Lymphocytic Leukemia, Chronic
Conditions
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
Rituximab IV
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
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
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed Using Kaplan-Meier Estimate | From 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 Death | From 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
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Body Weight | Baseline, last cycle (Cycle 18) (each cycle=1 month), last visit (follow-up) (24 months) | — |
| Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Baseline, 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 Index | Baseline, 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 Death | From 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-Symptoms | Baseline, 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 Symptoms | Baseline, 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 Study | Baseline, 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
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Total | 661 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Death | 59 |
| Overall Study | Excluded from EAS | 20 |
| Overall Study | Other unspecified | 89 |
| Overall Study | Participant refusal | 7 |
| Overall Study | Physician Decision | 44 |
| Overall Study | Switch to other CLL therapy | 113 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Total | Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Slow Go Subpopulation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 70.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 9 | 68.9 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 9 | 74.2 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.9 |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 244 Participants | 160 Participants | 84 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 417 Participants | 312 Participants | 105 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 259 / 485 | 98 / 196 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 85 / 485 | 44 / 196 |
Outcome results
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Without Progression or Death | 71.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Without Progression or Death | 62.7 percentage of participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed Using Kaplan-Meier Estimate | 50.6 months |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed Using Kaplan-Meier Estimate | 33.7 months |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Mean Body Weight | Baseline | 77.4 kilograms (kg) | Standard Deviation 14.1 |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Mean Body Weight | Last Cycle | 77.4 kilograms (kg) | Standard Deviation 15.2 |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Mean Body Weight | Last Visit | 77.0 kilograms (kg) | Standard Deviation 15.3 |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Mean Body Weight | Baseline | 75.0 kilograms (kg) | Standard Deviation 14.2 |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Mean Body Weight | Last Cycle | 73.7 kilograms (kg) | Standard Deviation 13.9 |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Mean Body Weight | Last Visit | 73.3 kilograms (kg) | Standard Deviation 14.2 |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 2 | 24.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 1 | 56.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 2 | 60.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 3 | 58.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 4 | 57.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 5 | 56.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 6 | 55.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 7 | 44.7 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 8 | 61.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Last Cycle | 55.7 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Baseline | 23.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 1 | 22.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Baseline | 58.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 3 | 23.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 4 | 24.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 5 | 23.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 6 | 23.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 7 | 10.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 8 | 3.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Last Cycle | 23.7 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Baseline | 5.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 1 | 5.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 2 | 5.7 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 3 | 5.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 4 | 6.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 5 | 6.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 6 | 6.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 7 | 5.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 8 | 7.7 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Last Cycle | 5.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Baseline | 9.7 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 1 | 9.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 2 | 9.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 3 | 9.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 4 | 8.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 5 | 8.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 6 | 8.6 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 7 | 10.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 8 | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Last Cycle | 8.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Baseline | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 1 | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 2 | 0.7 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 3 | 2.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 4 | 2.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 5 | 4.6 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 6 | 6.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 7 | 28.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 8 | 26.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Last Cycle | 5.7 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 7 | 5.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Baseline | 64.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 5 | 11.7 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 1 | 60.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 8 | 60.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 2 | 67.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 6 | 12.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 3 | 64.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 8 | 10.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 4 | 62.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 7 | 11.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 5 | 58.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 4 | 6.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 6 | 60.6 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 8 | 20.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 7 | 29.4 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Last Cycle | 8.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Cycle 8 | 10.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Last Cycle | 10.6 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Benda at Last Cycle | 62.4 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 7 | 47.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Baseline | 8.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Baseline | 11.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 1 | 7.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Baseline | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 2 | 9.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 1 | 9.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 3 | 10.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 5 | 7.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 4 | 10.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 2 | 10.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 5 | 10.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 1 | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 6 | 9.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 3 | 10.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 7 | 5.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Last Cycle | 9.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Cycle 8 | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 4 | 10.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-FC at Last Cycle | 8.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 2 | 2.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Baseline | 11.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 5 | 10.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 1 | 11.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 6 | 7.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 2 | 9.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Other at Cycle 6 | 10.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 3 | 10.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | Rituximab Mono at Cycle 3 | 3.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants Who Received Each Treatment During the Course of Study | R-Clb at Cycle 4 | 11.0 percentage of participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | CR | 37.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | PR | 37.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | SD | 8.1 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | PD | 2.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | Not assessable | 4.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | Not assessed / Missing | 9.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | Not assessable | 5.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | CR | 32.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | PD | 2.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | PR | 39.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | Not assessed / Missing | 12.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Best Overall Response (BOR) | SD | 8.5 percentage of participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Fever at Last Cycle | 3.