# Sustained Progression-Free Survival Benefit of Rituximab Maintenance in Patients With Follicular Lymphoma: Long-Term Results of the PRIMA Study

Emmanuel Bachy, John F Seymour, Pierre Feugier, Fritz Offner, Armando López-Guillermo, David Belada, Luc Xerri, John V Catalano, Pauline Brice, François Lemonnier, et al.

► To cite this version:

Emmanuel Bachy, John F Seymour, Pierre Feugier, Fritz Offner, Armando López-Guillermo, et al. Sustained Progression-Free Survival Benefit of Rituximab Maintenance in Patients With Follicular Lymphoma: Long-Term Results of the PRIMA Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2019, 10.1200/JCO.19. inserm-04798412

HAL Id: inserm-04798412

https://inserm.hal.science/inserm-04798412v1

Submitted on 22 Nov 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Sustained Progression-Free Survival Benefit of Rituximab Maintenance in Patients With Follicular Lymphoma: Long-Term Results of the PRIMA Study

Emmanuel Bachy, MD, PhD¹; John F. Seymour, MBBS, PhD²; Pierre Feugier, MD³; Fritz Offner, MD, PhD⁴; Armando López-Guillermo, MD⁵; David Belada, MD, PhD⁶; Luc Xerri, PhD, MD⁷; John V. Catalano, MD⁸; Pauline Brice, MD⁹; François Lemonnier, MD¹⁰; Alejandro Martin, MD, PhD¹¹; Olivier Casasnovas, MD¹²; Lars M. Pedersen, MD¹³; Véronique Dorvaux, MD¹⁴; David Simpson, MD¹⁵; Sirpa Leppa, MD, PhD¹⁶; Jean Gabarre, MD¹⁷; Maria G. da Silva, MD, PhD¹⁸; Sylvie Glaisner, MD¹⁹; Loic Ysebaert, MD, PhD²⁰; Anne Vekhoff, MD²¹; Tanin Intragumtornchai, MD²²; Steven Le Gouill, MD, PhD²³; Andrew Lister, MD²⁴; Jane A. Estell, MD²⁵; Gustavo Milone, MD²⁶; Anne Sonet, MD²⁷; Jonathan Farhi, MD²⁸; Harald Zeuner²⁹; Hervé Tilly, MD³⁰; and Gilles Salles, MD, PhD¹

**PURPOSE** The PRIMA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00140582) established that 2 years of rituximab maintenance after first-line immunochemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with follicular lymphoma compared with observation. Here, we report the final PFS and overall survival (OS) results from the PRIMA study after 9 years of follow-up and provide a final overview of safety.

**METHODS** Patients (> 18 years of age) with previously untreated high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma were nonrandomly assigned to receive one of three immunochemotherapy induction regimens. Responding patients were randomly assigned (stratified by induction regimen, response to induction treatment, treatment center, and geographic region) 1:1 to receive 2 years of rituximab maintenance (375 mg/m², once every 8 weeks), starting 8 weeks after the last induction treatment, or observation (no additional treatment). All patients in the extended follow-up provided their written informed consent (data cutoff: December 31, 2016).

**RESULTS** In total, 1,018 patients completed induction treatment and were randomly assigned to rituximab maintenance (n = 505) or observation (n = 513). Consent for the extended follow-up was provided by 607 patients (59.6%) of 1,018 (rituximab maintenance, n = 309; observation, n = 298). After data cutoff, median PFS was 10.5 years in the rituximab maintenance arm compared with 4.1 years in the observation arm (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73; *P* < .001). No OS difference was seen in patients randomly assigned to rituximab maintenance or observation (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.40; *P* = .7948); 10-year OS estimates were approximately 80% in both study arms. No new safety signals were observed.

**CONCLUSION** Rituximab maintenance after induction immunochemotherapy provides a significant long-term PFS, but not OS, benefit over observation.

J Clin Oncol 37:2815-2824. © 2019 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## ASSOCIATED CONTENT

### Data Supplements

Author affiliations and support information (if applicable) appear at the end of this article.

Accepted on June 21, 2019 and published at jco.org on July 24, 2019: DOI https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.01073

Processed as a Rapid Communication manuscript.

## INTRODUCTION

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the second most common lymphoma subtype in the United States and Western Europe, accounting for approximately 25% of all non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases and 70% of indolent lymphomas.¹⁻³ Although the prognosis of patients with FL has significantly improved since the introduction of rituximab to first-line (1L) and salvage therapies,⁴⁻¹⁰ advanced-stage FL is believed to remain incurable in most patients because of inevitable relapses; however, strides have been made to prolong the duration of remission without exposure to additional cytotoxic treatment.

Previous studies have demonstrated a significant clinical benefit for rituximab maintenance in patients with relapsed disease after induction with chemotherapy

with or without rituximab⁹⁻¹¹ or single-agent rituximab,¹²,¹³ and in patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation.¹⁴ Rituximab maintenance after chemotherapy¹⁵ or single-agent rituximab¹⁶ has also been studied in patients with previously untreated FL, with favorable results; however, neither of these induction regimens is considered optimal for patients with advanced-stage disease.

The pivotal PRIMA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00140582) was the first phase III trial, to our knowledge, to evaluate the potential benefit of 2 years of rituximab maintenance in patients with high-tumor-burden FL responding to 1L rituximab-containing immunochemotherapy.¹⁷ After a median follow-up of 3 years, rituximab maintenance significantly
prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with observation; risk of disease progression was reduced by 45% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.68; *P* < .001), and 3-year PFS rates were 74.9% and 57.6%, respectively. This PFS benefit was achieved regardless of the induction regimen, response to induction treatment, or patient age. Time to next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT) and time to next chemotherapy treatment (TTNCT) were also significantly prolonged with rituximab maintenance, but no overall survival (OS) benefit was seen. An updated 6-year follow-up of the PRIMA study confirmed these results.¹⁸ Rituximab maintenance is now widely recommended for patients with FL responding to 1L rituximab-based immunochemotherapy.¹⁹ We present the final PFS and OS results from the PRIMA study after 9 years of follow-up and a final overview of safety.

