Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 112, No. 11 ( 2008-11-16), p. 2091-2091
    Abstract: Introduction: Bendamustine is a purine analog/alkylator hybrid agent with a unique mechanism of action, which has shown good clinical efficacy and acceptable tolerability in various hematological malignancies, including Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Patients and Methods: The efficacy and safety of bendamustine and chlorambucil have been compared in a randomized, open-label, multicenter, Phase III trial in patients with previously untreated advanced (Binet stage B/C) B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia: an updated analysis from this trial is presented here. Patients were randomized to receive bendamustine (100 mg/m2 on days 1 + 2) or chlorambucil (0.8 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) for up to 6 treatment cycles. The median cumulative dose per patient was 1820 mg and 517 mg for bendamustine and chlorambucil, respectively. The primary endpoints were overall remission rate (ORR), which was defined as complete response, nodular partial response or partial response, and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. The response to treatment was evaluated by a blinded Independent Response Assessment Committee. Results: A total of 319 patients were randomized (162 bendamustine, 157 chlorambucil), of whom all were included in the efficacy analysis and 312 were evaluable for safety. The mean (± SD) number of treatment cycles was 4.8 ± 1.7 in the bendamustine group and 4.6 ± 1.7 in the chlorambucil group; the median duration of follow-up was 29.2 months (29.8 bendamustine, 27.8 chlorambucil). The ORR was significantly higher with bendamustine than with chlorambucil (67% versus 30%, P & lt;0.0001). The median PFS was 21.5 months with bendamustine and 8.3 months with chlorambucil (P & lt;0.0001). No difference in OS was seen between groups. Most doses were given on schedule. The mean overall relative dose intensity was 86% and 96% in the bendamustine and chlorambucil treatment groups, respectively. At least 1 grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 43% of bendamustine-treated patients and 21% of those receiving chlorambucil. Grade 3/4 infections were documented in 7% of bendamustine-treated patients and 4% of chlorambucil-treated patients. Conclusion: This study has shown that bendamustine offers significantly greater efficacy than chlorambucil, with manageable toxicity, and should be considered as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced B-CLL.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2008
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 110, No. 11 ( 2007-11-16), p. 2043-2043
    Abstract: Introduction: Bendamustine (BEN) is a purine analog / alkylator hybrid agent with a particular mechanisms of action that provides effective treatment for a number of hematologic and non-hematologic malignancies. It is used primarily for chemo-naïve, relapsed or refractory B-CLL as well as for other types of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. The aim of this randomized phase III, open-label, multicenter study was to compare the efficacy and safety of BEN versus chlorambucil (CLB) in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with B-CLL Binet stage B/C. Patients and Methods: Pts with untreated B-CLL were randomized to receive BEN (100 mg/m2 on days 1+2) or CLB (0.8 mg/kg on days 1+15) for up to 6 treatment cycles. Primary endpoints were overall remission rate (ORR), defined as complete response (CR), nodular partial response (nPR) and partial response (PR), confirmed after 8 weeks, and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were duration of remission, overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). Follow-up was for ≥12 months after completion of treatment of the last patient, or until progression for pts with CR, nPR or PR and stable disease, or until death or lost to follow-up. A 5-stage, adaptive-group, sequential procedure was used with planned interim analyses to adjust the number of pts. Safety and efficacy were assessed by an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. Results: 305 pts were randomized to receive BEN (n=156) or CLB (n=149). As 7 pts did not receive study medication, 298 pts were included in the safety analysis. At the time of this analysis, 264 pts (139 BEN; 125 CLB) were available for the efficacy analysis. For both treatment groups: median age was 64 years; 70% had Binet stage B and 30% Binet stage C disease; median number of cycles/patient was 6; median follow-up was 18.5 months. ORR was significantly higher with BEN than with CLB (68% vs 39%; p & lt;0.0001), with a CR of 30% vs 2%, respectively. Among the subgroups with Binet stage B and C disease, ORR was 70% and 61%, respectively, with BEN, vs 47% and 22%, respectively, with CLB. Median PFS (Kaplan-Meier estimate) was 21.7 months with BEN and 9.3 months with CLB (p & lt;0.0001), and median duration of remission was 18.9 months with BEN and 6.1 months with CLB (p & lt;0.0001). No difference in OS was seen between groups. Toxicity of BEN was manageable and did not impair QoL when compared with CLB. Infection rates (common toxicity criteria grades III+IV) were low in both groups (5.8% BEN; 3.5% CLB). Conclusions: BEN was significantly more effective than CLB in achieving remissions in treatment-naïve pts with B-CLL Binet stage B/C; median PFS and duration of remission were also significantly longer. Furthermore, safety data indicate that BEN toxicities are manageable and the drug is well tolerated. On the basis of these results, BEN should be considered as first-line chemotherapy for patients with B-CLL Binet stage B or C.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2007
