Yabing Cao

Entecavir vs Lamivudine for Prevention of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation Among Patients With Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Receiving R-CHOP Chemotherapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a serious complication for patients with lymphoma treated with rituximab-containing chemotherapies, despite lamivudine prophylaxis treatment. An optimal prophylactic antiviral protocol has not been determined. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of entecavir and lamivudine in preventing HBV reactivation in patients seropositive for the hepatitis B surface antigen with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving chemotherapy treatment with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Randomized, open-label, phase 3 study conducted from February 2008 through December 2012 at 10 medical centers in China. This study was a substudy of a parent study designed to compare a 3-week with a 2-week R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen for untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients enrolled in the parent study who were seropositive for the hepatitis B surface antigen and had normal liver function, serum HBV DNA levels of less than 103 copies/mL, and no prior antiviral therapy were randomized to entecavir (n = 61) or lamivudine (n = 60). INTERVENTIONS Daily entecavir (0.5 mg) or lamivudine (100 mg) beginning 1 week before the initiation of R-CHOP treatment to 6 months after completion of chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary efficacy end point was the incidence of HBV-related hepatitis. The secondary end points included rates of HBV reactivation, chemotherapy disruption due to hepatitis, and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS There were 121 patients randomly assigned to receive entecavir (n = 61) or lamivudine (n = 60). The date of last patient follow-up was May 25, 2013. The rates were significantly lower for the entecavir group vs the lamivudine group for HBV-related hepatitis (0% vs 13.3%, respectively; difference between groups, 13.3% [95% CI, 4.7% to 21.9%]; P = .003), HBV reactivation (6.6% vs 30%; difference, 23.4% [95% CI, 10.2% to 36.6%]; P = .001), and chemotherapy disruption (1.6% vs 18.3%; difference, 16.7% [95% CI, 6.4% to 27.0%]; P = .002). Of the 61 patients in the entecavir group, 15 (24.6%) experienced treatment-related adverse events. Of 60 patients in the lamivudine group, 18 (30%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (difference between entecavir and lamivudine groups, 5.4% [95% CI, -10.5% to 21.3%]; P = .50). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients seropositive for the hepatitis B surface antigen with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy, the addition of entecavir compared with lamivudine resulted in a lower incidence of HBV-related hepatitis and HBV reactivation. If replicated, these findings support the use of entecavir in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01793844; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: CTR-TRC-11001687.

Efficacy and safety of crizotinib among chinese EML4-ALK-positive, advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients

Introduction We report the efficacy and safety of crizotinib treatment among Chinese patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients with EML4-ALK positive advanced NSCLC who were treated with crizotinib from May 2012 to Aug 2013. Baseline clinical parameters, treatment protocol, response to therapy and survival were noted. The primary goal was to evaluate the efficacy of crizotinib in patients who were previously treated patients or who had poor ECOG performance status (PS). Results Forty patients were evaluable for safety and efficacy. Median age was 43 years, 100% had adenocarcinoma and stage IV disease, and 42.5% were female. Six patients received frontline treatment with crizotinib, 17 patients had 1 prior treatment, and 17 patients had more than 2 lines of prior treatment. Patients received a median of 5 cycles of treatment (range 1–15 cycles). After the first cycle, 92.5% (37/40) patients archived partial remission (PR). At the end of the follow-up period, the overall PR rate was 70% (28/40), and progression of disease (PD) occurred in 30% of patients (12/40). The median PFS was 28 weeks (95% CI 15.4 to 40.5 weeks), and median OS was 40 weeks (95% CI 38.6 to 49.3 weeks). The most frequent treatment-related AEs were vomiting (47.5%), vision disorder (27.5%) and increased ALT/AST (42%); most toxicities were Grade 1/2. Observed treatment-related Grade 3/4 AEs included increased ALT/AST (10%) and vomiting (5%). The EML4-ALK fusion rate and number of prior chemotherapy cycles did not appear to significantly affect the efficacy of crizotinib. However, PS 0–2 patients had improved PFS (50 weeks vs. 24 weeks, p = 0.015). Conclusions Crizotinib was safe, well-tolerated, and effective in Chinese patients with pre-treated ALK-rearranged NSCLC. QOL was improved and PS appears to have an effect on the efficacy of crizotinib, but prior treatment and ALK fusion rate do not.

Outcome of R-CHOP or CHOP regimen for germinal center and nongerminal center subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of chinese patients

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can be molecularly subtyped as either germinal center B-cell (GCB) or non-GCB. The role of rituximab(R) in these two groups remains unclear. We studied 204 patients with de novo DLBCL (107 treated with first-line CHOP; 97 treated with first-line R-CHOP), patients being stratified into GCB and non-GCB on the basis of BCL-6, CD10, and MUM1 protein expression. The relationships between clinical characteristics, survival data, and immunophenotype (IHC) were studied. The 5-year overall survival (OS) in the CHOP and R-CHOP groups was 50.4% and 66.6% (P = 0.031), respectively. GCB patients had a better 5-year OS than non-GCB patients whether treated with CHOP or not (65.0% versus 40.9%; P = 0.011). In contrast, there is no difference in the 5-year OS for the GCB and non-GCB with R-CHOP (76.5% versus 61.3%; P = 0.141). In non-GCB subtype, additional rituximab improved survival better than CHOP (61.3% versus 40.9%; P = 0.0303). These results indicated that addition of rituximab to standard chemotherapy eliminates the prognostic value of IHC-defined GCB and non-GCB phenotypes in DLBCL by improving the prognostic value of non-GCB subtype of DLBCL.

Dose-Dense Rituximab-CHOP versus Standard Rituximab-CHOP in Newly Diagnosed Chinese Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Phase 3 Trial

Purpose Rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone administered every 3 weeks (R-CHOP-21) is the standard care for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). It is unknown whether the dose-dense R-CHOP (R-CHOP-14) could improve the outcome of the disease in Asian population. Materials and Methods Newly diagnosed DLBCL patients were centrally, randomly assigned (1:1) to receive R-CHOP- 14 or R-CHOP-21. R-CHOP-14 was administered every 2 weeks, and R-CHOP-21 was administered every 3 weeks. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate and toxicities. Results Seven hundred and two patients were randomly assigned to receive R-CHOP-14 (n=349) or R-CHOP-21 (n=353). With a median follow-up of 45.6 months, the two groups did not differ significantly in 3-year DFS (79.6% for R-CHOP-14 vs. 83.2% for R-CHOP-21, p=0.311), 3-year OS (77.5% for R-CHOP-14 vs. 77.6% for R-CHOP-21, p=0.903), or 3-year PFS (63.2% for R-CHOP-14 vs. 66.1% for R-CHOP-21, p=0.447). Patients with an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score ≥ 2 had a poorer prognosis compared to those with an IPI score < 2. Grade 3/4 hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities were manageable and similar between R-CHOP-14 and R-CHOP-21. Conclusion R-CHOP-14 did not improve the outcome of DLBCL compared to R-CHOP-21 in Asian population. With manageable and similar toxicities, both of the two regimens were suitable for Asian DLBCL patients. For high-risk patients with IPI ≥ 2, new combination regimens based on R-CHOP deserve further investigation to improve efficacy.