Skip to content

A Study on Rituximab (MabThera) in Participants With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Rituximab in the Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, CLL NIS

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01178086
Enrollment
681
Registered
2010-08-09
Start date
2010-02-22
Completion date
2015-06-30
Last updated
2018-10-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Lymphocytic Leukemia, Chronic

Brief summary

This observational study will assess the therapeutic efficiency, treatment schedules, handling procedures, and the safety profile of rituximab in routine care in participants with CLL.

Interventions

DRUGRituximab

Rituximab IV

Sponsors

Hoffmann-La Roche
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* CLL requiring treatment * Participants receiving a chemotherapy in combination with rituximab (decision taken by doctor prior to and independent from inclusion in this non-interventional study) * After this trial started, an amendment to the study protocol was introduced, adding a further inclusion criterion: Comorbidities according to cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score greater than (\>) 6 and/or creatinine clearance less than (\<) 70 milliliters per minute (mL/min)

Exclusion criteria

* Participants with contraindication to rituximab treatment

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed Using Kaplan-Meier EstimateFrom initiation of treatment up to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first (assessed up to 24 months)PFS was defined as the time from initiation of treatment with rituximab in combination with chemotherapy to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. Disease progression was defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: greater than or equal to (\>/=) 50 percent (%) increase in the longest diameter of at least two enlarged lymph nodes, increase in spleen and/or liver size by at least 2 centimeters (cm) from Baseline as determined by measurement below the costal margin, or \>/=50% increase in the number of circulating lymphocytes. Participants without disease progression or death at the time of analysis were censored at the last date of tumor evaluation in terms of PFS.
Percentage of Participants Without Progression or DeathFrom initiation of treatment up to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first (assessed up to 24 months)Disease progression was defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: \>/=50% increase in the longest diameter of at least two enlarged lymph nodes, increase in spleen and/or liver size by at least 2 cm from Baseline as determined by measurement below the costal margin, or \>/=50% increase in the number of circulating lymphocytes.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Body WeightBaseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)
Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusBaseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)ECOG performance status was measured on a 4 point scale to assess participant's performance status. 0=Fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction; 1=Restricted in physically strenuous activity, ambulatory and able to carry out light or sedentary work; 2=Ambulatory (\>50% of waking hours), capable of all self-care, unable to carry out any work activities; 3=Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed/chair \>50% of waking hours.
Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexBaseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)Performance status was reflected by the Karnofsky index. Karnofsky performance status index ranges from 0-100% with higher scores indicating better functional status. An index between 90% and 100% corresponds to ECOG grade 0, index between 70% and 80% corresponds to ECOG grade 1, index between 50% and 60% corresponds to ECOG grade 2, index 40% corresponds to ECOG grade 3. ECOG grade 0=Fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction; grade 1=Restricted in physically strenuous activity, ambulatory and able to carry out light or sedentary work; grade 2=Ambulatory (\>50% of waking hours), capable of all self-care, unable to carry out any work activities; grade 3=Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed/chair \>50% of waking hours.
Percentage of Participants With Progression and DeathFrom initiation of treatment up to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first (assessed up to 24 months)Percentage of participants with an event (progression or death) was reported. Disease progression was defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: \>/=50% increase in the longest diameter of at least two enlarged lymph nodes, increase in spleen and/or liver size by at least 2 cm from Baseline as determined by measurement below the costal margin, or \>/=50% increase in the number of circulating lymphocytes.
Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsBaseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)B-symptoms included fever, night sweats, weight loss.
Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)From initiation of treatment up to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first (assessed up to 24 months)Response to treatment was assessed as per clinical routine. BOR included complete response(CR or CR with incomplete hematopoietic regeneration),partial response(PR or nodular PR),stable disease(SD),progressive disease(PD). CR:hemoglobin\>/=11 grams/deciliter(g/dL), lymphocytes\<4000 cells/cubic millimeter(cells/mm\^3), neutrophils\>5000 cells/mm\^3,platelets\>100,000 cells/mm\^3,bone marrow biopsy with \<30% lymphocytes with no lymphocytic infiltrates, no evidence of lymphoid nodules on physical exam, performance status of 0. PR:\>50% decrease in size of enlarged lymph nodes, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, with peripheral counts meeting same criteria as CR or \>/=50% improvement from pre-treatment values.PD:occurrence of at least one of following: \>/=50% increase in longest diameter of at least 2 enlarged lymph nodes, increase in spleen and liver size by at least 2 cm from Baseline, or \>/=50% increase in number of circulating lymphocytes. Participants without CR/PR or PD were considered having SD.
Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsBaseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)General symptoms included fatigue, reduced performance, frequent infections, abdominal pain and exhaustion.
Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyBaseline, Cycle 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, last Cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month)The chemotherapeutic regimen administereted during the course of study were: Rituximab-Bendamustine (R-Benda), Rituximab-Fludarabine-Cyclophosphamide (R-FC), Rituximab-Clorambucil (R-Clb), R-Other and Rituximab mono.