## METHODS

### Study Design, Patients, and Treatments

PRIMA was an open-label, international, multicenter, randomized phase III trial in patients with previously untreated, high-tumor-burden FL. The study comprised two phases: induction and maintenance or observation (undertaken between December 2004 and April 2007, in 223 centers in 25 countries). Patients eligible for induction therapy were older than 18 years with untreated FL (histologic grade 1, 2, or 3a), diagnosed by a lymph node biopsy performed within 4 months of study registration. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in full elsewhere.¹⁷

During the induction phase, patients received rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP; six cycles); cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP; eight cycles); or fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone (FCM; six cycles).¹⁷ Each center selected their preferred regimen for all patients enrolled at that center. Rituximab (375 mg/m²) was administered intravenously on day 1 of each chemotherapy course. CHOP- and FCM-treated patients received two additional rituximab infusions to ensure equivalent exposure during the induction phase.

Response was assessed 2 to 4 weeks after last induction treatment. Patients achieving a complete response (CR), an unconfirmed complete response (CRu), or a partial response (PR) were eligible for the next study phase. Eligible patients must have received at least four cycles of rituximab plus CHOP, six cycles of rituximab plus CVP, or four cycles of rituximab plus FCM. At least six infusions of rituximab were required for each treatment regimen, without a delay of more than 2 weeks between each cycle.

Responding patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive rituximab maintenance (375 mg/m², once every 8 weeks), starting 8 weeks after last induction treatment, or observation (no additional treatment). All randomly assigned patients received rituximab maintenance or

underwent observation for 2 years or until disease progression, whichever occurred first. The random assignment procedure has been reported previously.¹⁷ Patients who completed this phase were initially followed for 3 years (data cutoff: January 31, 2011, per initial protocol) or 5 years (data cutoff: January 31, 2013, per protocol amendment). Patients in this extended follow-up study consented in writing to approximately 2 more years of follow-up (data cutoff: December 31, 2016).

PRIMA was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The study protocol and amendments were approved by local and national ethics committees, according to the laws of each country. Patients provided written informed consent.

### Assessments

Response was evaluated according to the 1999 International Working Group response criteria for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.²⁰ During the 2-year rituximab maintenance or observation phase, patients were assessed by clinical examination every 8 weeks and had a computed tomography scan every 6 months. If bone marrow involvement was initially documented, a biopsy was required at the end-of-treatment assessment to confirm CR. Patients completing the rituximab maintenance or observation phase underwent a final restaging assessment within 28 days of the last rituximab dose (or within a corresponding timeframe for those randomly assigned to observation). For patients with no disease progression, follow-up assessments were scheduled every 3 months for the first 2 years, then every 6 months for an additional 3 years, and then annually in patients consenting to the extended follow-up. Patients with disease progression were followed annually for the initiation of new treatment and OS for 5 years, or until data cutoff in patients consenting to the extended follow-up.

### Efficacy and Safety Analyses

The primary end point was investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary end points included TTNLT, TTNCT, OS, and transformation rate at relapse. Safety outcome measures included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, grade 3 or higher AEs, and deaths. Grading of AEs was according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0.

### Statistical Analysis

PFS was defined as the time from random assignment to progression, relapse, or death from any cause. Responding patients and patients lost to follow-up were censored at their last tumor assessment date. OS was determined from the date of random assignment to the date of death regardless of cause. Survival end points were estimated by Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared using a two-sided log-rank test stratified by induction regimen and induction response. Histologic transformation rates at first relapse were compared using a $\chi^2$ test.
## RESULTS

### Patients

Overall, 1,018 patients completed induction treatment and were randomly assigned to rituximab maintenance (n = 505) or observation (n = 513); these patients were the primary population for efficacy analyses. Nine patients (rituximab maintenance, n = 4; observation, n = 5) withdrew before the first maintenance treatment cycle or observation visit and were excluded from the safety analyses. Consent for the extended follow-up was provided by 607 patients (59.6%) of 1,018 (rituximab maintenance, n = 309; observation, n = 298). An overview of the trial profile is provided in Figure 1.

Median duration of follow-up was 9.0 years (range, 0.0 to 11.5 years) from random assignment and was well balanced

between arms (rituximab maintenance, 9.1 years; observation, 9.0 years). Patient demographics and disease characteristics at random assignment are listed in Table 1. Patients not included in the extended follow-up exhibited adverse prognostic factors more frequently than those in the extended follow-up, mainly because of the automatic exclusion of patients who died before the current analysis [data not shown]).

