Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most frequent non-Hodgkin lymphoma worldwide. The current standard of care is chemoimmunotherapy with an R-CHOP regimen. We aim to review the role of this regimen after two decades of being the standard of care.

Methods:

A comprehensive literature review of DLBCL, including the epidemiology, trials defining R-CHOP as the standard of care, as well as dose intensification and dose reduction schemes. Additionally, we briefly review the development of rituximab biosimilars and the addition of targeted drugs to R-CHOP in clinical trials.

Discussion:

R-CHOP cures approximately 70% of DLBCL patients. Dose-dense regimens do not show a benefit in response and increase toxicity. Dose reduction, particularly in elderly patients or with comorbidities, may be a treatment option. DLBCL constitutes a group of diseases that activate different biological pathways. Matching specific treatments to a defined genetic alteration is under development. Rituximab biosimilars have become available to a broader population, particularly in developing countries, where access to treatment is limited because of economic resources.

Conclusion:

DLBCL landscape is heterogeneous. R-CHOP immunochemotherapy has been a standard of care for two decades and cures approximately 70% of cases. Molecular characterization of patients is evolving and may have critical therapeutic implications.

Keywords

chemoimmunotherapy diffuse large B-cell lymphoma non-Hodgkin lymphoma treatment R-CHOP rituximab biosimilars

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is the seventh most common cancer in the United States.¹ The incidence rate in Europe is 3.8/100,000 per year.² In 2018, there were approximately 509,590 new cases and 248,724 deaths worldwide³; diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) roughly accounts for 24% of all new cases of NHL each year.^3,4

DLBCL is a defined entity within the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification⁵ and constitutes the most common of all aggressive types of B-cell lymphomas. Patients typically present with rapidly enlarging lymphadenopathy and constitutional symptoms which require immediate treatment. Moreover, 40% of patients have extranodal disease⁶; in 8–9% of such cases, the extranodal site will be the primary site of presentation.⁷ Different clinical scores have classified these patients into prognostic groups, with effects on response rates and survival. For instance, the International Prognostic Index (IPI)⁸ includes five groups depending on age (>60 years), clinical stage, LDH levels, number of extranodal sites, and ECOG performance status. According to this score, high-risk patients had a 5-year overall survival (OS) of 32%, compared with 83% in low-risk patients. After adding rituximab as part of the standard treatment, Sehn et al.⁹ reevaluated this score [revised-IPI (R-IPI)] and described only three prognostic groups: very good, good, and poor, with 4-year OS rates of 94%, 79%, and 55%, respectively. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-IPI¹⁰ identifies four groups: low, low-intermediate, high-intermediate, and high-risk, whose 5-year OS rates are, respectively, 96%, 82%, 64%, and 33%. These scores are summarized in Table 1. Ruppert et al.¹¹ recently compared these prognostic indices in more than 2000 DLBCL patients from seven multicenter clinical trials. Both the NCCN-IPI and R-IPI scores distinguish a subgroup with favorable long-term survival. Ruppert et al. concluded that the NCCN-IPI best discriminated between patients with poor and favorable OS. This index had the most remarkable absolute difference in OS.

Table 1.

Comparison of International Prognosis Indices in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Factors	Points	Risk groups (points)	Five-year overall survival
IPI score
LDH^a	1	Low (0–1)	73%
Age >60 years	1	Low-intermediate (2)	51%
Ann Arbor stage III/IV	1	High-intermediate (3)	43%
ECOG ⩾2	1	High (4–5)	26%
>1 extranodal site involved	1
R-IPI score
LDH^a	1	Very good (0)	94%
Age >60 years	1	Good (1–2)	79%
Ann Arbor stage III/IV	1	Poor (3–5)	55%
ECOG ⩾2	1
>1 extranodal site involved	1
NCCN-IPI score
Age >75 years	3	Low (0–1)	96%
Age >60 years	2	Low-intermediate (2–3)	82%
Age >40 years	1	High-intermediate (4–5)	64%
LDH >3 times the ULN	2	High (6–8)	33%
LDH >1 time the ULN	1
Ann Arbor stage III/IV	1
ECOG ⩾2	1
Extranodal disease (BM, CNS, GI, lung)	1

Serum lactate dehydrogenase upper limit of normal.

BM, bone marrow; CNS, central nervous system; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; GI, gastrointestinal; IPI, International Prognostic Index; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network; R-IPI, revised IPI; ULN, upper limit of normal.

Although the NCCN-IPI prognostic index is widely recommended since it discriminates between low- and high-risk DLBCL patients better than IPI or R-IPI, most clinical trials studying DLBCL treatment have been conducted using the IPI or R-IPI scores, which are currently used.

Classification

DLBCL is morphologically, genetically, and clinically heterogeneous. It was subclassified in 2000 according to gene expression profiling (GEP) into two molecular subtypes. Patients with germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) DLBCL had better 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates than those with activated B-cell-like (ABC) DLBCL (76% versus 31%).¹² ABC DLBCL arises from B-cells that undergo germinal center reaction and increased genetic alterations of NF-κB modifiers and B-cell receptor signaling pathway elements, as well as disruption of terminal differentiation. In contrast, GCB DLBCL originates from the light zone of germinal centers and may have altered chromatin-modifying enzymes, disturbances in PI3K signaling, and BCL2 structural variants.¹³ Since GEP is not available for routine diagnosis, researchers use immunohistochemistry to classify molecular subtypes into two main groups: germinal center and non-germinal center, according to Hans et al.,¹⁴ Choi et al.¹⁵ or Tally et al.¹⁶ nomograms. Gutierrez-Garcia et al.¹⁷ compared these immunohistochemistry nomograms with GEP. They concluded that the proportion of misclassified cases in the GCB subset was as high as 41%, 48%, 30%, 60%, and 40% for Colomo, Hans, Muris, Choi, and Tally nomograms, respectively.

Therefore, the impact of these nomograms on survival is controversial,^4,18,19 and outcomes may differ from what is expected of these nomograms, especially if other genes or proteins are analyzed.

