Meta Analysis of Grade 3 and/or 4 Toxicities in Low-Grade Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (LG-NHL) Patients Receiving Maintenance Rituximab (MR) Therapy: Impact of Schedule on Toxicity
Authors: Nabhan Chadi , Villines Dana , Valdez Tina V. , Ghielmini Michele , Schmitz Shu-Fang Hsu , Smith Sonali M. 
Published: October 2019

Abstract 2704

Background:

MR has improved the outcome and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) in front-line and relapsed settings. However, maintenance schedules have been empirically designed based on either B-cell depletion kinetics or rituximab levels, with no consensus on the optimal regimen. Overall, toxicities have been predictable and tolerable but the impact of MR schedule on toxicities has not been previously reported and could influence selection of maintenance regimens.

Methods:

Using PubMed, prospective clinical trials employing MR were identified. Data presented in abstract form or at meetings were deemed incomplete and thus excluded. Data were analyzed from published manuscripts as percentages of subjects experiencing an adverse event (AE). Percentages were considered as the unit of analysis as this adjusted for the uneven sample sizes. Data were collected for overall Grade 3 and/or Grade 4 toxicity (AE reported at any phase of treatment) and was further categorized as AE occurring during initial treatment or during MR. Grade 1 and 2 toxicities were excluded from meta-analysis, given lack of consistent reporting. No grade 5 toxicities were reported. The incidence, severity, and type of toxicity was analyzed by type of induction (Rituximab (R) vs. R plus chemotherapy), histology (FL vs. FL plus other LG-NHL), setting (front-line vs. relapsed), and MR schedule (one dose every 2 months vs. one dose every 3 months vs. 4 doses every 6 months).

Results:

Nine clinical trials involving 1,928 patients were included in this Meta analysis (4 of which were randomized controlled in the MR phase). Of those, 1,004 patients received MR. The mean percentage of Grade 3/4 toxicities during any phase of treatment was 26% (95% CI = 0.12–51.88) but when restricted to the MR phase; it was 12.88% (95% CI = 6.50–19.26). Toxicities were numerically higher in patients receiving R induction plus chemotherapy versus R induction alone and in patients receiving MR for relapsed disease versus newly diagnosed patients, but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.661 and 0.517, respectively). However, patients receiving MR every 2 months were significantly more likely to develop grade 3 and 4 toxicities compared to patients receiving MR every 6 months (P = 0.005). No statistical differences were demonstrated between the 2 vs. 3 months schedules or when comparing the 3 vs. 6 months schedules (P = 0.342 and 0.267, respectively) (Table 1). Statistically significant differences were also found in studies restricted to FL versus others allowing non-FL histologies (P = 0.025) with the FL patients experiencing more toxicity than others. The most frequently reported toxicities were neutropenia and infections. There were no treatment-related deaths in any of the arms.

Conclusions:

Approximately 13% of patients receiving MR experience grade 3 and/or 4 toxicities, mainly consisting of neutropenia and infections. MR given every 6 months appears to provide the least grade 3 and 4 toxicities. There is a suggestion of increased toxicity in FL histologies. It is important to note that this meta-analysis did not address efficacy and only a true comparative trial can definitively establish the relative risk/benefit ratios amongst MR schedules.

Disclosures:

Nabhan: Genentech: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ghielmini:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Smith:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.