Are you David Ma?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)43.16 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment for relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Salvage regimens have never been compared; their efficacy in the rituximab era is unknown. Patients with CD20(+) DLBCL in first relapse or who were refractory after first-line therapy were randomly assigned to either rituximab, ifosfamide, etoposide, and carboplatin (R-ICE) or rituximab, dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin (R-DHAP). Responding patients received high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT. The median age of the 396 patients enrolled (R-ICE, n = 202; R-DHAP, n = 194) was 55 years. Similar response rates were observed after three cycles of R-ICE (63.5%; 95% CI, 56% to 70%) and R-DHAP (62.8%; 95 CI, 55% to 69%). Factors affecting response rates (P < .001) were refractory disease/relapse less than versus more than 12 months after diagnosis (46% v 88%, respectively), International Prognostic Index (IPI) of more than 1 versus 0 to 1 (52% v 71%, respectively), and prior rituximab treatment versus no prior rituximab (51% v 83%, respectively). There was no significant difference between R-ICE and R-DHAP for 3-year event-free survival (EFS) or overall survival. Three-year EFS was affected by prior rituximab treatment versus no rituximab (21% v 47%, respectively), relapse less than versus more than 12 months after diagnosis (20% v 45%, respectively), and IPI of 2 to 3 versus 0 to 1 (18% v 40%, respectively). In the Cox model, these parameters were significant (P < .001). In patients who experience relapse more than 12 months after diagnosis, prior rituximab treatment does not affect EFS. Patients with early relapses after rituximab-containing first-line therapy have a poor prognosis, with no difference between the effects of R-ICE and R-DHAP.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 09/2010; 28(27):4184-90. · 18.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The role of rituximab in combination with different CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)-like chemotherapy regimens in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma remains to be defined. We aimed to compare CHOP-like chemotherapy and rituximab with CHOP-like chemotherapy alone in these patients. 824 patients who were from 18 countries; aged 18-60 years; and who had no risk factors or one risk factor according to age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI), stage II-IV disease, or stage I disease with bulk were enrolled. These patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy and rituximab (n=413) or to six cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy alone (n=411). Bulky and extranodal sites received additional radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was event-free survival; secondary endpoints were response, progression under therapy, progression-free survival, overall survival, and frequency of toxic effects. Analyses were done by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT 00064116. After a median follow-up of 34 months (range 0.03-61), patients assigned chemotherapy and rituximab had increased 3-year event-free survival compared with those assigned chemotherapy alone (79% [95% CI 75-83] vs 59% [54-64]; difference between groups 20% [13-27], log-rank p<0.0001), and had increased 3-year overall survival (93% [90-95] vs 84% [80-88]; difference between groups 9% [3-13], log-rank p=0.0001). Event-free survival was affected by treatment group, presence of bulky disease, and age-adjusted IPI: after chemotherapy and rituximab, a favourable subgroup (ie, IPI=0, no bulk) could be defined from a less-favourable subgroup (ie, IPI=1 or bulk, or both). Groups did not differ in the frequency of adverse events. Rituximab added to six cycles of CHOP is an effective treatment for young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. The definition of two prognostic subgroups allows for a more refined therapeutic approach for these patients.
    The Lancet Oncology 06/2006; 7(5):379-91. · 25.12 Impact Factor