Efficacy and safety assessment of prolonged maintenance with subcutaneous rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: results of the Phase III MabCute study

SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions: Treatment Evolution of Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Navigating the Different Entities and Biological Heterogeneity of Mantle Cell Lymphoma in 2024

Progress in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has led to significant improvement in outcomes of patients even in the real world (RW) setting albeit to a lesser degree. In parallel to the demonstration of benefit using combination therapy with rituximab plus high-dose cytarabine (R-AraC) as well as dose intensive therapy-autologous stem cell transplantation (DIT-ASCT) consolidation and maintenance, it became clear over the last 2 decades that MCL is a highly heterogenous disease at the molecular level, explaining differences observed in clinical behavior and response to therapy. While clinical prognostic factors and models have helped stratify patients with distinct outcomes, they failed to help guide therapy. The identification of molecular high-risk (HR) features, in particular, but not only, p53 aberrations (including mutations and deletions [del]), as well as complex karyotype (CK), has allowed to identify subsets of patients with poorer outcomes (median overall survival [OS] <2 years) regardless of conventional therapies used. The constant pattern of relapse seen in MCL has fueled sustained and productive efforts, with 7 novel agents approved in the United States (US), showing high and durable efficacy even in HR and chemo-refractory patients and likely curing a subset of patients in the relapsed or refractory (R/R) setting. Progress in diagnostics, in particular next-generation sequencing (NGS), which is accessible in routine practice nowadays, can help recognize patients with HR features, well beyond MIPI or Ki-67 prognostication, although the impact on decision making is still unclear. The era of integrating novel agents into our prior standard of care (SOC) has begun with a confirmed benefit, for example, ibrutinib (Ib) in the TRIANGLE study, defining the first new potential SOC in younger patients in over 30 years. Expanding on novel agents, either in combination, sequentially or to replace chemotherapy altogether, using biological doublets or triplets has led to a median progression-free survival (PFS) in excess of 72 months, certainly competitive with prior SOC and will continue to reshape the management of MCL patients. Achieving minimal residual disease negative (MRD-ve) status is becoming a new endpoint in MCL, and customizing maintenance and/or de-escalation/consolidation strategies is within reach, although it will require prospective, built-in MRD-based approaches, with the goal of eliminating subclinical disease and not simply delaying time to relapse. Taking into account the biological diversity of MCL is now feasible in routine clinical practice and has already helped recognize what not to do for HR patients (i.e., avoid intensive induction chemotherapy and/or ASCT for p53 mutated patients) as well as identify promising novel options. Ongoing and future work will help expand on these dedicated approaches, to further improve the management and outcomes of all MCL patients.

Clinical efficacy and safety of subcutaneous rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The role of subcutaneous (SC) rituximab in the efficacy and safety to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is not clear enough. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, to assess the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous rituximab to NHL.

METHOD

A full-scale search was carried out based on the set search terms in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL until 12 October 2022 to identify relevant studies of subcutaneous rituximab for NHL. The efficacy and safety outcomes included complete response (CR) plus unconfirmed complete response (CRu), adverse events (AEs), grade ≥3 AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs), administration-related reactions (ARRs), adverse reaction rates.

RESULTS

From a total of 758 studies, 9 trials were eligible. The CR/CRu of patients with NHL receiving SC rituximab was 57%, 55% for Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 54% for Follicular lymphoma (FL). The meta-analysis performed on safety demonstrated that AEs of NHL patients with SC rituximab was 85%, grade ≥3 AEs was 38%, SAE was 27% and ARR was 33%. The result also showed that SC rituximab had a high risk of neutropenia and nausea.

CONCLUSION

For NHL patients, there is no significant difference in the efficacy between subcutaneous rituximab and conventional therapy, while subcutaneous injection can shorten exposure time in the hospital and reduce the risk of infection.

Rituximab and Bendamustine (BR) Compared with Rituximab, Bendamustine, and Cytarabine (R-BAC) in Previously Untreated Elderly Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Simple Summary

Both BR, and R-BAC are suitable induction therapies in elderly patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). However, the two regimens have not been compared before. We retrospectively analysed the outcome and the safety features of elderly patients with newly diagnosed MCL, treated with BR or R-BAC between 2008 and 2019 at eight institutions. We used propensity scores to reduce selection bias, thus analysing 156 patients (53 BR, 103 R-BAC). Patients treated with R-BAC achieved higher CR rate than BR (91% vs. 60%, p < 0.0001). The 2-year PFS was 87 ± 3% and 64 ± 7% for R-BAC and BR, respectively (p = 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 121 months for R-BAC and 78 months for BR (p = 0.08). R-BAC was associated with significantly more pronounced grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia than BR (50% vs. 17%). This study indicates that R-BAC is associated with significantly prolonged 2-year PFS than BR in elderly patients with MCL.

Abstract

Background: Rituximab plus bendamustine (BR), and rituximab, bendamustine, and cytarabine (R-BAC) are well-known induction therapies in elderly patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to clinical guidelines. However, a direct comparison between the two regimens has never been performed. Methods: In this multicentre retrospective study, we compared the outcome of patients with newly diagnosed MCL, treated with BR or R-BAC. Primary endpoint was 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Inclusion bias was assessed using a propensity score stratified by gender, age, MCL morphology, and MIPI score. Results: After adjusting by propensity score, we identified 156 patients (53 BR, 103 R-BAC) with median age of 72 (53–90). Median follow-up was 46 months (range 12–133). R-BAC was administered in a 2-day schedule or with attenuated dose in 51% of patients. Patients treated with R-BAC achieved CR in 91% of cases, as compared with 60% for BR (p < 0.0001). The 2-year PFS was 87 ± 3% and 64 ± 7% for R-BAC and BR, respectively (p = 0.001). In terms of toxicity, R-BAC was associated with significantly more pronounced grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia than BR (50% vs. 17%). Conclusions: This study indicates that R-BAC, even when administered with judiciously attenuated doses, is associated with significantly prolonged 2-year PFS than BR in elderly patients with previously untreated MCL.