Countries

Germany

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

This single arm study had baseline and analysis reported per 2 arms (Unselected Population and Slow Go Subpopulation).

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)
Unselected population (participants with any comorbidity) who were treated with IV rituximab in combination with chemotherapy, were observed for 24 months including 6-month treatment period.
472
Slow Go Subpopulation
Slow go subpopulation (participants with cumulative illness rating scale for geriatrics \[CIRS-G\] score greater than \[\>\] 6 and/or creatinine clearance less than \[\<\] 70 milliliters per minute \[mL/min\]) who were treated with IV rituximab in combination with chemotherapy, were observed for 24 months including 6-month treatment period.
189
Total661

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall StudyDeath59
Overall StudyExcluded from EAS20
Overall StudyOther unspecified89
Overall StudyParticipant refusal7
Overall StudyPhysician Decision44
Overall StudySwitch to other CLL therapy113

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalUnselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Slow Go Subpopulation
Age, Continuous70.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9
68.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9
74.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.9
Sex: Female, Male
Female
244 Participants160 Participants84 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
417 Participants312 Participants105 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
259 / 48598 / 196
serious
Total, serious adverse events
85 / 48544 / 196

Outcome results

Primary

Percentage of Participants Without Progression or Death

Disease progression was defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: \>/=50% increase in the longest diameter of at least two enlarged lymph nodes, increase in spleen and/or liver size by at least 2 cm from Baseline as determined by measurement below the costal margin, or \>/=50% increase in the number of circulating lymphocytes.

Time frame: From initiation of treatment up to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first (assessed up to 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Without Progression or Death71.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Without Progression or Death62.7 percentage of participants
Primary

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed Using Kaplan-Meier Estimate

PFS was defined as the time from initiation of treatment with rituximab in combination with chemotherapy to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. Disease progression was defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: greater than or equal to (\>/=) 50 percent (%) increase in the longest diameter of at least two enlarged lymph nodes, increase in spleen and/or liver size by at least 2 centimeters (cm) from Baseline as determined by measurement below the costal margin, or \>/=50% increase in the number of circulating lymphocytes. Participants without disease progression or death at the time of analysis were censored at the last date of tumor evaluation in terms of PFS.

Time frame: From initiation of treatment up to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first (assessed up to 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed Using Kaplan-Meier Estimate50.6 months
Slow Go SubpopulationProgression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed Using Kaplan-Meier Estimate33.7 months
Secondary

Mean Body Weight

Time frame: Baseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS. Overall number of participants analyzed=participants analyzed for this outcome. Here, number analyzed=participants evaluable at specified time-point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Mean Body WeightBaseline77.4 kilograms (kg)Standard Deviation 14.1
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Mean Body WeightLast Cycle77.4 kilograms (kg)Standard Deviation 15.2
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Mean Body WeightLast Visit77.0 kilograms (kg)Standard Deviation 15.3
Slow Go SubpopulationMean Body WeightBaseline75.0 kilograms (kg)Standard Deviation 14.2
Slow Go SubpopulationMean Body WeightLast Cycle73.7 kilograms (kg)Standard Deviation 13.9
Slow Go SubpopulationMean Body WeightLast Visit73.3 kilograms (kg)Standard Deviation 14.2
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study

The chemotherapeutic regimen administereted during the course of study were: Rituximab-Bendamustine (R-Benda), Rituximab-Fludarabine-Cyclophosphamide (R-FC), Rituximab-Clorambucil (R-Clb), R-Other and Rituximab mono.

