# Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOEP for first-line therapy of younger patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a retrospective comparison of two randomized phase 3 trials

G. Lenz, H. Tilly, M. Ziepert, B. Altmann, C. Herbaux, F. Frontzek, M.

Nickelsen, C. Lee, J. Hirata, D. Sahin, et al.

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

## To cite this version:

G. Lenz, H. Tilly, M. Ziepert, B. Altmann, C. Herbaux, et al., Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOEP for first-line therapy of younger patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a retrospective comparison of two randomized phase 3 trials. Leukemia, 2024, Leukemia, -, 10.1038/s41375-024-02420-6. hal-04872892

HAL Id: hal-04872892

https://lilloa.hal.science/hal-04872892v1

Submitted on 14 May 2025

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_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
LETTER

OPEN

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

# Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOEP for first-line therapy of younger patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a retrospective comparison of two randomized phase 3 trials

Georg Lenz<sup>1,†</sup>, Hervé Tilly<sup>2</sup>, Marita Ziepert<sup>3</sup>, Bettina Altmann<sup>3</sup>, Charles Herbaux<sup>1,4</sup>, Fabian Frontzek<sup>1</sup>, Maike Nickelsen<sup>5</sup>, Calvin Lee<sup>6</sup>, Jamie Hirata<sup>6</sup>, Deniz Sahin<sup>7</sup>, Saibah Chohan<sup>8</sup>, Connie Lee Batlevi<sup>6</sup>, Mark Yan<sup>8</sup>, Franck Morschhauser<sup>9</sup> and Norbert Schmitz<sup>1</sup>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

© The Author(s) 2024

Leukemia (2024) 38:2709–2711; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-024-02420-6

## TO THE EDITOR:

Since development of R-CHOP for newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [1, 2], many attempts have been made to improve first-line therapy including studies which changed the timing/dosing of rituximab [3–5], substituted obinutuzumab for rituximab [6], added etoposide to CHOP in R-CHOEP [7], or changed to infusional regimens like dose-adjusted EPOCH-R [8]. While many studies combined targeted drugs with R-CHOP [9–11], Pola-R-CHP was the first to significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with DLBCL aged 18–80 with an International Prognostic Index (IPI) 2–5. While overall survival (OS) was not significantly different, the reduction in relapses led to adoption of Pola-R-CHP as the new standard in many countries [12]. However, gaps in knowledge remain, in particular for younger, high-risk patients with DLBCL where R-CHOEP is a common regimen in Germany and the Scandinavian countries [13–15]. This study compares Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOEP using individual patient data from respective phase 3 studies.

## METHODS

Study design, patient eligibility, randomization, endpoints, and statistical analyses of the two prospective, randomized phase 3 studies R-MegaCHOEP and POLARIX have been reported previously [7, 12]. POLARIX was an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, whereas R-MegaCHOEP was an open label study performed in Germany. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria of both studies were published previously [7, 12].

The current analysis compared outcomes of younger DLBCL patients (18–60 years) with age adjusted IPI (aaIPI) 2 or 3 treated with R-CHOEP on the R-MegaCHOEP study and patients treated with Pola-R-CHP on the POLARIX study. Protocol details are provided in Supplementary Data.

The current analysis limited the comparison to PFS and OS as the definition of event-free survival is variable. While positron-emission tomography in combination with computed tomography (PET/CT) was used to determine the response at end of treatment for patients treated in the POLARIX study, the response of patients treated with R-MegaCHOEP was determined by CT scan only. The incidence of adverse events occurring in both studies were also compared.

## RESULTS

The study included 113 patients treated with Pola-R-CHP from the POLARIX study and 89 patients treated with R-CHOEP from the R-MegaCHOEP study. The majority of patients were male, with median ages of 52 and 51 for Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOEP groups, respectively. Major patient characteristics were similar across groups, including IPI factors and aaIPI (Table 1).

