Results of the randomized phase IIB ARCTIC trial of low-dose rituximab in previously untreated CLL

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. ARCTIC was a multicenter, randomized-controlled, open, phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Conventional frontline therapy in fit patients is fludarabine, cycloph...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Leukemia
Main Authors: Howard, D. R., Munir, T., McParland, L., Rawstron, A. C., Milligan, D., Schuh, A., Hockaday, A., Allsup, D. J., Marshall, S., Duncombe, A. S., Smith, A. F., Longo, R., Varghese, A., Hillmen, P., O'Dwyer, J. L.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: Nature Publishing Group 2017
Subjects:
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Cancer Research
Hematology
Health and Health Inequalities
Arctic
Online Access:https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/file/746715/1/Article
https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/746715
https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2017.96
Description
Summary:© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. ARCTIC was a multicenter, randomized-controlled, open, phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Conventional frontline therapy in fit patients is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). The trial hypothesized that including mitoxantrone with low-dose rituximab (FCM-miniR) would be non-inferior to FCR. A total of 200 patients were recruited to assess the primary end point of complete remission (CR) rates according to IWCLL criteria. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, safety and cost-effectiveness. The trial closed following a pre-planned interim analysis. At final analysis, CR rates were 76 FCR vs 55% FCM-miniR (adjusted odds ratio: 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.73). MRD-negativity rates were 54 FCR vs 44% FCM-miniR. More participants experienced serious adverse reactions with FCM-miniR (49%) compared to FCR (41%). There are no significant differences between the treatment groups for PFS and OS. FCM-miniR is not expected to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon. In summary, FCM-miniR is less well tolerated than FCR with an inferior response and MRD-negativity rate and increased toxicity, and will not be taken forward into a confirmatory trial. The trial demonstrated that oral FCR yields high response rates compared to historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.

Similar Items