ALBERT

Beschreibung: Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of a response-adapted therapy with rituximab/bendamustine/mitoxantrone/dexamethasone (RBMD), followed by rituximab (R) maintenance therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL) to first-line treatment with R-chemotherapy (R-ChemoT). Material and methods: Multicenter phase II trial including 60 patients with R/R FL, after a first R-ChemoT line. Induction therapy: R 375 mg/m2 IV, day 1; bendamustine 90 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 2; mitoxantrone 6 mg/m2 IV, day 1; dexamethasone 20 mg/day, PO, days 1 to 5. Cycles of 28 days. Evaluation of response after third cycle. If stable (SD) or progression disease (PD): patient withdrawn from the study. If complete response (CR) or unconfirmed complete response (CRu): administration of fourth cycle. If partial response (PR): administration up to 6 cycles. If CR, CRu, or PR after induction: patient received maintenance therapy with R (375 mg/m2/day every 12 weeks for 2 years). Results: N=60 patients: 50% female, age 63 (32-76) years. Ann Arbor stage III-IV 70% (42/60). FLIPI intermediate-high risk: 50% (30/60). Refractory to R-ChemoT: 18% (11/60). Received RCHOP as first line therapy: 77% (43/60). R maintenance after first line therapy: 43% (26/60). Number of administered RBMD cycles: 4 (1-6). Efectiveness: CR/CRu after 3 cycles (CR-3), 27 patients. Response after induction therapy (4-6 cycles): Overall response (OR), 88.5% (53/60); CR, 58.5% (35/60); CRu, 12% (7/60); PR, 18% (11/60); SD, 1.5% (1/60); PD, 10% (6/60). Median follow-up: 24.41 mo. (15.58-30.15). Progression free survival, median not reached (NR) (28.28-NR). Overall survival, median NR (NR-NR). OR after RBMD in patients who received R maintenance after first line therapy, 96% (25/26; CR + CRu, 65%). OR in patients who did not receive R maintenance after first line therapy, 94% (32/34; CR + CRu, 82%). Safety: Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity: neutropenia, 60% (n=36; 34 patients received G-CSF); anemia, 2% (n=1); thrombopenia, 4% (n=2). Grade 3/4 infections: 8% (n=4); febrile neutropenia 8%, (n=4). Exitus, 2/60 (PD, cycle 1; influenza A, cycle 5). Grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicity: infusion reaction, 4% (n=2). No skin reactions. Patient withdrawals before R maintenance therapy: no inclusion criteria (NIC), 2/60; protocol delay of over 4 weeks, 7/60. Forty-four patients began R maintenance therapy (CR-3, 24/44). During R maintenance therapy: PD, 8/44 (18%; 5/8 in CR-3 patients); SD, 1/44 (2.5%); NIC, 3/44 (7%, all CR); protocol delay, 1/44 (2.5%); toxicity, 1/44 (2.5%, myelodysplastic syndrome). Response to R maintenance therapy: OR, 68% (30/44); CR, 61% (27/44; in CR-3 patients, 65%, 17/26); CRu, 4.5% (2/44); PR, 2.5% (1/44). Conclusions: RBMD is an effective and safe alternative for patients with R/R FL who have received first line treatment with R-ChemoT and R maintenance therapy. This response-adapted treatment strategy achieved results similar to the scheme with 6 cycles and may allow reduction of the intensity and duration of induction therapy and minimize toxicity. No skin reactions were reported, possibly due to the inclusion of dexamethasone in the treatment scheme. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Beschreibung: This study was aimed at determining the performance of some indices and community attributes frequently used to assess river quality and test the role of macroinvertebrate taxa richness as element of bioindication in several coastal tropical streams of western Esmeraldas (Ecuador). In addition, a macroinvertebrate taxon list of this region was provided for the first time. Thirteen sampled points distributed across nine streams were selected for this study and nineteen parameters and attributes of bioindication were tested. The differences between nonimpact and impact places were evaluated mainly using one-way analysis of variance. Jackknife 2 and Clench were used to estimate the regional richness and the quality of the inventory, respectively. Seventy taxa (principally genus and family) of the main groups of macroinvertebrates were collected. Measured richness and family richness were the best metric followed by Biological Monitoring Working Party/Colombia (BMWP/Col), Odonata richness, Shannon-Weiner, and EPT richness (Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera) indices. Only a slight right trend (Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, and Chironomidae attributes) or incorrect performances (Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT) and % EPT) were showed by frequently used metrics. Finally, several recommendations were made about taxonomic level used, the ranks of quality of taxa richness, and the effort-results relationship in the field of bioindication.