MYC and BCL2 rearrangements were available for 79.6% and 84.1% of Pola-R-CHP patients, and 42.7% and 48.3% of R-CHOEP patients. Translocation percentages were 8.9% and 17.9% in Pola-R-CHP, and 7.9% and 20.9% in R-CHOEP. Data on cell of origin were available for 87 Pola-R-CHP and 39 R-CHOEP patients (Table 1).

Median dose intensities of key drugs exceeded 98% in both groups (Supplementary Table 1). Radiotherapy was administered to 8 Pola-R-CHP and 21 R-CHOEP patients as part of the treatment protocol. Follow-up periods differed significantly, with a median of 28.1 months for Pola-R-CHP and 42.0 months for R-CHOEP.

Two-year PFS was 74.8% for Pola-R-CHP and 72.4% for R-CHOEP, while OS was 88.3% for Pola-R-CHP and 81.7% for R-CHOEP (Fig. 1). Differences in efficacy were not significant. Separate evaluations for aaIPI 2 and 3 patients showed no significant differences in PFS and OS between the two treatments (Supplementary Figs. 1, 2).

PFS and OS were also analyzed for activated B-cell-like (ABC)- and germinal center B-cell (GCB)-subtypes of DLBCL. ABC-type patients treated with Pola-R-CHP showed higher 2-year PFS and OS rates compared with those treated with R-CHOEP (Supplementary Fig. 3). In GCB-type DLBCL, efficacy was similar between treatments.

R-CHOEP was associated with higher rates of leukocytopenia, infections, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and severe neuropathy compared to Pola-R-CHP. Low-grade toxicities affecting quality of life were also more frequent with R-CHOEP (Supplementary Table 2).

Mortality rates up to two years post-randomization were 13 for Pola-R-CHP and 16 for R-CHOEP. Disease progression or relapse

<footnote n="1">¹Medical Department A, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany. ²Centre Henri-Becquerel and University of Rouen, Rouen, France. ³Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. ⁴University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France. ⁵Onkologie Lerchenfeld, Hamburg, Germany. ⁶Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA. ⁷F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. ⁸Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Mississauga, ON, Canada. ⁹University of Lille, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Lille, France. ⁵⁹email: georg.lenz@ukmuenster.de</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Demographics and selected clinical characteristics at baseline.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>R-CHOEP<br>n = 89</th><th>Pola-R-CHP<br>n = 113</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Median age (range), years</td><td>51 (18–60)</td><td>52 (19–60)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>32 (36%)</td><td>45 (39.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>57 (64%)</td><td>68 (60.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Abnormal LDH</td><td>86 (96.6%)</td><td>100 (88.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>ECOG</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0–1</td><td>61 (68.5%)</td><td>92 (81.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1</td><td>28 (31.5%)</td><td>21 (18.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Stage</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I/II</td><td>1 (1.1%)</td><td>3 (2.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>III/IV</td><td>88 (98.9%)</td><td>110 (97.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Presence of extranodal disease</td><td>67 (75.35%)</td><td>85 (75.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>aalPI</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>65 (73.0%)</td><td>99 (87.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>24 (27.0%)</td><td>14 (12.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Presence of bulky disease ≥7.5 cm</td><td>51 (57.3%)</td><td>60 (53.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bone marrow disease</td><td>n = 89</td><td>n = 109</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>10 (11.2%)</td><td>26 (23.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Cell of origin</td><td>n = 39</td><td>n = 87</td></tr><tr><td>ABC</td><td>9 (23.1%)</td><td>27 (31.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>GCB</td><td>24 (61.5%)</td><td>47 (54.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Unclassified</td><td>6 (15.4%)</td><td>13 (14.9%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

aalPI age-adjusted International Prognostic Index, ABC activated B-cell-like, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, GCB germinal center B-cell, LDH lactate dehydrogenase.

was the main cause of death. Non-relapse mortality occurred in two Pola-R-CHP and three R-CHOEP patients. CNS relapses were noted in two Pola-R-CHP and three R-CHOEP patients.