The overexpression of MYC (>40%)/BCL2 (>50%) proteins in the absence of cytogenetic abnormalities is known as double-protein-expression lymphoma. Some authors have associated this lymphoma with poorer PFS and OS.^20
–22 Johnson et al.¹⁸ reported that MYC overexpression was associated with poorer OS only when BCL2 proteins were coexpressed (p < 0.001). Patients with key chromosomal rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 [double-hit lymphoma (DHL)] have shown poor response to standard treatments.^23
–25 DHLs and triple-hit lymphomas are referred to as high-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC, BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements in the 2016 WHO classification.⁵

The analysis of all MYC/BCL2/BLC6 rearrangements is not routinely performed. Actually the NCCN guidelines consider it essential to perform FISH to search for MYC rearrangements, as part on the initial work-up, in all cases of DLBCL. If MYC rearrangement is present, fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) of BCL2 and BCL6 should also be performed, to rule out double or triple hit lymphoma.¹⁹

Researchers at the British Columbia Cancer Agency²⁶ recently used next-generation sequencing and high-resolution SNP arrays, and they identified 62 single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in MYC and 190 SNVs in BCL2. They identified hotspot mutations with MYC (P72 and I 159) and BCL2 (A4, R6, K17, G47, H58, P59, A60, E124, A131, G197, and A198) in GCB DLBCL. All G-to-C transition mutations in MYC and BCL2 targeted WRCY motifs, which highly suggests that they are a consequence of somatic hypermutation. The presence of MYC TR or BCL2 GA was associated with shorter time to progression in ABC DLBCL. Likewise, MYC GA, MYC TR, BCL2 GA, and BCL2 TR were associated with an adverse outcome in GC DLBCL.

Moreover, a gene expression-based classifier has been used to define a molecular high-grade (MHG) group.²⁷ PFS at 36 months in the MHG group was 37%, whereas it was 72% in the other groups. Additionally, the lack of MHG signatures identified double-hit lymphomas without evidence of worse outcomes than other GCB DLBCL cases. MHG identified genes associated with a highly proliferative phenotype and shared features with centroblasts of the dark zone of the germinal center, in contrast to the centrocyte or light zones of other GCB lymphomas.

Validating these molecular signatures is a controversial focus of research in DLBCL. The Nebraska University currently has a program to refine and validate the prognostic profile of molecular signatures to improve diagnosis and outcome prediction in lymphoma patients.²⁷ All these findings have not yet been included in clinical scores defining the universal treatment of such patients.

R-CHOP as standard of care

CHOP regimen was the standard of care in the 1990s.²⁸ Other intensive chemotherapy regimens, such as m-BACOD, ProMACE-CytaBOM, or MACOP-B, increased toxicity without showing any benefit in response or survival rates.

Rituximab is a chimeric type 1 monoclonal antibody (MoAb) against CD20, present on the surface of B lymphocytes. Its mechanism of action includes complement-dependent cytotoxicity, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, and direct induction of apoptosis.^29
–31 Combining rituximab and chemotherapy regimens improved the prognosis of B-cell lymphomas.

Rituximab was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1997 and later in 1998 by the European Medicines Agency.³² Chemoimmunotherapy is now the most common upfront treatment for DLBCL, including rituximab + CHOP, known as R-CHOP: intravenous (IV) rituximab, 375 mg/m² on day 1; IV cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m² on day 1; IV doxorubicin, 50 mg/m² on day 1; IV vincristine, 1.4 mg/m², dose cap of 2 mg on day 1; and oral prednisone, 100 mg daily on days 1–5.¹⁶

The clinical benefit of adding rituximab to chemotherapy in DLBCL was demonstrated in several clinical trials (Table 2). In 2002, the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA) revealed in a comparative phase III trial a significantly higher complete response rate (76% versus 63%, p = 0.005) and longer event-free survival (EFS) (not reached versus 13 months, p < 0.001) and OS (p = 0.007) in elderly patients (aged 60–80 years) treated with R-CHOP versus patients receiving CHOP.³³ A longer follow-up confirmed these results.³⁴

Table 2.

Trials comparing CHOP versus R-CHOP.

Reference	Population	Treatment arms	PFS	OS
Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte, 2002	DLBCL, 60–80 years	+R-CHOP versus	54% to 5 years	58% to 5 years
Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte, 2002		++CHOP	30% to 5 years	45% to 5 years
RICOVER-60	1222 patients, 60–80 years	CHOP-14 × 6	47.2%	67.7% (3 years)
		CHOP-14 × 8	53.2%	66%
		R-CHOP14 × 6	66.5%	78.1%
		R-CHOP14 × 8	63%	72.5%
Mab-Thera International Trial, 2006	18–60 years, low and low-intermediate risk (IPI)	R-CHOP-like	74.3% to 6 years	90.1% (6 years)
Mab-Thera International Trial, 2006	18–60 years, low and low-intermediate risk (IPI)	+++CHOP like	55.8% to 6 years	80.1% (6 years)

R = rituximab (375 mg/m²). ++CHOP = cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m²; doxorubicin, 50 mg/m²; vincristine, 1.4 mg/m², with capping at 2 mg; and oral prednisone, 100 mg daily on days 1–5. +++CHOP like = CHOP ± etoposide.

DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; IPI, International Prognostic Index; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

The RICOVER-60 trial³⁵ compared six versus eight cycles of CHOP-14 (every two weeks) ± rituximab in 1222 randomized patients. This trial confirmed the benefit of adding rituximab to CHOP chemotherapy in elderly people: PFS increased from 47.56% to 66.5% when rituximab was added to six cycles of CHOP-14 (Table 2).

After demonstrating the benefit of R-CHOP in patients older than 60 years, the MabThera International Trial³⁶ included patients aged 18–60 in a comparative (R-CHOP-like versus CHOP-like alone) phase III trial. Longer 3-year EFS (79% versus 59%; p < 0.001) and higher OS rates (93% versus 84%; p = 0.001) were reported in patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy. Some patients who received etoposide + CHOP had better 3-year survival than CHOP alone, but this difference was nullified when rituximab was added. These trials placed rituximab, mainly combined with CHOP, as the standard first-line treatment in DLBCL patients.