### Efficacy

Rituximab maintenance after rituximab-containing induction immunochemotherapy continued to provide a significant long-term PFS benefit compared with observation (Table 2; Fig 2A). At the final data cutoff, median PFS was 10.5 years in patients randomly assigned to rituximab

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**FIG 1.** CONSORT diagram. Full details of the trial profile before follow-up have been published previously.¹⁷ CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone; CVP, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone; FCM, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone; ITT, intent-to-treat.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>TABLE 1. Baseline Patient Demographics and Disease Characteristics (MITT, extended follow-up population, and no extended follow-up population)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Characteristic</th><th colspan="2">Randomly Assigned</th><th colspan="2">Extended Follow-Up</th><th colspan="2">No Extended Follow-Up</th></tr><tr><th>Observation (n = 513)</th><th>Rituximab Maintenance (n = 505)</th><th>Observation (n = 298)</th><th>Rituximab Maintenance (n = 309)</th><th>Observation (n = 215)</th><th>Rituximab Maintenance (n = 196)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age > 60 years</td><td>180 (35.1)</td><td>176 (34.9)</td><td>91 (30.5)</td><td>95 (30.7)</td><td>89 (41.4)</td><td>81 (41.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Median age, years (range)</td><td>55 (22-84)</td><td>57 (26-79)</td><td>54 (27-80)</td><td>57 (26-77)</td><td>57 (22-84)</td><td>58 (31-79)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex, male</td><td>263 (51.2)</td><td>270 (53.5)</td><td>147 (49.3)</td><td>173 (56.0)</td><td>116 (54.0)</td><td>97 (49.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Ann Arbor stage III or IV</td><td>459 (89.5)</td><td>459 (90.9)</td><td>266 (89.3)</td><td>279 (90.3)</td><td>193 (89.8)</td><td>180 (91.8)</td></tr><tr><td>ECOG PS ≥ 1</td><td>172 (33.5)</td><td>181 (35.8)</td><td>88 (29.5)</td><td>104 (33.7)</td><td>84 (39.1)</td><td>77 (39.3)</td></tr><tr><td>“B” symptoms present</td><td>156 (30.4)</td><td>160 (31.7)</td><td>76 (25.5)</td><td>88 (28.5)</td><td>80 (37.2)</td><td>72 (36.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Bone marrow involvement</td><td>285 (55.6)</td><td>275 (54.5)</td><td>163 (54.7)</td><td>168 (54.4)</td><td>122 (58.1)<sup>a</sup></td><td>107 (54.9)<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Lactate dehydrogenase > ULN</td><td>164 (32.0)<sup>b</sup></td><td>173 (34.3)<sup>c</sup></td><td>83 (27.9)<sup>b</sup></td><td>93 (30.2)<sup>b</sup></td><td>81 (37.7)</td><td>80 (41.0)<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Hemoglobin < 120 g/L</td><td>96 (18.7)</td><td>100 (19.8)</td><td>45 (15.1)</td><td>46 (14.9)</td><td>51 (23.7)</td><td>54 (27.6)</td></tr><tr><td>β₂-microglobulin ≥ 3 mg/L</td><td>132 (27.8)<sup>d</sup></td><td>148 (31.6)<sup>e</sup></td><td>69 (25.2)<sup>f</sup></td><td>76 (26.1)<sup>e</sup></td><td>63 (31.3)<sup>h</sup></td><td>72 (40.7)<sup>i</sup></td></tr><tr><td>FLIPI score<sup>l</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Low (0-1 risk factors)</td><td>110 (21.4)</td><td>106 (21.0)</td><td>73 (24.5)</td><td>72 (23.3)</td><td>37 (17.2)</td><td>34 (17.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate (2 risk factors)</td><td>187 (36.5)</td><td>183 (36.2)</td><td>116 (38.9)</td><td>120 (38.8)</td><td>71 (33.0)</td><td>63 (32.3)</td></tr><tr><td>High (3-5 risk factors)</td><td>216 (42.1)</td><td>215 (42.6)</td><td>109 (36.6)</td><td>117 (37.9)</td><td>107 (49.8)</td><td>98 (50.3)<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Induction regimen</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rituximab plus CHOP</td><td>386 (75.2)</td><td>382 (75.6)</td><td>230 (77.2)</td><td>248 (80.3)</td><td>156 (72.6)</td><td>134 (68.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Rituximab plus CVP</td><td>113 (22.0)</td><td>109 (21.6)</td><td>56 (18.8)</td><td>50 (16.2)</td><td>57 (26.5)</td><td>59 (30.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Rituximab plus FCM</td><td>14 (2.7)</td><td>14 (2.8)</td><td>12 (4.0)</td><td>11 (3.6)</td><td>2 (0.9)</td><td>3 (1.5)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Data are No. (%) unless otherwise specified.

Abbreviations: CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone; CVP, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; FCM, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone; FLIPI, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index; MITT, maintenance intent-to-treat; ULN, upper limit of normal.

maintenance versus 4.1 years in patients randomly assigned to observation (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73; *P* < .001). Ten-year PFS estimates were 51.1% in the rituximab maintenance arm and 35.0% in the observation arm. Evaluation of PFS in prespecified patient subgroups, categorized by age, sex, FLIPI score, induction chemotherapy, and response to induction, showed a consistent benefit of rituximab maintenance over observation (Fig 3). Patients in CR, CRu, or PR at end of induction consistently benefited from rituximab maintenance (Data Supplement). PFS by FLIPI risk factor category in the two treatment arms is shown in the Data Supplement.

Rituximab maintenance also provided a significant benefit over observation in terms of time to next treatment; median

TTNLT was not reached in the rituximab maintenance arm versus 6.1 years in the observation arm (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.78; *P* < .001; Table 2; Fig 2B). At the final data cutoff, 212 patients (42.0%) of 505 in the rituximab maintenance arm and 284 patients (55.4%) of 513 in the observation arm had either started a new antilymphoma treatment or died before receiving it. Ten-year TTNLT estimates were 53.4% in the rituximab maintenance arm and 41.2% in the observation arm.