## DISCUSSION

Young high-risk (aalPI 2–3) DLBCL patients remain difficult to treat although some improvement is noted with DA-EPOCH-R for IPI 3–5 patients and ibrutinib plus R-CHOP for younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL. A retrospective comparison of Pola-R-CHP from the POLARIX study and R-CHOEP from the R-MegaCHOEP trial shows comparable efficacy in terms of 2-year PFS and OS, though R-CHOEP has more associated toxicities. OS was particularly encouraging for patients with aalPI 2 comprising about three quarters of all young high-risk patients treated with Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOEP [7, 8]. The remaining patients with aalPI 3 showed promising efficacy, favoring Pola-R-CHP. Despite small patient numbers, which preclude further interpretation, an observed 13% difference in 2-year PFS and a 23% difference in OS both favoring Pola-R-CHP in the aalPI 3 population was notable. A limitation of these comparisons was that PFS of patients treated with Pola-R-CHP was evaluated by PET while patients treated with R-CHOEP had CT scans only.

While efficacy was comparable between Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOEP we detected differences in acute toxicities. Patients with R-CHOEP experienced more cytopenias, infections and sensory neuropathies compared with patients treated with Pola-R-CHP. The less frequent acute toxicities underscore Pola-R-CHP as the regimen with a superior risk profile in this young high-risk population.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Survival of DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOEP or Pola-R-CHP respectively. Kaplan–Meier estimates of PFS (A) and OS (B). PFS at 2 years was 72.4% (95.0% CI 62.9%–81.8%) after R-CHOEP and 74.8% (95.0% CI 66.5%–83.0%) after Pola-R-CHP, respectively. The OS at 2 years was 81.7% (95.0% CI 73.6%–89.8%) after R-CHOEP and 88.3% (95.0% CI 82.3%–94.3%) after Pola-R-CHP. CI confidence interval, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival.</figcaption></figure>

As the data arose from two randomized clinical trials with similar inclusion and exclusion criteria, the baseline characteristics and patient populations across the two studies are similar; therefore, propensity score matching was not performed for the cross-trial comparison. POLARIX and R-MegaCHOEP recruited patients during distinct epochs more than 10 years apart (2017–2019 and 2003–2009, respectively). Although the supportive care accompanying both regimens included the administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, other prophylactic measures differed over time, and we cannot exclude that such differences influenced treatment-related morbidity and mortality. Recent therapeutic options including bispecific antibodies and
chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy may have impacted OS in the more recently treated patients.

In conclusion, treatment outcomes of young, high-risk DLBCL patients were generally excellent with both R-CHOEP and Pola-R-CHP. Differences were not identified although Pola-R-CHP gave a promising signal in patients with aalPI 3. Furthermore, the Pola-R-CHP regimen had a more favorable acute toxicity profile. The remaining few patients will hopefully benefit from targeted or immunotherapeutic approaches. To this end, the results of prospective studies incorporating novel substances and treatment modalities are eagerly awaited.

## DATA AVAILABILITY

Data availability statement: For eligible studies, qualified researchers may request access to individual patient-level clinical data through the clinical study data request platform. At the time of writing this request, the platform is Vivli (https://vivli.org/ourmember/roche/). For up-to-date details on Roche's Global Policy on the Sharing of Clinical Information and how to request access to related clinical study documents, see here: https://go.roche.com/data_sharing. Anonymized records for individual patients across more than one data source external to Roche cannot, and should not, be linked due to a potential increase in risk of patient re-identification.

## REFERENCES

1. Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, Herbrecht R, Tilly H, Bouabdallah R, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:235-42.

2. Cunningham D, Hawkes EA, Jack A, Qian W, Smith P, Mouncey P, 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;381:1817-26.

3. Pfreundschuh M, Poeschel V, Zeynalova S, Hanel M, Held G, Schmitz N, et al. Optimization of rituximab for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (II): extended rituximab exposure time in the SMARTER-R-CHOP-14 trial of the German high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma study group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:4127-33.

