Pros and cons of rituximab maintenance in follicular lymphoma

Abstract

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most prevalent indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Most patients present with advanced disease and are incurable with current therapy. The approval of rituximab has revolutionized the treatment of follicular lymphoma when administered in the induction setting for high-tumor burden disease, but the use of rituximab as a maintenance therapy (MR) continues to be a point of controversy. In this article, we review the main data and arguments in favor and against MR in FL. In summary, most studies have demonstrated a significant benefit in progression-free or event-free survival in this notoriously recurrent disease; however, long-term outcomes could not consistently demonstrate to be improved with this intervention. In a meta-analysis of randomized trials overall survival (OS) showed a tendency to improvement when given to patients in relapse, but no single study reached a significant OS advantage. The risk of high-grade transformation does not seem to be reduced in prospective trials. On the other hand, MR clearly increases toxicity without an improvement in quality of life. Finally, MR is expensive, and it is not proven that the delayed relapse time can compensate for these costs. In conclusion, despite the proven increase in progression-free survival, MR can't be recommended as a standard for the treatment of FL.

Keywords: Follicular lymphoma; Maintenance therapy; Rituximab.