Median TTNCT was not reached in the rituximab maintenance arm versus 9.3 years in the observation arm (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86; *P* < .001; Table 2; Fig 2C); at data cutoff, 188 patients (37.2%) of 505 in the rituximab maintenance arm and 244 patients

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Data missing in five patients.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Data missing in one patient.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>Data missing in two patients.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup>Data missing in 38 patients.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup>Data missing in 37 patients.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup>Data missing in 24 patients.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>g</sup>Data missing in 18 patients.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>h</sup>Data missing in 14 patients.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>i</sup>Data missing in 19 patients.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>l</sup>FLIPI scores were collected at registration (risk score includes five factors: age [> 60 years], Ann Arbor stage [III or IV], hemoglobin [< 120 g/L], serum lactate dehydrogenase [> ULN], and number of nodal areas involved [five or more]).</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 2. Overview of Key Efficacy Results After 6 and 9 Years of Follow-Up From Random Assignment</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Efficacy Result, years</th><th colspan="2">6-Year Follow-Up</th><th colspan="2">9-Year Follow up</th></tr><tr><th>Observation (n = 513)</th><th>Rituximab Maintenance (n = 505)</th><th>Observation (n = 513)</th><th>Rituximab Maintenance (n = 505)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>PFS</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>4.1</td><td>NR</td><td>4.1</td><td>10.5</td></tr><tr><td>HR (95% CI), P</td><td>0.58 (0.48 to 0.69), &lt; .001</td><td></td><td>0.61 (0.52 to 0.73), &lt; .001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>TTNLT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>5.9</td><td>NR</td><td>6.1</td><td>NR</td></tr><tr><td>HR (95% CI), P</td><td>0.63 (0.52 to 0.76), &lt; .001</td><td></td><td>0.66 (0.55 to 0.78), &lt; .001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>TTNCT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>7.1</td><td>NR</td><td>9.3</td><td>NR</td></tr><tr><td>HR (95% CI), P</td><td>0.70 (0.57 to 0.86), &lt; .001</td><td></td><td>0.71 (0.59 to 0.86), &lt; .001</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>OS</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td></tr><tr><td>HR (95% CI), P</td><td>1.02 (0.71 to 1.47), .8959</td><td></td><td>1.04 (0.77 to 1.40), P = .7948</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; NR, not reached; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TTNCT, time to next chemotherapy treatment; TTNLT, time to next antilymphoma treatment.

(47.6%) of 513 in the observation arm had either started a new chemotherapy treatment or had died before receiving it.

The above-mentioned beneficial effects of rituximab maintenance did not translate into an OS benefit (Table 2; Fig 2D), with 10-year OS rate estimates of approximately 80% (observation, 79.9%; rituximab maintenance, 80.1%) in both study arms; median OS was not reached in either arm (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.40; *P* = .7948). OS according to FLIPI risk factor categories in patients randomly assigned to rituximab maintenance or observation is shown in the Data Supplement. OS after progression or relapse (ie, time from first progression until death) was shorter in the maintenance arm versus the observation arm, explaining equivalent OS in both arms (Data Supplement).

A total of 503 patients had documented disease progression. The rate of progression with disease transformation was low, but similar in both study arms (Data Supplement). No difference in time to transformation was observed (Data Supplement).

## Second-Line Treatment

Of 503 patients who experienced disease progression, 453 received documented second-line (2L) therapy. The most common subsequent chemotherapy regimens were rituximab with a platinum-based regimen (27.2%), fludarabine-based regimen (12.1%), or bendamustine (8.6%; Data Supplement). Significantly more patients in the observation arm than in the rituximab maintenance arm received a rituximab-containing therapy at relapse or progression (81.5% v 73.2%, respectively; *P* = .04).

Slightly more patients in the observation arm received radioimmunotherapy (24.4% v 16.9%, respectively; *P* = .06). One hundred twenty (26.5%) underwent high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation with no difference between the two arms (29.3% v 22.4%, respectively; *P* = .13). Response to 2L regimen was similar between 1L treatment arms, with overall response and CR rates of 78.2% and 47.3%, respectively (rituximab maintenance) versus 80.4% and 46.4%, respectively (observation). However, the rate of CR/CRu for patients who experienced early progression within 18 months of random assignment (corresponding to 24 months after induction) was inferior in the maintenance arm compared with the observation arm (39.3% v 56.3%; *P* = 0.029), thus demonstrating that the patients who experienced disease progression during maintenance were those with a more aggressive disease (Data Supplement).

## Safety

Since random assignment, 285 patients (56.9%) of 501 in the rituximab maintenance arm and 194 patients (38.2%) of 508 in the observation arm have experienced at least one AE (Data Supplement). Rituximab maintenance was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 to 4 AEs (24.4% v 16.9%) and serious AEs (21.2% v 13.4%) compared with observation; the higher rate of grade 3 to 4 AEs was driven largely by higher rates of cytopenias (5.2% v 1.6%) and infections (4.4% v 1.0%). The most common grade 3 to 4 AEs were neoplasms benign, malignant, and unspecified (including cysts and polyps), with a similar incidence between study arms (approximately 4% in both arms). Grade 5 (fatal)
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIG 2.** Kaplan-Meier estimates of (A) progression-free survival (PFS), (B) time to next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), (C) time to next chemotherapy treatment (TTNCT), and (D) overall survival (OS) from random assignment. HR, hazard ratio.</figcaption></figure>

AEs occurred in eight patients (1.6%) of 501 and three patients (0.6%) of 508 randomly assigned to rituximab maintenance and observation, respectively (Data Supplement).

