Induction Chemotherapy (R-CHOP Vs. R-FC) Followed by Interferon Maintenance Versus Rituximab Maintenance in MCL (MCLelderly)
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00209209|
Recruitment Status : Active, not recruiting
First Posted : September 21, 2005
Last Update Posted : March 7, 2017
The aim of this study is to answer the following independent questions in the treatment of mantle cell lymphomas:
- Can rituximab-fludarabine, cyclophosphamide (R-FC) improve the reduction of lymphoma mass compared to rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (R-CHOP) and so become a new standard for initial cytoreductive therapy?
- Can maintenance with rituximab substitute the interferon maintenance and even improve the progression free survival in patients after successful initial cytoreductive therapy?
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Lymphoma, Mantle-Cell||Drug: Rituximab Drug: Cyclophosphamide Drug: Doxorubicin Drug: Vincristine Drug: Prednisone Drug: Fludarabine Drug: Interferon-alpha Drug: pegylated formula Interferon-alpha 2b Procedure: chemotherapy: R-CHOP Procedure: chemotherapy: R-FC Procedure: Interferon maintenance Procedure: Rituximab maintenance||Phase 3|
This study investigates two independent questions in the treatment of elderly patients with mantle cell lymphomas:
- To test in elderly patients with advanced mantle cell lymphoma, whether rituximab plus a combination of fludarabine with cyclophosphamide (6 FC cycles) results in a higher reduction of lymphoma mass measured by the percentage of CR than rituximab combined with the standard chemotherapy scheme (8 CHOP cycles).
- To compare maintenance therapy with rituximab with maintenance with interferon-alpha or pegylated interferon for progression free survival, after 2 different regimens of induction chemo-immunotherapy in elderly patients with mantle cell lymphoma.
This study will be performed as a prospective, randomized, open-label multicenter phase III trial. All patients will be randomized for an initial cytoreductive therapy with R-FC or R-CHOP.
The parameter for the comparison of R-FC and R-CHOP will be the percentage of complete remissions after initial cytoreductive therapy. According to the known results of R-FC and R-CHOP in lymphoma therapy, a relevant difference between R-CHOP and R-FC in the overall response rates is not expected. For both therapies an overall response rate of about 90% is expected. Since it is well known that the prognosis of patients who do not reach at least a PR in the initial therapy is very poor, it will be also necessary to control this parameter during the study. If an unexpected relevant difference in the overall response rates is observed during the study, the initial randomisation should be stopped and all patients should be assigned to the superior therapy. In this case the CR rates will not be important for the choice of the initial therapy. If no relevant differences in the overall response rates are observed, a one sided Fisher test will be performed at the end of the recruitment to test whether the rate of CR's after R-FC is significantly improved compared to R-CHOP.
The statistical parameters for controlling the overall response rates and for testing the CR rates are chosen in the following way: The working significance level for all statistical evaluations in this part of the study will be set to alpha=0.05. The expected CR rate after R-CHOP is according to the observations about 50%; a clinical relevant improvement by R-FC would be a CR rate of 65%. Such an improvement should be detected by the one sided Fisher test with a power of about 95%. According to these parameters about 246 observations for each treatment would be necessary. To control the overall response rates, a difference of 85% to 95% will be clinically so relevant that initial randomisation should be terminated with a probability of about 95%. Overall response rates will be controlled by a restricted sequential procedure.
Patients achieving at least a partial remission after R-FC or R-CHOP will be randomised for interferon maintenance versus rituximab maintenance in order to evaluate the impact of maintenance therapy in progression free survival.
The improvement expected by the new maintenance with rituximab for progression free survival can be expressed by reduction of relative risk (rr). Since a risk reduction to 60% was observed for indolent lymphomas by interferon maintenance, this seems to be a clinical relevant improvement for the new maintenance therapy. For a working significance level alpha=0.05 and a power of 95% the number of events (relapse or death) necessary for a two sided fixed sample trial is about 200. During this study the progression free survival in patients after successful initial therapy will be monitored by an equivalent restricted sequential procedure with a maximum number of 240 observation.
In order to evaluate the impact of initial therapy and maintenance therapy on overall survival in this patients, a total follow up of about 15 years for this study is expected.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Estimated Enrollment :||570 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Efficacy of Maintenance Therapy With Rituximab After Induction Chemotherapy (R-CHOP vs. R-FC) for Elderly Patients With Mantle Cell Lymphoma Not Suitable for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation|
|Actual Study Start Date :||January 14, 2004|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||December 2018|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||December 2018|
Active Comparator: 1
cytokineDrug: pegylated formula Interferon-alpha 2b
cytokineProcedure: chemotherapy: R-CHOP
immuno-chemotherapyProcedure: Interferon maintenance
chemotherapyProcedure: chemotherapy: R-FC
immuno-chemotherapyProcedure: Rituximab maintenance
- First randomisation: Reduction of lymphoma mass measured by the complete remission (CR) rate
- Second randomisation: progression-free survival after end of initial chemotherapy
- Survival after registration / first randomisation / second randomisation
- Survival after start / end of initial therapy
- Time to treatment failure after start of initial therapy
- Progression free survival after registration / first randomisation / second randomisation
- Side-effects of initial therapy
- Side-effects of maintenance therapy
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00209209
|General University Hospital, 1St Department of Medicine|
|Praha, Czech Republic, CZ-12808|
|Nordic Lymphoma Group|
|Copenhagen, Denmark, DK-2100|
|Groupe D´Etudes des Lymphomes De l´Adulte (GELA)|
|Paris, France, F-75743|
|German Low Grade Study Group (Glsg)|
|Munich, Germany, D-81377|
|Ospedale Ferratotto, Divisione Di Ematologia|
|Catania, Italy, I-95124|
|HOVON - Dutch Haemato-Oncology Association (HOVON-Datacenter)|
|Rotterdam, Netherlands, NL-3008 AE|
|The Maria Sklodowska Memorial, Cancer Center - Inst. of Oncology|
|Warszawa, Poland, PL-02-781|
|Principal Investigator:||Hanneke C. Kluin-Nelemans, PhD||University Hospital Groningen, Dept. of Hematology|
|Study Chair:||Martin Dreyling, PhD||University Hospital Grosshadern/LMU, Dept. of Medicine III|