patients à risque

Post on 12-Jan-2016

23 Views

Category:

Documents

1 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

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

TRANSCRIPT

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.

top related