A total of 88 patients (17.4%) have died in the rituximab maintenance arm since random assignment versus 84 (16.4%) in the observation arm (Table 3). The most frequent causes of death were progressive disease (rituximab

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIG 3.** Risk of progression according to prespecified subgroups. CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone; CR, complete response; CVP, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone; FCM, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone; FLIPI, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index; HR, hazard ratio; PR, partial response; CRu, unconfirmed complete response.</figcaption></figure>
maintenance, 51.1%; observation, 47.6%) and solid tumors (rituximab maintenance, 5.7%; observation, 20.2%).

## DISCUSSION

The primary analysis from PRIMA demonstrated prolonged PFS with rituximab maintenance when applied after 1L immunochemotherapy induction to patients with previously untreated, high-tumor-burden FL.¹⁷ This long-term follow-up strengthens these previously published results,¹⁷,¹⁸ demonstrating significantly longer PFS, TTNLT, and TTNCT in the rituximab maintenance arm compared with the observation arm. With an updated 9-year median follow-up, projected 10-year PFS was 51.1% in the rituximab maintenance arm and 35.0% in the observation arm, whereas 10-year TTNLT estimates were 53.4% and 41.2%, respectively. Clinically, these results mean that approximately half of patients who receive rituximab maintenance every 8 weeks for 2 years after response to immunochemotherapy induction will remain free from progression or death and free from further anti-lymphoma treatment after 10 years. Subgroup analyses showed the substantial PFS improvement associated with rituximab maintenance was independent of age, sex, induction immunochemotherapy regimen, response to induction (CR/CRu, or PR), or FLIPI risk score.

The OS estimate at 10 years for the whole patient cohort was approximately 80%, thus confirming how the introduction of rituximab into the therapeutic armamentarium in general, and into the 1L induction setting in particular, has profoundly altered the course of FL, as compared with historical controls.²¹,²² However, despite significant and sustained PFS prolongation with rituximab maintenance,

no OS difference was observed between the two arms. This finding is similar to recently published long-term follow-up studies in which prolonged PFS with the use of rituximab plus CHOP (compared with rituximab plus CVP) or rituximab plus bendamustine (compared with rituximab plus CHOP) fails to translate into prolonged OS²³,²⁴ and has important implications for both our understanding of the disease and future research in the field. First, direct extrapolation of PFS as a surrogate marker for OS cannot be made in FL, even with long-term follow-up. Second, PFS and TTNLT prolongation as meaningful clinical and economic end points must be viewed independently of OS. And third, the underlying biologic explanation for PFS improvement not translating into longer OS needs to be addressed.

Recent efforts have been made by the Follicular Lymphoma Analysis of Surrogacy Hypothesis) group to assess if CR at 30 months after initiation of induction therapy can serve as a surrogate end point for PFS in FL, and the initial results look promising.²⁵ However, the evidence for PFS as a surrogate for OS is conflicting. In advanced solid tumors, there is considerable heterogeneity among cancer types and, for a given neoplasm, there are even discrepancies among the same histology subgroups, resulting in a generally low strength of association between PFS and OS.²⁶ In lymphoma, surrogacy has been studied and documented in 1L diffuse large B-cell lymphoma,²⁷ but robust data are lacking in FL. Indeed, statistical modeling indicates that the association between PFS and OS tends to be weaker for malignancies with a long survival after progression, such as FL, which explains how the PFS advantage reported here may have been diluted over subsequent lines of treatment.²⁸ Whether the recently

<table><caption>TABLE 3. Cause of Death</caption><thead><tr><th>Cause of Death</th><th>Observation (n = 513)</th><th>Rituximab Maintenance (n = 505)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total deaths, No.</td><td>84</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>Lymphoma progression</td><td>40 (47.6)</td><td>45 (51.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Solid tumor*</td><td>17 (20.2)</td><td>5 (5.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Infection†</td><td>5 (6.0)</td><td>11 (12.5)</td></tr><tr><td>AML/MDS</td><td>7 (8.3)</td><td>4 (4.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Cardiovascular event</td><td>5 (6.0)</td><td>9 (10.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Direct toxicity during subsequent treatment‡</td><td>1 (1.2)</td><td>3 (3.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Other cause</td><td>3 (3.6)</td><td>6 (6.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Unevaluable event</td><td>6 (7.1)</td><td>5 (5.7)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Data presented as No. (%) unless otherwise noted.

Abbreviations: AML, acute myeloid leukemia; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome.

*Solid tumors in the observation arm: lung cancer (n = 3), melanoma (n = 2), neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin (n = 1), ovarian cancer (n = 2), malignant astrocytoma (n = 1), glioblastoma (n = 1), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1), metastatic neoplasm of unknown origin (n = 1), prostate cancer (n = 1), rectal adenocarcinoma (n = 1), salivary gland cancer (n = 1), tongue neoplasm (n = 1), cancer without precision (n = 1); solid tumors in the maintenance arm: lung cancer (n = 2), neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin (n = 1), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1), and anal carcinoma (n = 1).

†Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: one in each arm.

‡Toxicity during allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (n = 3) and idelalisib treatment (n = 1).
described progression of disease within 24 months of initiating treatment end point is a more reliable surrogate of OS in patients with FL receiving 1L immunochemotherapy with or without maintenance remains to be established.<fnref n="29" />⁻³²

In our analysis, the proportion of deaths associated with lymphoma progression was almost identical between treatment arms. Response to 2L treatment was also comparable. Shorter survival after first relapse in the maintenance arm helps to explain why OS was similar in both arms despite prolonged PFS. Altogether, these data indicate that rituximab maintenance does not alter the natural course of the disease for patients with aggressive FL and that they will ultimately die as rapidly as if they were observed after induction treatment. Whether the absence of an OS benefit in these patients challenges the appeal of a prolonged 1L remission in most patients with de novo FL with a high tumor burden remains an open question.

