in both groups. The overall safety profile of both groups was consistent with the previous analysis, with no new safety signals detected. R 2 provides a chemo-free alternative to R-chemo based on immunotherapy/immunomodulation.
Figure 1 Figure 1.