No abstract available.
Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Rituximab ; Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia

No abstract available.
Lymphoma

BACKGROUND: Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare subtype of indolent B-cell lymphoma, and prospective randomized studies on WM are scarce. The R-CHOP therapy [rituximab (R), cyclophosphamide, hydroxy-doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone] is a popular and recommended regimen for primary therapy, prescribed by several treatment guidelines for WM. However, treatment with R-CHOP is accompanied by severe myelosuppression and high rates of peripheral neuropathy. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of half-dose CHOP combined with R as a primary therapy for WM. METHODS: Patients with untreated symptomatic WM, treated at the Disaster Medical Center between April 2011 and September 2016, were retrospectively analyzed after administration of 6 cycles of half-dose R-CHOP for every 3 weeks. The response, median time to response, best response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicities were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 20 WM patients analyzed, 16 (80%) received half-dose R-CHOP without vincristine, and 13 (65%) responded to the treatment. With a median follow-up duration of 26.3 months, the 2-year progression-free survival and 2-year overall survival rates were 70 and 93.3%, respectively. The median time to response and best response were 6 and 9.9 weeks, respectively. Grade 3/4 leukocytopenia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and Grade 1 peripheral neuropathy developed in 32, 37, 0, and 21% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The half-dose R-CHOP is an effective and well-tolerated primary therapy for WM. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study reporting the use of a reduced-dose R-CHOP regimen for the primary treatment of WM.
Cyclophosphamide ; Disasters ; Disease-Free Survival ; Febrile Neutropenia ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Leukopenia ; Lymphoma, B-Cell ; Neutropenia ; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Rituximab* ; Survival Rate ; Vincristine ; Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia*

Objective: This study compared the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin plus bevacizumab (ddTC+Bev) with ddTC for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 134 patients who received ddTC+Bev or ddTC as first-line chemotherapy for stage III–IV ovarian cancer. Progressionfree survival as primary endpoint of this study was compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to analyze prognostic factors, and the frequency of adverse events was examined using the χ 2 test. Results: We categorized 134 patients in the ddTC+Bev (n=57) and ddTC (n=77) groups who started treatment at four related institutions from November 2013 to December 2017.No patients used poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as the first line maintenance therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) of the ddTC+Bev group had a significantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (hazard ratio [HR]=0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.32–0.79; p<0.003). Multivariate analysis showed that ddTC+Bev regimen was a prognostic factor. However, intergroup comparison using PSM revealed that the PFS of the ddTC+Bev group had a nonsignificantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (HR=0.70; 95% CI=0.41–1.20; p=0.189). Few adverse events above G3 were noted for ddTC+Bev, which were sufficiently tolerable. Conclusion This study could not demonstrate that adding Bev to ddTC improves prognosis.Further studies with more cases are warranted.

Objective: This study compared the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin plus bevacizumab (ddTC+Bev) with ddTC for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 134 patients who received ddTC+Bev or ddTC as first-line chemotherapy for stage III–IV ovarian cancer. Progressionfree survival as primary endpoint of this study was compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to analyze prognostic factors, and the frequency of adverse events was examined using the χ 2 test. Results: We categorized 134 patients in the ddTC+Bev (n=57) and ddTC (n=77) groups who started treatment at four related institutions from November 2013 to December 2017.No patients used poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as the first line maintenance therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) of the ddTC+Bev group had a significantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (hazard ratio [HR]=0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.32–0.79; p<0.003). Multivariate analysis showed that ddTC+Bev regimen was a prognostic factor. However, intergroup comparison using PSM revealed that the PFS of the ddTC+Bev group had a nonsignificantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (HR=0.70; 95% CI=0.41–1.20; p=0.189). Few adverse events above G3 were noted for ddTC+Bev, which were sufficiently tolerable. Conclusion This study could not demonstrate that adding Bev to ddTC improves prognosis.Further studies with more cases are warranted.

Objective: This study compared the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin plus bevacizumab (ddTC+Bev) with ddTC for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 134 patients who received ddTC+Bev or ddTC as first-line chemotherapy for stage III–IV ovarian cancer. Progressionfree survival as primary endpoint of this study was compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to analyze prognostic factors, and the frequency of adverse events was examined using the χ 2 test. Results: We categorized 134 patients in the ddTC+Bev (n=57) and ddTC (n=77) groups who started treatment at four related institutions from November 2013 to December 2017.No patients used poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as the first line maintenance therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) of the ddTC+Bev group had a significantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (hazard ratio [HR]=0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.32–0.79; p<0.003). Multivariate analysis showed that ddTC+Bev regimen was a prognostic factor. However, intergroup comparison using PSM revealed that the PFS of the ddTC+Bev group had a nonsignificantly better prognosis than that of the ddTC group (HR=0.70; 95% CI=0.41–1.20; p=0.189). Few adverse events above G3 were noted for ddTC+Bev, which were sufficiently tolerable. Conclusion This study could not demonstrate that adding Bev to ddTC improves prognosis.Further studies with more cases are warranted.