No difference in terms of transformation rate was found with this extended follow-up, and these findings confirmed a previous analysis of data from the PRIMA cohort, which showed that rituximab maintenance did not have a significant prognostic impact on histologic transformation.³³ Interestingly, detailed analysis of 2L treatments at relapse showed that use of rituximab was significantly less frequent after rituximab maintenance than after observation. Data on the use of anti-CD20 antibodies as maintenance at relapse were lacking, but one could hypothesize that rituximab maintenance may have been more frequently administered in the observation arm, given the established

beneficial effect of rituximab maintenance on PFS in the relapsed/resistant setting.³⁴ This could potentially explain, at least in part, the absence of a difference in OS between the two arms.

Consistent with previous analyses,<fnref n="17" />,<fnref n="18" /> rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, and no unexpected safety signals were observed with the additional 4 years of follow-up. It is worth noting that although the OS rate was not different between the two arms, death due to second neoplasia was almost four times more frequent in the observation arm compared with the maintenance arm. It could be speculated that recurrent use of cytotoxic- and radiation-containing regimens in the context of earlier relapse in the observation arm may have increased the frequency of second neoplasms. Conversely, deaths due to infection, a known consequence of immunotherapy,³⁴ were twice as frequent in the rituximab maintenance arm. However, only two cases of the opportunistic infection, progressive multifocal leukaencephalopathy, were observed, one in each treatment arm. Although rituximab exposure may increase this risk,³⁵ our data suggest there is not a strong effect of maintenance.

In conclusion, this 9-year follow-up of the PRIMA study demonstrates that rituximab maintenance after induction immunochemotherapy provides a significant long-term PFS benefit over observation. Despite the lack of OS advantage, it is noteworthy that more than half of the patients in the rituximab maintenance arm remain free of disease progression and have not required new antilymphoma treatment beyond 10 years.

## AFFILIATIONS

## CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

Emmanuel Bachy, Hematology Department, Lyon Sud Hospital, chemin du Grand Revoyet, Pierre Bénite Cedex, 69495, France; Twitter: @LysaLymphoma; e-mail: emmanuel.bachy@chu-lyon.fr.

## PRIOR PRESENTATION

Presented in part at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, December 9-12, 2017.

<footnote n="1">¹Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) 1052, Pierre-Bénite, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Nancy, Université de Lorraine, INSERM 1256, Nancy, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Frankston Hospital and Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Hôpital Saint-Louis, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Université Paris-Est Créteil, INSERM U955, Créteil, France</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Hospital Universitario de Salamanca-Institute for Biomedical Research of Salamanca, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer, Salamanca, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Department of Haematology and INSERM 1231, University Hospital F. Mitterrand, Dijon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Herlev University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Hôpital de Mercy Centre Hospitalier Régional Metz-Thionville, Metz, France</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸Portuguese Institute of Oncology, Lisbon, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹Institut Curie-Hôpital Rene Huguenin, Saint-Cloud, France</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse-Oncopole, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹Saint Antoine Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²²Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie et Immunologie Nantes Angers, INSERM, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵Concord Hospital, Concord, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶Fundaleu, Buenos Aires, Argentina</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷UCL, Mont-Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers, Angers, France</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹F Hoffman-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰Centre Henri-Becquerel, Rouen, France</footnote>
## SUPPORT

PRIMA was sponsored by the Lymphoma Study Association and supported by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Biogen Idec.

### AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Disclosures provided by the authors and data availability statement (if applicable) are available with this article at DOI https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.01073.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

**Conception and design:** Emmanuel Bachy, John F. Seymour, Pauline Brice, Andrew Lister, Gilles Salles

**Financial support:** Gilles Salles

**Administrative support:** Harald Zeuner, Gilles Salles

**Provision of study material or patients:** John F. Seymour, Armando López-Guillermo, Luc Xerri, John V. Catalano, Pauline Brice, Alejandro Martin, Lars M. Pedersen, Véronique Dorvaux, David Simpson, Jean Gabarre, Steven Le Gouill, Andrew Lister, Gustavo Milone, Hervé Tilly, Gilles Salles

**Collection and assembly of data:** Emmanuel Bachy, John F. Seymour, Pierre Feugier, Fritz Offner, Armando López-Guillermo, David Belada, Luc Xerri, John V. Catalano, François Lemonnier, Alejandro Martin, Olivier Casasnovas, Lars M. Pedersen, Véronique Dorvaux, David Simpson, Sirpa Leppa, Jean Gabarre, Maria G. da Silva, Sylvie Glaisner, Loic Ysebaert, Anne Vekhoff, Tanin Intragumtornchai, Steven Le Gouill, Andrew Lister, Jane A. Estell, Anne Sonet, Jonathan Farhi, Harald Zeuner, Hervé Tilly, Gilles Salles

**Data analysis and interpretation:** Emmanuel Bachy, John F. Seymour, Fritz Offner, Armando López-Guillermo, John V. Catalano, Pauline Brice, Olivier Casasnovas, David Simpson, Andrew Lister, Gustavo Milone, Harald Zeuner, Hervé Tilly, Gilles Salles

**Manuscript writing:** All authors

**Final approval of manuscript:** All authors

**Accountable for all aspects of the work:** All authors

## ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank the PRIMA study investigators, coordinators, nurses, and patients. PRIMA was sponsored by the Lymphoma Study Association and supported by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Biogen Idec. We also thank Professor Corinne Haioun for her valuable contribution. Third-party writing assistance was provided by Janis Noonan of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