Time frame: Baseline, Cycle 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, last Cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 224.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 156.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 260.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 358.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 457.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 556.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 655.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 744.7 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 861.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Last Cycle55.7 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Baseline23.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 122.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Baseline58.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 323.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 424.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 523.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 623.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 710.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 83.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Last Cycle23.7 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Baseline5.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 15.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 25.7 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 35.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 46.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 56.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 66.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 75.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 87.7 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Last Cycle5.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Baseline9.7 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 19.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 29.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 39.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 48.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 58.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 68.6 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 710.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 80.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Last Cycle8.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Baseline0.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 10.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 20.7 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 32.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 42.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 54.6 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 66.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 728.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 826.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Last Cycle5.7 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 75.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Baseline64.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 511.7 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 160.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 860.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 267.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 612.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 364.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 810.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 462.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 711.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 558.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 46.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 660.6 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 820.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 729.4 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Last Cycle8.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Cycle 810.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Last Cycle10.6 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Benda at Last Cycle62.4 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 747.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Baseline8.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Baseline11.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 17.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Baseline0.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 29.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 19.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 310.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 57.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 410.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 210.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 510.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 10.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 69.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 310.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 75.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Last Cycle9.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Cycle 80.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 410.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-FC at Last Cycle8.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 22.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Baseline11.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 510.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 111.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 67.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 29.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Other at Cycle 610.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 310.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyRituximab Mono at Cycle 33.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of StudyR-Clb at Cycle 411.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)

Response to treatment was assessed as per clinical routine. BOR included complete response(CR or CR with incomplete hematopoietic regeneration),partial response(PR or nodular PR),stable disease(SD),progressive disease(PD). CR:hemoglobin\>/=11 grams/deciliter(g/dL), lymphocytes\<4000 cells/cubic millimeter(cells/mm\^3), neutrophils\>5000 cells/mm\^3,platelets\>100,000 cells/mm\^3,bone marrow biopsy with \<30% lymphocytes with no lymphocytic infiltrates, no evidence of lymphoid nodules on physical exam, performance status of 0. PR:\>50% decrease in size of enlarged lymph nodes, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, with peripheral counts meeting same criteria as CR or \>/=50% improvement from pre-treatment values.PD:occurrence of at least one of following: \>/=50% increase in longest diameter of at least 2 enlarged lymph nodes, increase in spleen and liver size by at least 2 cm from Baseline, or \>/=50% increase in number of circulating lymphocytes. Participants without CR/PR or PD were considered having SD.

Time frame: From initiation of treatment up to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first (assessed up to 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)CR37.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)PR37.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)SD8.1 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)PD2.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)Not assessable4.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)Not assessed / Missing9.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)Not assessable5.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)CR32.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)PD2.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)PR39.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)Not assessed / Missing12.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR)SD8.5 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms

B-symptoms included fever, night sweats, weight loss.

Time frame: Baseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS. Here, number analyzed=participants evaluable at specified time-point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsFever at Last Cycle3.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsNight Sweats at Last Visit7.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsNight Sweats at Baseline29.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsWeight Loss at Baseline21.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsFever at Last Visit2.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsWeight Loss at Last Cycle4.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsNight Sweats at Last Cycle3.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsWeight Loss at Last Visit5.7 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With B-SymptomsFever at Baseline4.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With B-SymptomsWeight Loss at Last Visit4.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With B-SymptomsFever at Baseline4.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With B-SymptomsFever at Last Cycle2.6 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With B-SymptomsFever at Last Visit0.7 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With B-SymptomsNight Sweats at Baseline25.4 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With B-SymptomsNight Sweats at Last Cycle2.6 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With B-SymptomsNight Sweats at Last Visit6.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With B-SymptomsWeight Loss at Baseline21.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With B-SymptomsWeight Loss at Last Cycle3.7 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status

ECOG performance status was measured on a 4 point scale to assess participant's performance status. 0=Fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction; 1=Restricted in physically strenuous activity, ambulatory and able to carry out light or sedentary work; 2=Ambulatory (\>50% of waking hours), capable of all self-care, unable to carry out any work activities; 3=Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed/chair \>50% of waking hours.

Time frame: Baseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS. Here, number analyzed=participants evaluable at specified time-point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 1 at Last Cycle33.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 2 at Last Visit3.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 0 at Last Cycle23.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 3 at Baseline0.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 1 at Last Visit28.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 3 at Last Cycle1.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 1 at Baseline40.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 3 at Last Visit1.6 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 2 at Baseline4.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusMissing at Baseline17.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 0 at Last Visit34.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusMissing at Last Cycle37.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 2 at Last Cycle3.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusMissing at Last Visit32.6 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 0 at Baseline36.4 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusMissing at Last Visit42.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 0 at Baseline23.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 0 at Last Cycle19.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 0 at Last Visit26.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 1 at Baseline45.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 1 at Last Cycle35.4 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 1 at Last Visit22.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 2 at Baseline6.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 2 at Last Cycle4.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 2 at Last Visit6.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 3 at Baseline2.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 3 at Last Cycle1.6 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusGrade 3 at Last Visit2.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusMissing at Baseline22.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusMissing at Last Cycle39.2 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms

General symptoms included fatigue, reduced performance, frequent infections, abdominal pain and exhaustion.

