data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d76e8/d76e853bb06cb7dead752c56b8d64f88799f3281" alt=""
“An improved disease response was seen in 22% of rituximab-treated patients versus just 7% of control subjects....
Three-year progression-free survival was also higher in the rituximab group: 68% vs. 33% in controls. In the subgroup of 282 patients with follicular lymphoma, the corresponding rates were 64% and 33%. Higher overall survival rates were seen in the rituximab group as well, although the differences fell short of statistical significance....
‘Observations from this study inform the design of future studies and add to a substantial body of evidence that the combination of rituximab with chemotherapy is a new standard for patients with indolent lymphoma who require treatment,’ the authors conclude.”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/92844/92844cac8362aa27728d35029839f29c67a3e58a" alt=""
Well, now the jury has filed back into the courtroom and delivered their verdict: maintenance Rituxan does work – at least for indolent NHL patients who have had the CVP chemo regimen (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone). The researchers didn’t focus on patients who’ve had the CHOP chemo cocktail, rather than CVP – although, since vincristine and prednisone are two out of the four drugs in CHOP, I would think there’s a pretty good chance maintenance Rituxan would have improved my long-term prognosis, as well.
This raises a lot of unanswered – and probably unanswerable – questions for me. Chief among them is, if I had received maintenance Rituxan, would my remission have lasted longer than it did?
Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. I’m not going to run off and ask Dr. Lerner about maintenance Rituxan now, but it does give me something to think about. Maybe I'll ask him what he thinks of this article, next time I see him...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b7c44/b7c440d7d4ce5dcb2ed743736de569276a28f6d3" alt=""