View
23
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
1,0. 0,8. 0,6. 0,4. 0,2. 0. 0. 6. 12. 18. 24. 30. 36. 42. 48. 54. 60. –. 84. 17. 0. 505. 472. 445. 423. 404. 307. 207. 70. 16. 0. –. 367. 334. 247. 161. 513. 469. 415. Etude PRIMA. NB: Data differ slightly from published abstract. 74,9 %. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Patients à risque505513
472 445 423 307 207 17469 415 367 247 161 16
00
404334
8470
––
RituximabObservation
HR = 0,55IC95 : 0,44-0,68p < 0,001
Mois
Su
rvie
san
s p
rog
ress
ion
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
1,0
60 12 24 30 42 48 6018 36 54
Observation
Rituximab maintenance
NB: Data differ slightly from published abstract
74,9 %
57,5 %
Salles GA et al. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:abstr. 8004.
Etude PRIMA
PRIMA Update: Consistent benefitacross subgroups
Favours maintenance Favours observation
Hazard ratio (HR)Subgroup
All
R-CHOPR-CVPR-FCM
CR/CRuPR
< 60≥ 60
FLIPl = 2FLIPl < 1
FLIPl > 3
FemaleMale
Category
All
Induction Chemotherapy
Response to Induction
Age
FLIPl Index
Sex
0 1 2 3
IC 95%
0,44–0,68
0,39–0,650,45–1,020,13–2,24
0,44–0,740,32–0,72
0,37–0,650,47–0,94
0,21–0,720,30–0,640,51–0,92
0,45–0,870,36–0,64
n
1018
768
28222
720291
624394
216
431370
485533
HR *
0,55
0,51
0,540,68
0,570,48
0,490,67
0,39
0,680,44
0,630,48
* Non-stratified analysis.Salles GA et al. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:abstr. 8004.
PRIMA: Conversion from PR to CR was higher with MabThera maintenance vs observation
After inductionAfter maintenance:PR patients only
CR/CRu PR PD Missing
Randomised toMabTheramaintenance
Randomised toobservation
n = 360 n = 139
n = 360 n = 152
51.8%
24.5%
18.0%
5.8%
29.6%
27.0%
38.2%
5.3%
Salles GA et al. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:abstr. 8004.
Recommended