According to the NCCN guidelines,¹⁹ patients with early and bulky disease, and those with advanced disease, shall receive six cycles of R-CHOP ± radiotherapy. However, low-risk patients (stage I–II) could receive four cycles of R-CHOP + two additional doses of rituximab.^19,37 As a whole, R-CHOP cures 70% of patients,^2,38
–40 but patients with localized disease have an OS of up to 92%.¹⁹

R-CHOP intensification

After demonstrating the benefits of R-CHOP chemotherapy, three trials evaluated whether increasing the dose density could further improve the response rate by comparing R-CHOP-14 (every two weeks) versus R-CHOP-21. The first trial was a randomized phase III trial⁴¹ that included 1080 adult patients. Lower relapse-free survival was documented in the R-CHOP-14 group, but the 3-year OS was 78% versus 67% in R-CHOP-21 versus R-CHOP-14, respectively. The German Tumor Registry Lymphatic Neoplasms also demonstrated that dose-dense two-weekly R-CHOP-14 was not superior to the three-weekly R-CHOP-21 in German routine practice.³⁶ The LNH03-6B study⁴² showed that dose-dense R-CHOP did not improve the efficacy in patients aged 60–80 years (3-year EFS was 56% versus 60% in R-CHOP 14 versus R-CHOP 21, respectively); the frequency of toxicity was similar among regimens. Based on these results, the intensification of R-CHOP-14 is not currently recommended.

Changes in dose administration, including infusion therapy in selected risk groups, have also been proposed. Two phase III trials focused on this question. The first one was the LNH-03-2B trial, which compared R-ACVBP versus R-CHOP in low-intermediate risk patients aged 18–59 years. It found similar response rates in both treatments, but the 3-year PFS (87% versus 73%) and OS (92% versus 84% in R-ACVBP versus R-CHOP, respectively) was better in patients treated with rituximab, doxorrubicine, vincristine, bleomicine, prednisone (R-ACVBP).⁴³ Despite these promising results, only a DLBCL subgroup was included; therefore, it cannot be extrapolated to all DLBCL subgroups and used in routine practice. The Intergroup Trial Alliance/CALGB 50303 compared six cycles of dose-adjusted (DA)-EPOCH-R with R-CHOP,⁴⁴ without showing any additional benefits in the 2-year PFS (78.9% versus 75%) and 2-year OS (86.5% versus 85.7%) in DA-EPOCH-R and R-CHOP, respectively.

Moreover, other strategies, such as intensification with autologous stem-cell transplantation, have been proposed to improve the response rates in high-risk patients. Cortelazzo et al.⁴⁵ compared eight cycles of dose-dense R-CHOP with R-CHOP followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation. They concluded that both treatments were equally effective in terms of overall response rate (83% versus 84%), PFS (65% versus 75%, p = 0.12), and OS (74% versus 77%, p = 0.64, in R-CHOP versus sequential therapy, respectively). Likewise, two prospective comparative trials developed by the SWOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Leukemia Group B, Canadian NCIC Clinical Trials Group,⁴⁶ and German Tumor Registry Lymphatic Neoplasms⁴⁷ could not validate a benefit of consolidative transplantation as first-line treatment regarding OS in intermediate-high or high-risk patients.

Finally, positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) as a tool to guide therapy in early non-responder patients was evaluated in the PETAL phase III trial.⁴⁸ PET-CT was performed after two R-CHOP cycles, and PET-positive patients were randomized to continue six additional cycles of R-CHOP (standard therapy) or six blocks with an intensive Burkitt lymphoma protocol. Response rates, EFS (52.4% versus 28.3%) and OS (64.8% versus 47.1%, in R-CHOP versus Burkitt protocol, respectively) did not improve in patients receiving a more intensive treatment.

According to these trials, high-dose therapy is not recommended as first-line treatment in DLBCL. Table 3 summarizes the results of the different modalities of treatment intensification.

Table 3.

Modalities of treatment intensification in DLBCL.*

Reference	Population	Treatment arms	OS
Cunningham et al.⁴¹	Age: >18 years, all risk groups	R-CHOP 14	2 years: 82.7%
		R-CHOP 21	80.8%
Knauf et al.⁴⁰	All ages, all risk groups	R-CHOP 14	3 years: 87%
		R-CHOP 21	89%
Delarue et al.⁴²	Age: 60–80 years, all risk groups	R-CHOP 14	3 years EFS 56%
		R-CHOP 21	EFS 60%
Molina et al.⁴³	Age: 18–59 years, low-intermediate risk	R-ACVP	3 years 92%
		R-CHOP	84%
Bartlett et al.⁴⁴	All risk groups, all clinical stages	EPOCH-R	2 years 86.5%
		R-CHOP	85.7%
Cortelazzo et al.⁴⁵	High-risk	Dose-dense R-CHOP	3 years 74%
		R-CHOP + autoSCT	77%
Stiff et al.⁴⁶	High-risk	R-CHOP + autoSCT	2 years 74%
		R-CHOP	71%
Schmitz et al.⁴⁷	High risk, age: 18–60 years	CHOEP-14	3 years EFS 69.5%
		R-megaCHOEP	EFS 61.4%
Dührsen et al.⁴⁸	Intensification, if early PET-CT positive	R-CHOP (eight cycles)	2 years 64.8%
		R-CHOP (two cycles) + six cycles Burkitt protocol	47.1%

autoSCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; CHOEP, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorrubicine, etoposide, prednisone; DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; EFS, event-free survival; OS, overall survival; PET-CT, positron emission tomography-computed tomography.