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 116, No. 21 ( 2010-11-19), p. 2449-2449
    Abstract: Abstract 2449 Introduction: Bendamustine (BEN), either alone or in combination with Rituximab, is increasingly used in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and various types of low grade Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL). The approval to treat CLL with BEN is based on a prospectively randomized trial (Knauf et al., J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 4378–4384) comparing single drug BEN with chlorambucil (CLB). Here, we report on follow-up data of this pivotal trial with specific reference to survival times, time to next treatment, and efficacy of second line regimens. Since CLL is a disease of the elderly and potentially co-morbid patients, we also analyzed quality of life (QoL) parameters in relation to the treatment with both BEN and CLB. Patients and Methods: The efficacy and safety of BEN and CLB have been compared in a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial in patients with previously untreated advanced (Binet stage B/C) CLL. Patients were randomized to receive either BEN (100 mg/m2 on days 1 + 2) or CLB (0.8 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) for up to 6 treatment cycles. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), which was defined as complete (CR) or partial response (PR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), and QoL. The latter was analyzed by using both the EORTC questionnaires QLQ C30 and QLQ-CLL25. We also looked at time to next treatment and efficacy of second line regimens. The response to treatment was evaluated by a blinded Independent Response Assessment Committee. Results: A total of 319 patients were randomized (162 BEN and 157 CLB), all of whom were included in the efficacy analysis, while 308 patients were evaluable for QoL analysis (158 BEN and 150 CLB). Median age was 64 years (range 35 to 78). The mean number of treatment cycles was 5 in both study arms, regardless of an age above or below 65 years. The median observation time was 54 months. ORR was significantly higher with BEN than with CLB (68% versus 31%, P 〈 0.0001). A CR was achieved in 31% of pts with BEN and in 2% of pts with CLB (P 〈 0.0001). In the intent to treat (ITT) population, the median PFS was 21.2 months with BEN and 8.8 months with CLB (P 〈 0.0001). Sixty-three patients in the BEN treated group and 35 in the CLB treated group had not received any second line therapy (P 〈 0.001) at the time of this analysis. The median time to next treatment in the ITT population was 31.5 months with BEN and 10.1 months with CLB (P 〈 0.0001). ORR after second line therapy of any type was 35.4% in the BEN first line arm and 45.9% in the CLB first line arm (P=0.131). So far, there is no difference in OS (P = 0.24; hazard ratio = 1.3 in favour of BEN) in the ITT population. However, patients achieving a CR (almost exclusively after BEN) experienced a longer OS than pts not in CR (median not reached versus 76.2 months; P=0.002). Also, pts with any response (CR + PR) either after BEN or CLB had a longer OS than the non-responders (median not reached versus 68.3 months; P 〈 0.0001). Base line scores regarding QoL parameters showed no difference between the groups. After completion of study treatment (mean 5 cycles administered), no differences became evident with respect to physical, social, emotional, and cognitive functioning. The self assessment of the global health status also revealed no difference. Conclusion: This study has shown that BEN offers significantly greater response rates, PFS, and a much longer time to next treatment than CLB. OS is prolonged significantly in all responders and especially in those patients who achieve CR after BEN. In comparison to CLB, the additional efficacy of BEN was achieved without compromising QoL. BEN should be considered as a backbone drug in first-line chemotherapy of patients with advanced CLL. Disclosures: Knauf: Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Klein: Mundipharma: Honoraria. Merkle: Mundipharma: Honoraria.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2010
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 114, No. 22 ( 2009-11-20), p. 2367-2367
    Abstract: Abstract 2367 Poster Board II-344 Introduction: Bendamustine is a purine analog/alkylator hybrid agent with a unique mechanism of action, which has shown good clinical efficacy and acceptable tolerability in various hematological malignancies. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a disease of the elderly, and presents with a variety of clinical characteristics which influence the prognosis. We analyzed tolerability and efficacy of bendamustine (BEN) in comparison to chlorambucil (CLB) in clinical risk groups defined by age and specific indicators of disease activity. Patients and Methods: The efficacy and safety of BEN and CLB have been compared in a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial in patients with previously untreated advanced (Binet stage B/C) CLL. Patients were randomized to receive BEN (100 mg/m2 on days 1 + 2) or CLB (0.8 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) for up to 6 treatment cycles. The primary endpoints were overall remission rate (ORR), which was defined as complete or partial response, and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. The response to treatment was evaluated by a blinded Independent Response Assessment Committee. Results: A total of 319 patients were randomized (162 bendamustine, 157 chlorambucil), of whom all were included in the efficacy analysis, while 312 were evaluable for safety. Median age was 64 years (35 to 78). The median number of treatment cycles was 6 in both study arms, regardless of an age above or below 65 years. The median observation time was 35 months. ORR was significantly higher with BEN than with CLB (68% versus 31%, P 〈 0.0001). The median PFS was 21.6 months with BEN and 8.3 months with CLB (P 〈 0.0001). So far, there is no difference in OS (median not reached with BEN versus 65.4 months with CLB; p = 0.16). No significant difference in the remission rates became apparent when comparing patients below and above the age of 65 years (ORR 71.6 % versus 63.5 % with BEN, p 〉 0.3; and 28.4 % versus 32.5 % with CLB, p 〉 0.6). PFS was not influenced by age above 65 years, stage of disease (Binet stage B versus C), or elevated LDH. However, patients without B symptoms had a longer median PFS with BEN than those patients with B symptoms (30.4 months versus 17.7 months; p 〈 0.0001), whereas median PFS was not affected by the presence of B symptoms in patients with CLB (8.9 months in both patient groups). Conclusion: This study has shown that bendamustine offers significantly greater efficacy than chlorambucil in the elderly and across clinically defined major risk groups, even in the presence of B symptoms. BEN should be considered as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced CLL. Disclosures: Knauf: mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; cephalon: Consultancy, Honoraria. Klein:mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Merkle:mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Montillo:mundipharma Italy: Consultancy, Research Funding.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2009
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Hematology ; 2004
    In:  Blood Vol. 104, No. 11 ( 2004-11-16), p. 4817-4817
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 104, No. 11 ( 2004-11-16), p. 4817-4817
    Abstract: Introduction: Bendamustine (BEN) provides effective treatment of hematologic as well as of non-hematologic malignancies. It is characterized by an unique activity profile which differs from common nitrogen mustard drugs. In particular, it causes only partial cross resistance to other alkylating agents, anthracyclines and anti-metabolites, respectively. BEN is used in patients with chemo naïve, relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), however, no head-to-head study has been performed so far. Therefore, a multicenter, international phase III study was initiated to compare the activity of BEN against chlorambucil in treatment-naive B-CLL patients with Binet stage B/C. Patients and Methods: Patients are randomized to either Arm A (BEN 100 mg/m2, d 1+2) or to Arm B (chlorambucil 0,8mg/kg Broca’s weight, d 1+15) to receive a maximum of 6 treatment cycles. Primary objectives are overall remission rate and progression-free survival. The anticipated effects are an overall remission rate of 60% vs. 30% and a median progression free survival of 20 vs.14 months. Secondary objectives are additional efficacy parameters, safety, and quality of life. The study design is adaptive with four interim analyses to adjust the final number of patients, plus one safety analysis. A maximum of 350 patients is planned. Toxicities regarding hemoglobin, platelets and neutrophils are graded according to the NCIWG for CLL, while leukocyte and lymphocyte counts are graded according to CTC as in many other CLL trials. Results and Summary: To assess safety, twenty patients in each treatment arm with at least one completed treatment cycle have been evaluated. The results have been reviewed by an independent data monitoring committee (IDMC). It was concluded that the dosages selected for both treatment arms are safe and that the study is to be continued. Furthermore, another safety analysis was performed with respect to the rate of major infections in the same patient cohort after having completed study treatment. While the infection rate has been reported to be 29% in patients treated with fludarabine as published by Rai et al., in our study two BEN-patients (10%) experienced major infections whereas none occurred in the chlorambucil arm. One BEN-patient developed fever CTC grade 3 without neutropenia. Another patient experienced pneumonia CTC grade 2 requiring hospitalization and intravenous antibiotic treatment. In the BEN-arm, 87% of the scheduled dose was applied whereas 89% was given in the chlorambucil arm. Patients treated with BEN remained longer on study as compared to the chlorambucil patients. The toxicity rate, both hematologic and non-hematologic, was in favour for chlorambucil. In total, three patients were withdrawn from study due to toxicity: one patient in each treatment arm due to infection and one BEN-patient due to an allergic reaction. Meanwhile, the first planned interim analysis on remission rate was done. 43 patients in each treatment arm were evaluated. The IDMC recommended to continue the study. A second interim analysis will be performed after 160 patients will have completed the first tumor evaluation to adjust the number of patients finally required.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2004
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages