![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Forty-nine patients, t(11;18)-positive (n = 31) and t(11;18)-negative (n = 18), were treated without randomization with rituximab–chlorambucil or rituximab alone. Evaluation was performed at week (W) 6, week (W) 25 and every 6 months (Wx). Comparing the rituximab–chlorambucil group to the rituximab-alone group, remission was obtained in 93% vs. 66% at W6 (p = 0.01), in 93% vs. 81% at W25 (p = 0.14) and in 93% vs. 76% at Wx (p = 0.07). Comparing the rituximab–chlorambucil group to the rituximab-alone group in t(11;18)-positive patients, remission was obtained in 100% vs. 45% at W6 (p = 0.0005), in 100% vs. 66% at W25 (p = 0.01) and in 96% vs. 55% at Wx (p = 0.01). Comparing the rituximab–chlorambucil group to the rituximab-alone group in t(11;18)-negative patients, remission was obtained in 66% vs. 83% at W6 (p = 0.32), in 66% vs. 92% at W25 (p = 0.22) and in 83% vs. 92% at Wx (p = 0.47). In conclusion, rituximab–chlorambucil is significantly more rapidly efficient than rituximab alone. In t(11;18)-positive patients, the combination is more efficient than rituximab alone. In t(11;18)-negative patients, rituximab alone is as efficient as rituximab–chlorambucil and may be an alternative treatment.
Keywords::
Potential conflict of interest
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at www.informahealthcare.com/lal.