## REFERENCES

1. Freedman A: Follicular lymphoma: 2018 update on diagnosis and management. Am J Hematol 93:296-305, 2018

2. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Pileri SA, et al: The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Blood 127:2375-2390, 2016

3. A clinical evaluation of the International Lymphoma Study Group classification of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Classification Project. Blood 89:3909-3918, 1997

4. Marcus R, Imrie K, Belch A, et al: CVP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CVP as first-line treatment for advanced follicular lymphoma. Blood 105: 1417-1423, 2005

5. Marcus R, Imrie K, Solal-Celigny P, et al: Phase III study of R-CVP compared with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone alone in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 26:4579-4586, 2008

6. Salles G, Mounier N, de Guibert S, et al: Rituximab combined with chemotherapy and interferon in follicular lymphoma patients: Results of the GELA-GOELAMS FL2000 study. Blood 112:4824-4831, 2008

7. Herold M, Haas A, Srock S, et al: Rituximab added to first-line mitoxantrone, chlorambucil, and prednisolone chemotherapy followed by interferon maintenance prolongs survival in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma: An East German Study Group Hematology and Oncology Study. J Clin Oncol 25:1986-1992, 2007

8. Hiddemann W, Kneba M, Dreyling M, et al: Frontline therapy with rituximab added to the combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) significantly improves the outcome for patients with advanced-stage follicular lymphoma compared with therapy with CHOP alone: Results of a prospective randomized study of the German Low-Grade Lymphoma Study Group. Blood 106:3725-3732, 2005

9. van Oers MH, Klasa R, Marcus RE, et al: Rituximab maintenance improves clinical outcome of relapsed/resistant follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma in patients both with and without rituximab during induction: Results of a prospective randomized phase 3 intergroup trial. Blood 108:3295-3301, 2006

10. Forstpointner R, Unterhalt M, Dreyling M, et al: Maintenance therapy with rituximab leads to a significant prolongation of response duration after salvage therapy with a combination of rituximab, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone (R-FCM) in patients with recurring and refractory follicular and mantle cell lymphomas: Results of a prospective randomized study of the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group (GLSG). Blood 108:4003-4008, 2006

11. van Oers MH, Van Glabbeke M, Giurgea L, et al: Rituximab maintenance treatment of relapsed/resistant follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Long-term outcome of the EORTC 20981 phase III randomized intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 28:2853-2858, 2010

12. Ghielmini M, Schmitz SF, Cogliatti SB, et al: Prolonged treatment with rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma significantly increases event-free survival and response duration compared with the standard weekly x 4 schedule. Blood 103:4416-4423, 2004

13. Hainsworth JD, Litchy S, Shaffer DW, et al: Maximizing therapeutic benefit of rituximab: maintenance therapy versus re-treatment at progression in patients with indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma--A randomized phase II trial of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network. J Clin Oncol 23:1088-1095, 2005

14. Pettengell R, Schmitz N, Gisselbrecht C, et al: Rituximab purging and/or maintenance in patients undergoing autologous transplantation for relapsed follicular lymphoma: A prospective randomized trial from the lymphoma working party of the European group for blood and marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol 31: 1624-1630, 2013

15. Hochster H, Weller E, Gascoyne RD, et al: Maintenance rituximab after cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone prolongs progression-free survival in advanced indolent lymphoma: Results of the randomized phase III ECOG1496 Study. J Clin Oncol 27:1607-1614, 2009

16. Martinelli G, Schmitz SF, Utiger U, et al: Long-term follow-up of patients with follicular lymphoma receiving single-agent rituximab at two different schedules in trial SAKK 35/98. J Clin Oncol 28:4480-4484, 2010

17. Salles G, Seymour JF, Offner F, et al: Rituximab maintenance for 2 years in patients with high tumour burden follicular lymphoma responding to rituximab plus chemotherapy (PRIMA): A phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377:42-51, 2011

18. Salles G, Seymour JF, Feugier P, et al: Updated 6 year follow-up of the PRIMA study confirms the benefit of 2-year rituximab maintenance in follicular lymphoma patients responding to frontline immunochemotherapy. Blood 122:509, 2013

19. Dreyling M, Ghielmini M, Rule S, et al: Newly diagnosed and relapsed follicular lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 28:3109, 2017 (suppl_4)

20. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al: Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. J Clin Oncol 17: 1244, 1999
21. Fisher RI, LeBlanc M, Press OW, et al: New treatment options have changed the survival of patients with follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 23:8447-8452, 2005

22. Liu Q, Fayad L, Cabanillas F, et al: Improvement of overall and failure-free survival in stage IV follicular lymphoma: 25 years of treatment experience at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. J Clin Oncol 24:1582-1589, 2006

23. Luminari S, Ferrari A, Manni M, et al: Long-term results of the FOLL05 trial comparing R-CVP versus R-CHOP versus R-FM for the initial treatment of patients with advanced-stage symptomatic follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 36:689-696, 2018

24. Rummel M, Maschmeyer G, Ganser A, et al: Bendamustine plus rituximab (B-R) versus CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) as first-line treatment in patients with indolent lymphomas: Nine-year updated results from the StIL NHL1 study. J Clin Oncol 35, 2017 (15_suppl; abstr 7501)

25. Shi Q, Flowers CR, Hiddemann W, et al: Thirty-month complete response as a surrogate end point in first-line follicular lymphoma therapy: An individual patient-level analysis of multiple randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 35:552-560, 2017

26. Ciani O, Davis S, Tappenden P, et al: Validation of surrogate endpoints in advanced solid tumors: Systematic review of statistical methods, results, and implications for policy makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 30:312-324, 2014

