PURPOSE: Rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone administered every 3 weeks (R-CHOP-21) is the standard care for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). It is unknown whether the dose-dense R-CHOP (R-CHOP-14) could improve the outcome of the disease in Asian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed DLBCL patients were centrally, randomly assigned (1:1) to receive R-CHOP-14 or R-CHOP-21. R-CHOP-14 was administered every 2 weeks, and R-CHOP-21 was administered every 3 weeks. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate and toxicities. RESULTS: Seven hundred and two patients were randomly assigned to receive R-CHOP-14 (n=349) or R-CHOP-21 (n=353). With a median follow-up of 45.6 months, the two groups did not differ significantly in 3-year DFS (79.6% for R-CHOP-14 vs. 83.2% for R-CHOP-21, p=0.311), 3-year OS (77.5% for R-CHOP-14 vs. 77.6% for R-CHOP-21, p=0.903), or 3-year PFS (63.2% for R-CHOP-14 vs. 66.1% for R-CHOP-21, p=0.447). Patients with an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score ≥ 2 had a poorer prognosis compared to those with an IPI score < 2. Grade 3/4 hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities were manageable and similar between R-CHOP-14 and R-CHOP-21. CONCLUSION: R-CHOP-14 did not improve the outcome of DLBCL compared to R-CHOP-21 in Asian population. With manageable and similar toxicities, both of the two regimens were suitable for Asian DLBCL patients. For high-risk patients with IPI ≥ 2, new combination regimens based on R-CHOP deserve further investigation to improve efficacy.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; B-Lymphocytes ; Cyclophosphamide ; Disease-Free Survival ; Doxorubicin ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Lymphoma, B-Cell ; Prednisone ; Prognosis ; Rituximab ; Vincristine

Purpose: This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the clinical efficacy of chemotherapy or endocrine therapy maintenance in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Materials and Methods: The meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and propensity score matching of multicenter cohort study evaluated MBC patients who underwent first-line chemotherapy or endocrine therapy maintenance. This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42017071858 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04258163. Results: A total of 2,867 patients from 15 RCTs and 760 patients from multicenter cohort were included. The results from meta-analysis showed that chemotherapy maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.73; p < 0.001; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.87; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97; p=0.016; high-quality evidence) than observation. In the cohort study, for hormone receptor–positive MBC patients, chemotherapy maintenance improved PFS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.85; p < 0.001) and OS (HR, 0.55; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; p < 0.001) compared with observation, and endocrine therapy maintenance also improved PFS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; p < 0.001) and OS (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.69; p < 0.001). There were no differences between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy maintenance in PFS and OS (all p > 0.05). Regardless of the continuum or switch maintenance therapy, showed prolonged survival in MBC patients who were response to first-line treatment. Conclusion This study provided evidences for survival benefits of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy maintenance in MBC patients, and there was no difference efficacy between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy maintenance for hormone receptor–positive patients.