Time frame: Baseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS. Here, number analyzed=participants evaluable at specified time-point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsReduced Performance at Last Cycle24.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsFrequent Infections at Last Visit7.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsFatigue at Last Cycle23.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsAbdominal Pain at Baseline8.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsReduced Performance at Last Visit21.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsAbdominal Pain at Last Cycle1.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsReduced Performance at Baseline46.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsAbdominal Pain at Last Visit4.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsFrequent Infections at Baseline13.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsExhaustion at Baseline35.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsFatigue at Last Visit17.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsExhaustion at Last Cycle19.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsFrequent Infections at Last Cycle5.5 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsExhaustion at Last Visit14.6 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With General SymptomsFatigue at Baseline38.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsExhaustion at Last Visit17.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsFatigue at Baseline45.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsFatigue at Last Cycle22.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsFatigue at Last Visit14.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsReduced Performance at Baseline49.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsReduced Performance at Last Cycle20.6 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsReduced Performance at Last Visit22.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsFrequent Infections at Baseline15.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsFrequent Infections at Last Cycle4.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsFrequent Infections at Last Visit6.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsAbdominal Pain at Baseline7.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsAbdominal Pain at Last Cycle3.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsAbdominal Pain at Last Visit2.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsExhaustion at Baseline40.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With General SymptomsExhaustion at Last Cycle15.9 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index

Performance status was reflected by the Karnofsky index. Karnofsky performance status index ranges from 0-100% with higher scores indicating better functional status. An index between 90% and 100% corresponds to ECOG grade 0, index between 70% and 80% corresponds to ECOG grade 1, index between 50% and 60% corresponds to ECOG grade 2, index 40% corresponds to ECOG grade 3. ECOG grade 0=Fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction; grade 1=Restricted in physically strenuous activity, ambulatory and able to carry out light or sedentary work; grade 2=Ambulatory (\>50% of waking hours), capable of all self-care, unable to carry out any work activities; grade 3=Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed/chair \>50% of waking hours.

Time frame: Baseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS. Here, number analyzed=participants evaluable at specified time-point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 60% at Baseline0.6 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 80% at Baseline14.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 60% at Last Cycle0.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 100% at Last Cycle14.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 60% at Last Visit0.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 80% at Last Cycle7.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 50% at Baseline0.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 90% at Baseline24.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 50% at Last Cycle0.2 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 80% at Last Visit7.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 50% at Last Visit0.3 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 90% at Last Cycle17.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 40% at Baseline0.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 70% at Baseline3.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 40% at Last Cycle0.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 100% at Baseline25.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 40% at Last Visit0.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 70% at Last Cycle3.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexMissing at Baseline31.8 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 90% at Last Visit14.6 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexMissing at Last Cycle57.0 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 70% at Last Visit2.4 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexMissing at Last Visit57.7 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 100% at Last Visit17.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexMissing at Last Visit64.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 100% at Baseline7.4 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 100% at Last Cycle7.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 100% at Last Visit11.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 90% at Last Cycle18.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 90% at Last Visit11.7 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 80% at Baseline16.9 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 80% at Last Cycle8.5 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 80% at Last Visit9.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 70% at Baseline5.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 70% at Last Cycle4.2 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 70% at Last Visit2.8 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 60% at Baseline1.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 60% at Last Cycle1.6 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 60% at Last Visit0.7 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 50% at Baseline0.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 50% at Last Cycle0.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 50% at Last Visit0.7 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 40% at Baseline0.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 40% at Last Cycle0.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 40% at Last Visit0.0 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexMissing at Baseline43.4 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexMissing at Last Cycle59.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status IndexKarnofsky index 90% at Baseline25.4 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Progression and Death

Percentage of participants with an event (progression or death) was reported. Disease progression was defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: \>/=50% increase in the longest diameter of at least two enlarged lymph nodes, increase in spleen and/or liver size by at least 2 cm from Baseline as determined by measurement below the costal margin, or \>/=50% increase in the number of circulating lymphocytes.

Time frame: From initiation of treatment up to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first (assessed up to 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on EAS with events.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Progression and DeathProgression68.9 percentage of participants
Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity)Percentage of Participants With Progression and DeathDeath31.1 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Progression and DeathDeath33.3 percentage of participants
Slow Go SubpopulationPercentage of Participants With Progression and DeathProgression66.7 percentage of participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 24, 2026