27. Shi Q, Schmitz N, Ou FS, et al: Progression-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival in first-line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: An individual patient-level analysis of multiple randomized trials (SEAL). J Clin Oncol 36:2593-2602, 2018

28. Broglio KR, Berry DA: Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1642-1649, 2009

29. Casulo C, Byrtek M, Dawson KL, et al: Early relapse of follicular lymphoma after rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone defines patients at high risk for death: An analysis from the National LymphoCare Study. J Clin Oncol 33:2516-2522, 2015

30. Jurinovic V, Kridel R, Staiger AM, et al: Clinicogenetic risk models predict early progression of follicular lymphoma after first-line immunochemotherapy. Blood 128:1112-1120, 2016

31. Launonen A, Hiddeman W, Duenzinger U, et al: Early disease progression predicts poorer survival in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) in the GALLIUM study. Blood 130:1490, 2017

32. Seymour JF, Marcus R, Davies A, et al: Association of early disease progression and very poor survival in the GALLIUM study in follicular lymphoma: Benefit of obinutuzumab in reducing the rate of early progression. Haematologica 104:1202-1208, 2019

33. Sarkozy C, Trneny M, Kerri L, et al: Risk factors and outcomes for patients with follicular lymphoma who had histologic transformation after response to first-line immunochemotherapy in the PRIMA trial. J Clin Oncol 34:2575-2582, 2016

34. Vidal L, Gafter-Gvili A, Salles G, et al: Rituximab maintenance for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1799-1806, 2011

35. Carson KR, Evens AM, Richey EA, et al: Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy after rituximab therapy in HIV-negative patients: A report of 57 cases from the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports project. Blood 113:4834-4840, 2009
## AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

### Sustained Progression-Free Survival Benefit of Rituximab Maintenance in Patients With Follicular Lymphoma: Long-Term Results of the PRIMA Study

The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/site/ifc.

**Emmanuel Bachy**

**Honoraria:** Gilead Sciences, Roche, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Roche

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Janssen-Cilag

**John F. Seymour**

**Honoraria:** AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Janssen, Roche, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Takeda

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Janssen, Roche, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Takeda

**Speakers' Bureau:** AbbVie, Celgene, Roche

**Research Funding:** AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Roche

**Expert Testimony:** Roche

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** AbbVie, Roche

**Pierre Feugier**

**Honoraria:** Genentech, Janssen, Gilead, Amgen, AbbVie

**Research Funding:** Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, AbbVie, Amgen

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Genentech, AbbVie

**Armando López-Guillermo**

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Roche, Celgene, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Takeda, Janssen, Incyte

**Research Funding:** Roche (Inst), Gilead Sciences, Celgene (Inst)

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Roche

**David Belada**

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Roche, Gilead Sciences, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda

**Research Funding:** Roche (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst), Takeda (Inst), MorphoSys (Inst), Pharmacyclics (Inst), Archigen Biotech (Inst)

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Gilead Sciences, Takeda, Roche

**John V. Catalano**

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Celgene

**Pauline Brice**

**Research Funding:** Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Roche, Amgen, AbbVie/Genentech

**François Lemonnier**

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Miltenyi Biotec

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Janssen

**Alejandro Martin**

**Honoraria:** Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Roche, Celgene, MorphoSys, Kyowa Hakko Kirin

**Research Funding:** Celgene, Teva, Janssen-Cilag

**Expert Testimony:** Gilead Sciences

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Roche, Celgene, SERVIER

**Olivier Casasnovas**

**Honoraria:** Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen

**Research Funding:** Genentech (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Takeda (Inst)

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Genentech, Takeda, Gilead Sciences, Janssen

**Véronique Dorvaux**

**Honoraria:** Takeda

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Takeda

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Janssen Oncology

**David Simpson**

**Honoraria:** Celgene, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Celgene, Merck, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag

**Research Funding:** Amgen, BeiGene (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Roche (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Acerta Pharma (Inst), Pharmacyclics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst)

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen

**Sirpa Leppa**

**Honoraria:** Takeda

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, Roche, MSD

**Research Funding:** Roche (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Celgene (Inst)

**Maria G. da Silva**

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Janssen-Cilag, Gilead Sciences, Roche (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst)

**Speakers' Bureau:** Janssen-Cilag, Takeda

**Research Funding:** Gilead Sciences

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Roche, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead Sciences, Takeda

**Loic Ysebaert**

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Roche, Gilead Sciences, Roche (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst)

**Steven Le Gouill**

**Honoraria:** Genentech

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Genentech

**Research Funding:** Genentech

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Genentech

**Andrew Lister**

**Stock and Other Ownership Interests:** AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, AstraZeneca (I), Dechra Pharmaceuticals (I), Hikma Pharmaceuticals (I)

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Genentech (DMC), Gilead Sciences, Millennium, Merck

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Takeda/ Gilead, Merck

**Jane A. Estell**

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Celgene

**Research Funding:** AbbVie

**Gustavo Milone**

**Honoraria:** mAbxience, Gador, Elea

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Teva

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Elea, Gador, Raffo

**Jonathan Farhi**

**Honoraria:** Novartis

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Sandoz, Roche

**Harald Zeuner**

**Employment:** Hoffman-LaRoche AG

**Hervé Tilly**

**Honoraria:** Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Karyopharm Therapeutics, Roche, Janssen

**Travel, Accommodations, Expenses:** Roche

**Gilles Salles**

**Honoraria:** Genentech, Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, SERVIER Gilead Sciences, Novartis, AbbVie, Merck, Takeda, MorphoSys

**Consulting or Advisory Role:** Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Acerta Pharma, Kite Pharma, SERVIER, Morphosys, Epizyme

No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.