4. Friedrichs B, Nickelsen M, Ziepert M, Altmann B, Haenel M, Viardot A, et al. Doubling rituximab in high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma -results of the DENSE-R-MegaCHOEP trial. Brit J Haematol. 2019;184:760-68.

5. Lugtenburg PJ, de Nully Brown P, van der Holt B, D'Amore FA, Koene HR, de Jongh E, et al. Rituximab-CHOP with early rituximab intensification for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a randomized phase III trial of the HOVON and the nordic lymphoma group (HOVON-84). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3377-87.

6. Vitolo U, Trneny M, Belada D, Burke JM, Carella AM, Chua N, et al. Obinutuzumab or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3529-37.

7. Schmitz N, Nickelsen M, Ziepert M, Haenel M, Borchmann P, Schmidt C, 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;12:1250-59.

8. Bartlett NL, Wilson WH, Jung SH, Hsi ED, Maurer MJ, Pederson LD, 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;37:1790-99.

9. Younes A, Sehn LH, Johnson P, Zinzani PL, Hong X, Zhu J, et al. Randomized phase III trial of ibritumomab and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone in non-germinal center B-cell diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1285-95.

10. Davies A, Cummin TE, Barrans S, Maishman T, Mamot C, Novak U, et al. Gene-expression profiling of bortezomib added to standard chemoimmunotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (REMoDL-B): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:649-62.

11. Nowakowski GS, Chiappella A, Gascoyne RD, Scott DW, Zhang Q, Jurczak W, et al. ROBUST: a phase III study of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP versus placebo plus R-CHOP in previously untreated patients with ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1317-28.

12. Tilly H, Morschhauser F, Sehn LH, Friedberg JW, Trněný M, Sharman JP, et al. Polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:351-63.

13. Frontzek F, Ziepert M, Nickelsen M, Altmann B, Glass B, Haenel M, et al. Rituximab plus high-dose chemotherapy (MegaCHOEP) or conventional chemotherapy (CHOEP-14) in young, high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma: 10-year follow-up of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2021;8:e267-77.

14. Holte H, Leppa S, Bjorkholm M, Fluge O, Jyrkkio S, Delabie J, et al. Dose-densified chemoimmunotherapy followed by systemic central nervous system prophylaxis for younger high-risk diffuse large B-cell/follicular grade 3 lymphoma patients: results of a phase II Nordic Lymphoma Group study. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1385-92.

15. Leppa S, Jorgensen J, Tierens A, Meriranta L, Ostlie I, de Nully Brown P, et al. Patients with high-risk DLBCL benefit from dose-dense immunochemotherapy combined with early systemic CNS prophylaxis. Blood Adv. 2020;4:1906-15.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The POLARIX study (NCT03274492) was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech, Inc. Third-party editorial assistance, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Rachel Bell, PhD, of Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company, and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

GL, CL, JH and NS conceived the study design; MZ, BA, CL, JH, DS, SC, CLB and MY performed data analysis; MZ, BA, DS, SC, and MY curated the data; GL, CL, JH, DS, SC, CLB, MY and NS wrote the original draft of the manuscript; all authors reviewed and edited the subsequent manuscript drafts.

## FUNDING

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

## COMPETING INTERESTS

GL received research grants not related to this manuscript from AGIOS, AQUINOX, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, MorphoSys, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, and Verastem. GL received honoraria from ADC Therapeutics, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Constellation, Genase, Genmab, Gilead, Hexal/Sandoz, Immagene, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Lilly, Miltenyi, MorphoSys, MSD, NanoString, Novartis, PentixaPharm, Pierre Fabre, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, and Sobi.

## ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

**Supplementary information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-024-02420-6.

**Correspondence** and requests for materials should be addressed to Georg Lenz.

**Reprints and permission information** is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints

**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

© The Author(s) 2024