Low-intensity R-CHOP-like or R-CHOP-like in elderly patients

The GELA study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of R-CHOP in patients aged 60–80 years. Regardless of their biological age, patients may have comorbidities or altered organ function, which could increase the toxicity of the standard dose.^49,50 Different attenuated immunochemotherapy regimens have been proposed to avoid excessive toxicity. These regimens include anthracycline-free therapy,⁵¹ reducing the anthracycline dose,^52
–55 substituting with pegylated doxorubicin,⁵⁶ reducing both anthracycline and cyclophosphamide doses,^57,58 or splitting doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide into two days of administration.⁴⁵ The findings, shown in Table 4, indicate variability in response rates and OS. Some regimens showed low response rates and OS, while others showed no significant differences when compared with historical R-CHOP results. These regimens were included in either retrospective or single-arm prospective studies, which included populations with a wide range of ages and functional differences; therefore, the optimal regimen cannot be determined.

Tailored regimens guided by the Comprehensive Global Assessment (CGA) classified patients as fit, unfit, and frail⁵⁹ correlate with treatment outcomes regarding response rate, survival, and toxicity.^19,60 Thus, elderly patients could be treated in prospective protocols to further validate the use of CGA as an aid in choosing the regimen that best matches the patient’s condition. This assessment will also be used in protocols testing targeted agents.

Table 4.

R-CHOP-like regimens proposed for elderly population.

Reference	Study	Mean age	Patients	Treatment	ORR	OS
Marchesi et al.⁵¹	Retrospective	78	73	+R-CHOP, AD	69.7%	24.3%
				++R-CVP, CD
Peyrade et al.⁵⁴	Phase II single arm	83	149	R-CHOP, AD	73%	59% at 2 years
Kreher et al.⁵³	Retrospective	77	3	R-CHOP, AD	87%	60% at 3 years
Spina et al.⁵⁵	Geriatric assessment, prospective	75	100	R-CHOP AD	87%	61% at 5 years
Olivieri et al.⁵⁶	Tailored retrospective	74	91	R-CHOP-21	81.5%	46%
				R-CHOP with LD	64%	31%
				++++R-miniCHOP	60%	41%
Nolasco-Medina et al.⁵²	Retrospective	75	141	R-CHOP	77%	68% at 3 years
				+R-ChOP^a	68.7%	60% at 3 years
				R-CHOP	60%	60% at 3 years
Chichara et al.⁵⁰	Retrospective	83 (207)	207	R-CHOP	–	73% at 3 years
				R-EPOCH	–	74%
				Non-anthracycline: R-CEOP, RCVP	–	23%

R-CHOP = rituximab 375 mg/m²; cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m²; doxorubicin, 50 mg/m²; vincristine, 1.4 mg/m², with capping at 2 mg; and oral prednisone, 100 mg daily on days 1–5. ++R-CVP = rituximab 375 mg/m²; cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m²; vincristine, 1.4 mg/m², with capping at 2 mg; and oral prednisone, 100 mg daily on days 1–5. ++++R-miniCHOP, rituximab 375 mg/m²; cyclophosphamide, 500 mg/m²; doxorubicin, 25 mg/m²; vincristine, 1 mg/m², with capping at 2 mg; and oral prednisone, 100 mg daily on days 1–5.

+R-ChOP, 50% reduction of anthracycline, rest of the drugs with the conventional dose.

AD, attenuated dose; CD, conventional dose; LD, liposomal doxorubicin; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival; R-CEOP, rituximab 375 mg/m2; cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2; etoposide, 100 mg/m2, day, days 1-3; vincristine, 1.4 mg/m2, with capping at 2 mg; and oral prednisone, 100 mg daily on days 1–5.

Rituximab biosimilars

A biosimilar product is highly similar to a biological drug and has no clinically meaningful differences; however, there could be minor differences in inactive ingredients. According to the National Cancer Institute, a biosimilar must be “as safe as, work as well as, and work in the same way as” the original drug, and “be used in the same way, at the same dose, and for the same condition”.⁶¹ The approval requirements vary according to regulatory agencies,^62
–68 and the specific development process is not the objective of this review.

Eight biosimilars of rituximab have been approved by a regulatory health authority with preclinical and clinical information.^69
–82 From all these biosimilars, only four were approved after conducting a comparative trial in DLBCL patients.

RTXM83 was evaluated in a multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind study, including 272 patients with low-risk DLBCL, based on the IPI score. The overall response was 83.6% for RTXM83 and 82.9% for rituximab, which fulfilled the predefined non-inferiority margin.⁷¹ Safety and immunogenicity profiles were not significantly different between groups.

DRL-rituximab was compared with the reference MoAb in a prospective, double-blind trial which included 151 patients with advanced DLBCL from 44 centers in India. The results revealed equivalent pharmaockinetics (PK) parameters after cycle 1 and equivalent primary steady-state parameters area under curve (AUC)_{0–21 days} and C_max after cycle 6. Despite the secondary parameters at steady-state AUC_{0–24 weeks}, confidence limits extended beyond the acceptable range. The efficacy (defined by a non-inferiority response rate), safety, and immunogenicity profiles were similar.⁷⁵

HLX01 was assessed in a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, including 406 patients; it showed a non-inferiority response rate (HLX01-CHOP: 94.1% versus R-CHOP 92.8%). Additionally, the safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar to the reference rituximab.⁷⁷

Reditux was introduced in India in 2007. A single-arm study including a small number of DLBCL patients reported a similar response, as well as pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) profiles, compared with the published data for reference rituximab.⁸¹

The remaining biosimilars were tested in other B-cell lymphomas. Around 20 more rituximab biosimilars are in development.⁸²

Beyond R-CHOP

R-CHOP remains the standard of care for DLBCL patients. However, almost one-third of patients relapse and have a poor prognosis; new strategies have thus been adopted to identify patients requiring another therapy. Many clinical trials have been conducted to improve results, such as adding maintenance therapies in low-grade lymphomas,⁸³ or targeted therapies.⁸⁴

Maintenance therapy

In contrast with low-grade B-cell lymphomas, the role of adding rituximab after achieving a response did not show an increase in EFS or OS in DLBCL.^85
–89 Furthermore, a meta-analysis⁹⁰ indicated that maintenance rituximab significantly increased the incidence of neutropenia and the risk of infection, compared with observation group.