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Night Sweats at Last Visit | 7.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Night Sweats at Baseline | 29.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Weight Loss at Baseline | 21.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Fever at Last Visit | 2.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Weight Loss at Last Cycle | 4.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Night Sweats at Last Cycle | 3.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Weight Loss at Last Visit | 5.7 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Fever at Baseline | 4.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Weight Loss at Last Visit | 4.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Fever at Baseline | 4.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Fever at Last Cycle | 2.6 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Fever at Last Visit | 0.7 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Night Sweats at Baseline | 25.4 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Night Sweats at Last Cycle | 2.6 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Night Sweats at Last Visit | 6.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Weight Loss at Baseline | 21.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With B-Symptoms | Weight Loss at Last Cycle | 3.7 percentage of participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 1 at Last Cycle | 33.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 2 at Last Visit | 3.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 0 at Last Cycle | 23.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 3 at Baseline | 0.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 1 at Last Visit | 28.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 3 at Last Cycle | 1.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 1 at Baseline | 40.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 3 at Last Visit | 1.6 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 2 at Baseline | 4.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Missing at Baseline | 17.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 0 at Last Visit | 34.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Missing at Last Cycle | 37.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 2 at Last Cycle | 3.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Missing at Last Visit | 32.6 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 0 at Baseline | 36.4 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Missing at Last Visit | 42.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 0 at Baseline | 23.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 0 at Last Cycle | 19.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 0 at Last Visit | 26.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 1 at Baseline | 45.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 1 at Last Cycle | 35.4 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 1 at Last Visit | 22.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 2 at Baseline | 6.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 2 at Last Cycle | 4.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 2 at Last Visit | 6.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 3 at Baseline | 2.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 3 at Last Cycle | 1.6 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Grade 3 at Last Visit | 2.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Missing at Baseline | 22.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status | Missing at Last Cycle | 39.2 percentage of participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Reduced Performance at Last Cycle | 24.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Frequent Infections at Last Visit | 7.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Fatigue at Last Cycle | 23.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Abdominal Pain at Baseline | 8.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Reduced Performance at Last Visit | 21.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Abdominal Pain at Last Cycle | 1.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Reduced Performance at Baseline | 46.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Abdominal Pain at Last Visit | 4.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Frequent Infections at Baseline | 13.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Exhaustion at Baseline | 35.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Fatigue at Last Visit | 17.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Exhaustion at Last Cycle | 19.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Frequent Infections at Last Cycle | 5.5 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Exhaustion at Last Visit | 14.6 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Fatigue at Baseline | 38.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Exhaustion at Last Visit | 17.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Fatigue at Baseline | 45.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Fatigue at Last Cycle | 22.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Fatigue at Last Visit | 14.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Reduced Performance at Baseline | 49.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Reduced Performance at Last Cycle | 20.6 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Reduced Performance at Last Visit | 22.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Frequent Infections at Baseline | 15.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Frequent Infections at Last Cycle | 4.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Frequent Infections at Last Visit | 6.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Abdominal Pain at Baseline | 7.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Abdominal Pain at Last Cycle | 3.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Abdominal Pain at Last Visit | 2.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Exhaustion at Baseline | 40.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With General Symptoms | Exhaustion at Last Cycle | 15.9 percentage of participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 60% at Baseline | 0.6 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 80% at Baseline | 14.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 60% at Last Cycle | 0.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 100% at Last Cycle | 14.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 60% at Last Visit | 0.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 80% at Last Cycle | 7.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 50% at Baseline | 0.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 90% at Baseline | 24.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 50% at Last Cycle | 0.2 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 80% at Last Visit | 7.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 50% at Last Visit | 0.3 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 90% at Last Cycle | 17.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 40% at Baseline | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 70% at Baseline | 3.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 40% at Last Cycle | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 100% at Baseline | 25.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 40% at Last Visit | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 70% at Last Cycle | 3.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Missing at Baseline | 31.8 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 90% at Last Visit | 14.6 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Missing at Last Cycle | 57.0 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 70% at Last Visit | 2.4 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Missing at Last Visit | 57.7 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 100% at Last Visit | 17.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Missing at Last Visit | 64.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 100% at Baseline | 7.4 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 100% at Last Cycle | 7.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 100% at Last Visit | 11.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 90% at Last Cycle | 18.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 90% at Last Visit | 11.7 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 80% at Baseline | 16.9 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 80% at Last Cycle | 8.5 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 80% at Last Visit | 9.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 70% at Baseline | 5.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 70% at Last Cycle | 4.2 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 70% at Last Visit | 2.8 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 60% at Baseline | 1.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 60% at Last Cycle | 1.6 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 60% at Last Visit | 0.7 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 50% at Baseline | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 50% at Last Cycle | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 50% at Last Visit | 0.7 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 40% at Baseline | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 40% at Last Cycle | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 40% at Last Visit | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Missing at Baseline | 43.4 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Missing at Last Cycle | 59.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Karnofsky Performance Status Index | Karnofsky index 90% at Baseline | 25.4 percentage of participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Progression and Death | Progression | 68.9 percentage of participants |
| Unselected Population (Participants With Any Comorbidity) | Percentage of Participants With Progression and Death | Death | 31.1 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Progression and Death | Death | 33.3 percentage of participants |
| Slow Go Subpopulation | Percentage of Participants With Progression and Death | Progression | 66.7 percentage of participants |