A multicenter, phase III, randomized trial⁹¹ failed to demonstrate that using enzastaurin as maintenance therapy after R-CHOP as first-line treatment improved 4-year disease free survival (DFS) (70% versus 71%, enzastaurin versus placebo maintenance, respectively).

Lenalidomide has also been evaluated as maintenance treatment. A phase II randomized trial⁹² comparing lenalidomide versus lenalidomide + rituximab after R-CHOP as first-line treatment did not show a benefit in high-risk patients in terms of 2-year DFS (86% versus 86) or OS (86% versus 95% for lenalidomide versus lenalidomide + rituximab maintenance, respectively). The phase III REMARC trial⁹³ assessed lenalidomide in high/high-intermediate risk patients aged 60–80 years as maintenance therapy for two years, or until toxicity or progressive disease. Median PFS was not reached in the lenalidomide group versus 58.9 months in the placebo group. However, OS was similar in both arms, with a median follow-up of 52 months. Although these results did not increase OS, they suggest a benefit of this immunomodulator drug after achieving complete response in older DLBCL patients (>60 years). Hence, these results require validation before being considered as a standard treatment.

Maintenance therapies using rituximab or enzastaurin are not currently indicated. After achieving an optimal response with R-CHOP, lenalidomide seems to be useful in high/high-risk older patients (>60 years), but these results require confirmation.

Attempts to enhance R-CHOP efficacy

Understanding the biology and cell-of-origin of DLBCL has changed first-line treatment approaches. After finding that ABC DLBCL has a poorer prognosis¹⁷ and that the NF-κB pathway was active, the rationale of adding a proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, to R-CHOP (BR-CHOP) was evaluated. The initial results of a comparative (R-CHOP versus BR-CHOP) phase II trial⁹⁴ suggested that adding bortezomib increased the 2-year PFS (77.6% for R-CHOP versus 82% for BR-CHOP). However, the phase III trial⁹⁵ in which patients were stratified using GEP and received R-CHOP ± bortezomib showed no benefits in PFS (70.1% versus 74.3% for R-CHOP and RB-CHOP, respectively). According to these results, adding bortezomib is not recommended.

Similarly, lenalidomide was evaluated to improve the response in previously untreated ABC DLBCL. A prospective, phase III, randomized trial compared lenalidomide-R-CHOP (R²-CHOP) versus placebo-R-CHOP.⁹⁶ The primary endpoint of PFS was not met, and the 2-year OS was similar in both groups (79% for R²-CHOP, 80% for placebo-R-CHOP). Thus, adding lenalidomide did not show any benefit.

Finally, another attempt to improve results in ABC DLBCL was to suppress BCR signaling with ibrutinib, an inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase. A double-blind comparative trial⁹⁷ did not show that ibrutinib + R-CHOP improved EFS. However, a small benefit was observed in patients younger than 60 years in terms of EFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57], PFS (HR 0.55), and OS (HR 0.33). On the contrary, in patients older than 60 years ibrutinib-R-CHOP increased serious adverse events (63.4% versus 38.2%) and worsened EFS, PFS, and OS. The benefit observed in patients younger than 60 years requires confirmation in a prospective trial.

Although these drugs have shown a benefit in a subgroup of patients, they are not approved in the frontline of DLBLC treatment by any regulatory agency and are not recommended.

Matching treatment to genetic alterations

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health recently performed exome and transcriptome sequencing, targeted amplicon resequencing, and array-based DNA copy number analysis. They defined four prominent genetic subtypes, with differences in expression profile and survival after R-CHOP treatment,⁹⁸ two of which had a favorable prognosis:

BN2, based on BCL6 fusions and NOTCH2 mutations, with a 5-year OS of 65%;

EZB, based on EZH2 mutations and BCL2 translocations, with a 5-year OS of 68%.

They also defined two groups with a lower 5-year OS:

MCD, based on co-occurrence of MYD88 and CD79B mutations, 5-year OS of 26%;

N1, based on NOTCH1 mutations, 5-year OS of 36%.

Moreover, an international group of researchers⁹⁹ performed whole-exome sequencing with an expanded bait set to detect recurrent mutations, somatic copy number alterations, and structural variants. They analyzed genetic drivers in DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP and proposed five clusters, each with predominant alterations: one low-risk ABC DLBCL, two subsets of GCB-DLBCL, an ABC/GCB DLBCL independent group with biallelic inactivation of TP53, CDKN2A loss, and associated genomic instability. The findings, shown in Table 5, indicate variability subtypes and possible treatments with available drugs. Supplemental material Table 1 online shows current clinical trials comparing the addition of a targeted drug to R-CHOP versus the traditional R-CHOP regimen. Most of them are still recruiting patients; we need time to know whether there is a group where another standard of care may change R-CHOP.

Table 5.

Recent molecular subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and proposed targeted therapy.

Molecular subtype	Target	Potential targeted treatment
MCD^a/C5^b	BCR, BCL2	Ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, venetoclax
BN2^a/C1^b	BCR; NFKb pathway, BLC6, PD-L1, PD-L2	Ibrutinib, bortezomib, carfilzomib, pembrolizumab, avelumab
EZB^a/C3^b	BCL2, PI3K pathway	Venetoclax, idelalisib, copanlisib, duvelisib, everolimus
C4^b	PI3K pathway; N-KB modifiers; RAS/JAS/STAT pathway, epigenetic genes	Idelalisib, copanlisib, duvelisib, everolimus, bortezomib, carfilzomib, ruxolitinib, azacytidine

Schmitz et al.⁹⁸

Chapuy et al.⁹⁹

BCR, B-cell receptor.

Conclusion

The DLBCL landscape is heterogeneous. Immunochemotherapy R-CHOP has been a standard of care for two decades and cures approximately 70% of cases. Dose intensification fails to improve survival, whereas dose reduction in the elderly population is still under study. Using rituximab biosimilars in patients living in resource-limited settings could have a positive impact on healthcare costs. Adding new drugs to R-CHOP is also under study, as well as matching genetic alterations to treatments.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-tah-10.1177_2040620721989579 – Supplemental material for Rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-tah-10.1177_2040620721989579 for Rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma by Myrna Candelaria and Alfonso Dueñas-Gonzalez in Therapeutic Advances in Hematology

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

ORCID iD

Myrna Candelaria

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

International Agency for Research on Cancer. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/34-Non-hodgkin-lymphoma-fact-sheet.pd (accessed 14 September 2020).

Sant

Allemani

Tereanu

, et al. Incidence of hematological malignancies in Europe by morphologic subtype: results of the HAEMACARE project. Blood 2010; 116: 3724–3734.

Siegel

Miller

Jemal

Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 5–29.

Kubushok

Held

Preundschuh

Management of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Cancer Treat Res 2015; 165: 271–278.

Swerdlow

Campo

Pileri

, et al. The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Blood 2016; 127: 2375–2390.

Young

Medeiros

LJ.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Pathology 2018; 50: 74–87.

Candelaria

Oñate-Ocaña

Corona-Herrera

, et al. Clinical characteristics of primary extranodal versus nodal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a retrospective cohort study in a cancer center. Rev Invest Clin 2019; 71: 349–358.

International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 987–994.

Sehn

Berry

Chhanabhai

, et al. The revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) is a better predictor of outcome than the standard IPI for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with RCHOP. Blood 2007; 109: 1857–1861.

10.

Zhou

Sehn

Rademaker

, et al. An enhanced International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated in the rituximab era. Blood 2014; 123: 837–842.

11.

Ruppert

Dixon

Salles

, et al. International prognostic indices in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a comparison of IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI. Blood 2020; 135: 2041–2048.

12.

Rutherford

Leonard

JP.

DLBCL cell of origin: what role should it play in care today?

Oncology 2018; 32: 445–449.

13.

Walewski

Aggressive B-cell lymphoma: chasing the target. J Invest Med 2020; 68: 331–334.

14.

Hans

Weisenburger

Greiner

, et al. Confirmation of the molecular classification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma by immunohistochemistry using a tissue microarray. Blood 2004; 103: 275–282.

15.

Choi

Weisenburger

Greiner

, et al. A new immunostain algorithm classifies diffuse large B-cell lymphoma into molecular subtypes with high accuracy. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 5494–5502.

16.

Visco

Xu-Monette

, et al. Comprehensive gene expression profiling and immunohistochemical studies support application of immunophenotypic algorithm for molecular subtype classification in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a report from the International DLBCL Rituximab-CHOP Consortium Program Study. Leukemia 2012; 26: 2103–2113.

17.

Gutierrez-Garcia

Cardesa-Salzmann

Climent

, et al. Gene-expression profiling and non-immunophenotypic algorithms predicts prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy. Blood 2011; 117: 4836–4843.

18.

Johnson

Slack

Savage

, et al. Concurrent expression of MYC and BCL2 in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 3452–3459.

19.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology, version 4. Hon-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, 2020 (accessed 14 September 2020).

20.

Linyu

Zhang

, et al. Prognostic significance of BCL2- and BCL-6 expression in MYC-positive DLBCL. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2018; 18: e381–e389.

21.

Zhou

Wang

Ouyang

, et al. MYC protein expression is associated with poor prognosis in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients treated with RCHOP chemotherapy. Tumor Biol 2014; 35: 6757–6762.

22.

Guo

Lin

Xiong

, et al. Molecular heterogeneity in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and its implications in clinical diagnosis and treatment. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 2018; 1869: 85–96.

23.

Sha

Barrans

Cucco

, et al. Molecular high-grade B-cell lymphoma: defining a poor-risk group that requires different approaches to therapy. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 202–212.

24.

Akyurek

Uner

Benekli

, et al. Prognostic significance of MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 rearrangements in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone plus rituximab. Cancer 2012; 118: 4173–4183.

25.

Pedersen

Gang

Brown

, et al. Real-world data on young patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP or R-CHOEP-MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 as prognostic biomarkers. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0186983.

26.

Ennishi

Mottok

Ben-Neriah

, et al. Genetic profiling of MYC and BCL2 in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma determines cell-of-origin-specific clinical impact. Blood 2017; 129: 2760–2770.

27.

Chang

Molecular signatures to improve diagnosis and outcome prediction in lymphoma, https://cdp.cancer.gov/scientific_programs/specs/1/molecular_signatures_improve_diagnosis.htm (accessed 15 September 2020).

28.

Fisher

Gaynor

Dahlberg

, et al. Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1002–1006.

29.

Zhou

Qin

The role of complement in the mechanism of action of rituximab for B-cell lymphoma: implications for therapy. Oncologist 2008; 13: 954–966.

30.

Weiner

GJ.

Rituximab: mechanism of action. Semin Hematol 2010; 47: 115–123.

31.

Bezombes

Fournie

Laurent

Direct effect of rituximab in B-cell-derived lymphoid neoplasias: mechanism, regulation, and perspectives. Mol Cancer Res 2011; 9: 1435–1442.

32.

European Medicines Agency. Summary of product characteristics, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_Product_Information/human/000165/WC500025821.pdf (1998, accessed 14 September 2020).

33.

Coiffier

Lepage

Briere

, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 235–242.

34.

Feugier

Van Hoof

Sebban

, et al. Long-term results of the R-CHOP study in the treatment of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a study by the Grouped’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4117–4126.

35.

Pfreunschuh

Schubert

Ziepert

, et al. Six versus eight cycles of bi-weekly CHOP-14 with or without rituximab in elderly patients with aggressive CD20 + B-cell lymphomas: a randomised controlled trial (RICOVER-60). Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 105–116.

36.

Pfreundschuh

Trumper

Osterborg

, et al. CHOP-like chemotherapy plus rituximab versus CHOP-like chemotherapy alone in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: a randomized controlled trial by the MabThera International Trial (MInT) Group. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 379–391.

37.

Poeschel

Held

Ziepert

, et al. Four versus six cycles of CHOP chemotherapy in combination with six applications of rituximab in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma with favourable prognosis (FLYER): a randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2019; 394: 2271–2281.

38.

Miyazaki

Treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Exp Hematop 2016; 56: 79–88.

39.

Ohmachi

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: standard treatment and research questions. Risho Ketsueki 2019; 60: 1193–1198.

40.

Knauf

Abenhardt

Mohm

, et al. Similar effectiveness of R-CHOP-14 and -21 in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma-data from the prospective German Tumour Registry Lymphatic Neoplasms. Eur J Hematol 2019; 103: 460–471.

41.

Cunningham

Hawkes

Jack

, et al. Rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase 3 comparison of dose intensification with 14-day versus 21-day cycles. Lancet 2013; 381: 1817–1826.

42.

Delarue

Tilly

Mounier

, et al. Dose-dense rituximab-CHOP compared with standard rituximab-CHOP in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (the LNH03-6B study): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 525–533.

43.

Molina

Canioni

Copie-Bergman

, et al. Young patients with non-germinal center B-cell like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma benefit from intensified chemotherapy with ACVBP rituximab compared with CHOP plus rituximab: analysis of data from the Groupe d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte/lymphoma study association phase III trial lNH 03-2B. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 3996–4003.

44.

Bartlett

Wilson

Jung

, et al. Dose-adjusted EPOCH-R compared with R-CHOP as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: clinical outcomes of the phase III intergroup trial alliance/CALGB 50303. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 1790–1799.

45.

Cortelazzo

Tarella

Gianni

, et al. Randomized trial comparing R-CHOP versus high-dose sequential chemotherapy in high-risk patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 4015–4022.

46.

Stiff

Unger

Cook

, et al. Autologous transplantation as consolidation for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1681–1690.

47.

Schmitz

Nickelsen

Ziepert

, et al. Conventional chemotherapy (CHOEP-14) with rituximab or high-dose chemotherapy (MegaCHOEP) with rituximab for young, high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma: an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (DSHNHL 2002-1). Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 1250–1259.

48.

Dührsen

Müller

Hertenstein

, et al. Positron emission tomography-guided therapy of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (PETAL): a multicenter, randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 2024–2034.

49.

Caglayan

Goldstein

Ayer

, et al. A population-based multistate model for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma-specific mortality in older patients. Cancer 2019; 125: 1837–1847.

50.

Chichara

Westin

Oki

, et al. Management strategies and outcomes for very elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cancer 2016; 122: 3145–3151.

51.

Marchesi

Cenfra

Altomare

, et al. A retrospective study on 73 elderly patients (⩾75 years) with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: clinical significance of treatment intensity and comprehensive geriatric assessment. J Geriatr Oncol 2013; 4: 242–248.

52.

Nolasco-Medina

Reynoso-Noveron

Mohar-Betancourt

, et al. Comparison of three chemotherapy regimens in elderly patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL): experience at a single national reference center in Mexico. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 9817606.

53.

Kreher

Lammer

Augustin

, et al. R-split-CHOP chemotherapy for elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Haematol 2014; 93: 70–76.

54.

Peyrade

Jardin

Thieblemont

, et al. Attenuated immunochemotherapy regimen (R-miniCHOP) in elderly patients older than 80 years with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 460–468.

55.

Spina

Balzarotti

Uziel

, et al. Modulated chemotherapy according to modified comprehensive geriatric assessment in 100 consecutive elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Oncologist 2012; 17: 838–846.

56.

Olivieri

Gini

Bocci

, et al. Tailored therapy in an unselected population of 91 elderly patients with DLBCL prospectively evaluated using a simplified CGA. Oncologist 2012; 17: 663–672.

57.

Italiano

Jardin

Peyrade

, et al. Adapted CHOP plus rituximab in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in patients over 80 years old. Haematologica 2005; 90: 1281–1283.

58.

Yoshida

Nakao

Horiuchi

, et al. Analysis of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: aggressive therapy is a reasonable approach for “unfit” patients classified by comprehensive geriatric assessment. Eur J Haematol 2016; 96: 409–416.

59.

Xue

QL.

The frailty syndrome: definition and natural history. Clin Geriatr Med 2011; 27: 1–15.

60.

Marchesi

Cenfra

Altomare

61.

Leung

Mok

Liu

, et al. What do oncologist need to know about biosimilar products? Chin J Cancer 2016; 35: 91.

62.

Jurczak

Dlugosz Danecka

Muske

Rituximab biosimilars for lymphoma in Europe. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2019; 19: 1045–1056.

63.

European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing monoclonal antibodies—non clinical and clinical issues, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-similar-biological-medicinal-products-containing-monoclonal-antibodies-non-clinical_en.pdf (2019, accessed 14 September 2020).

64.

Food and Drug Administration. Scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product, https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm291128.pdf (2015, accessed 24 September 2020).

65.

Kishioka

Regulatory framework for biotherapeutic products including similar biotherapeutic products. Paper presented at the 1st Malaysia-Japan Symposium on Pharmaceutical Regulatory System, 2015, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000204341.pdf (accessed 15 January 2021).

66.

Therapeutic Goods Administration. Biosimilar medicines regulation. Version 2.2. April 2018, https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/biosimilar-medicines-regulation (accessed 24 September 2020).

67.

Francescon

Fornasier

Baldo

EU pharmacovigilance regulatory requirements of anticancer biosimilar monoclonal antibodies. Int J Clin Pharm 2018; 40: 778–782.

68.

Johnson

Williams

Pazdur

End points and United Sates Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1404–1411.

69.

Seigelchifer

Corley

Fresnillo

, et al. Development of RTXM83 (a potential rituximab biosimilar): in vitro and in vivo comparability with MabThera. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: e14020.

70.

Cuello

Segatori

Alberto

, et al. Comparability of antibody-mediated cell killing activity between a proposed biosimilar RTXM83 and the originator rituximab. BioDrugs 2016; 30: 225–231.

71.

Candelaria

Gonzalez

Torresan

, et al. Rituximab biosimilar RTXM83 versus reference rituximab in combination with CHOP as first-line treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a randomized, double-blind study. Leuk Lymphoma 2019; 60: 3375–3385.

72.

European Medicines Agency. Assessment report: Rixathon, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/003903/WC500232462.pdf (2017, accessed 24 September 2020).

73.

European Medicines Agency. Assessment report: Truxima, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/truxima-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf (2016, accessed 24 September 2020).

74.

Visser

Feuerstein

Stangler

, et al. Physicochemical and functional comparability between the proposed biosimilar rituximab GP 2013 and originator rituximab. BioDrugs 2013; 27: 495–507.

75.

Viswabandya

Shah

Mukhopadhyay

, et al. Randomized, double-blind, pharmacokinetic equivalence trial comparing DRL-rituximab with MabThera in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Glob Oncol 2019; 5: 1–13.

76.

Sharman

Liberati

Ishizawa

, et al. A randomized, double-blind efficacy and safety study of PF-05280586 (a potential rituximab biosimilar) compared with rituximab reference product (MabThera^®) in subjects with previously untreated CD-20 positive, low tumour burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL). BioDrugs 2020; 34: 171–181.

77.

Shi

Song

Qin

, et al. A phase 3 study of rituximab biosimilar HLX01 in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Hematol Oncol 2020; 13: 38.

78.

Zhang

Perrault

Zhao

, et al. SpeB proteolysis with imaged capillary isoelectric focusing for the characterization of domain-specific charge heterogeneities of reference and biosimilar Rituximab. J Chromatogr B 2016; 1020: 148–157.

79.

Nupur

Chhabra

Dash

, et al. Assessment of structural and functional similarity of biosimilar products: rituximab as a case study. mAbs 2018; 10: 143–158.

80.

Flores-Ortiz

Campos-García

Pardomo-Abunez

, et al. Physicochemical properties of rituximab. J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol 2014; 37: 1438–1452.

81.

Gota

Karanam

Rath

, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of Reditux™, a biosimilar Rituximab, in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2016; 78: 353–359.

82.

Biosimilars of rituximab initiative, http://gabionline.net/Biosimilars/General/Biosimilars-of-rituximab (accessed 14 September 2020).

83.

Bachy

Seymur

Feugier

Sustained progression-free survival benefit of rituximab maintenance in patients with follicular lymphoma: long-term results of the PRIMA study. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 2815–2824.

84.

Iacoboni

Zucca

Ghielmini

, et al. Methodology of clinical trials evaluating the incorporation of new drugs in the first-line treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): a critical review. Ann Oncol 2018; 29: 1120–1129.

85.

Habermann

Weller

Morrison

, et al. Rituximab-CHOP versus CHOP alone or with maintenance rituximab in older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3121–3127.

86.

Jaeger

Trney

Melzer

, et al. Rituximab maintenance for patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma in first remission: results of the randomized NHL13 trial. Haematologica 2015; 100: 955–963.

87.

Witzens-Harig

Benner

McClanahan

, et al. Rituximab maintenance improves survival in male patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Results of the HD2002 prospective multicentre randomized phase III trial. Br J Hematol 2015; 171: 710–719.

88.

Rozental

Gafter-Gvili

Vidal

, et al. The role of maintenance therapy in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hematol Oncol 2019; 37: 27–34.

89.

Reddy

Theblemont

Maintenance therapy following induction chemoimmunotherapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: current perspective. Ann Oncol 2017; 28: 2680–2690.

90.

Nannya

Goto

Shimizu

, et al. Efficacy of rituximab maintenance therapy for aggressive B-cell lymphoma depends on use of rituximab in induction therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Haematologica 2015; 100: e519–e520.

91.

Crump

Leppä

Fayad

, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of enzastaurin versus placebo in patients achieving remission after first-line therapy for high-risk diffuse large-B cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2484–2492.

92.

Reddy

Greer

Morgan

, et al. Phase II randomized study of lenalidomide or lenalidomide and rituximab as maintenance therapy following standard chemotherapy for patients with high/high intermediate risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leukemia 2017; 31: 241–244.

93.

Thieblemont

Tilly

da Silva

, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance compared with placebo in responding elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with first-line rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 2473–2481.

94.

Leonard

Kolibaba

Reeves

, et al. Randomized phase II study of R-CHOP with or without bortezomib in previously untreated patients with non-germinal center B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 3538–3546.

95.

Davies

Cummin

Barrans

, et al. Gene-expression profiling of bortezomib added to standard chemoimmunotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (REMoDL-B): an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 649–662.

96.

Vitolo

Witzig

Gascoyne

, et al. ROBUST: final report of phase III randomized study of lenalidomide/R-CHOP (R²-CHOP) vs. Placebo/R-CHOP in previously untreated ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Hematol Oncol 2019; 37: 36–37.

97.

Younes

Sehn

Johnson

, et al. Randomized phase III trial of ibrutinib and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone in non-germinal center B-cell diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 1285–1295.

98.

Schmitz

Wright

Huang

, et al. Genetics and pathogenesis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1396–1407.

99.

Chapuy

Stewart

Dunford

, et al. Molecular subtypes of diffuse large B cell lymphoma are associated with distinct pathogenic mechanisms and outcomes. Nat Med 2018; 24: 679–690.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

Rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide,doxorubicin,vincristine,and prednisone (R-CHOP) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Discussion:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Classification

R-CHOP as standard of care

R-CHOP intensification

Low-intensity R-CHOP-like or R-CHOP-like in elderly patients

Rituximab biosimilars

Beyond R-CHOP

Maintenance therapy

Attempts to enhance R-CHOP efficacy

Matching treatment to genetic alterations

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-tah-10.1177_2040620721989579 – Supplemental material for Rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement

Funding

ORCID iD

Supplemental material

References

Supplementary Material