ライフサイエンスコーパス: bendamustine

1 consolidation (nivolumab plus BV +/- BV plus bendamustine).

2 ys for R-CHOP or every 28 days for rituximab-bendamustine).

3 of ibrutinib combined with rituximab (R) and bendamustine.

4 e) proceeded to alloSCT after treatment with bendamustine.

5 phosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone, or bendamustine.

6 es between patients treated with and without bendamustine.

7 nd 290 (73%) were pre-allocated to rituximab-bendamustine.

8 venetoclax after an optional debulking with bendamustine.

9 o determine infectious risks associated with bendamustine.

10 ed), BV plus dacarbazine (DTIC), and BV plus bendamustine.

11 s who received any amount of obinutuzumab or bendamustine.

12 or for whom this treatment failed, received bendamustine 120 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion on days

13 , day 1), doxorubicin (40 mg/m2, day 1), and bendamustine (120 mg/m2, day 1) (PVAB regimen) every 21

14 eived rituximab (44% versus 9%; P < 0.0001), bendamustine (22% versus 0%; P < 0.001), high-dose stero

15 Bendamustine 70 mg/m(2) days 1 and 4; bortezomib 1.3 mg/

16 on day 1 of a 21 day cycle, plus one dose of bendamustine (70 mg/m(2), 80 mg/m(2), or 90 mg/m(2)) on

17 e safety and efficacy of escalating doses of bendamustine (70, 90, 110, and 130 mg/m2 per day for 3 d

18 plus rituximab for a maximum of six cycles (bendamustine: 70 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 2 f

19 uximab given in cycles of 4 weeks' duration (bendamustine: 70 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 2-3 in cy

20 MTD was bendamustine 75 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 2), lenalidomide 10

21 nts received rituximab 375 mg/m(2) day 1 and bendamustine 90 mg/m(2) days 1 and 2 for 4 cycles at a 2

22 th adequate organ function were treated with bendamustine 90 mg/m(2) days 1 and 4; rituximab 375 mg/m

23 (2) and fludarabine 30 mg/m(2) for 3 days or bendamustine 90 mg/m(2) for 2 days.

24 8, and 15, cycle 1; day 1, cycles 2-6) plus bendamustine 90 mg/m(2) per day (days 1 and 2, cycles 1-

25 essment, and a total of 63 patients received bendamustine 90 mg/m(2).

26 (500 mg/m(2) for 3 days on days -5 to -3) or bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) for 2 days on days -4 and -3) c

27 day) for the first 3 days or to intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) per day) for the first 2 days o

28 Patients received R (375 mg/m(2)) on day 1, bendamustine (90 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 2, and ibrutinib

29 ts older than 65 years receiving intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2), days 1-2), whereas patients ag

30 rituximab (375 mg/m2 days 1, 15) with either bendamustine (90 mg/m2 days 1, 2) or pentostatin (4 mg/m

31 d peripheral T-cell lymphoma, treatment with bendamustine alone only achieves modest improvements in

32 D30.CAR-Ts after lymphodepletion with either bendamustine alone, bendamustine and fludarabine, or cyc

33 fter tisagenlecleucel infusion compared with bendamustine, although the efficacy of tisagenlecleucel

34 randomly assigned (194 to obinutuzumab plus bendamustine and 202 to bendamustine monotherapy).

35 2 deaths on study led to discontinuation of bendamustine and cessation of enrollment.

36 alone or rituximab combined with alkylators (bendamustine and cyclophosphamide), proteasome inhibitor

37 Newer agents, such as bendamustine and everolimus, can also be considered in t

38 hermore, NOX-A12 sensitizes CLL cells toward bendamustine and fludarabine in BMSC cocultures.

39 phodepletion with either bendamustine alone, bendamustine and fludarabine, or cyclophosphamide and fl

40 orrelated negatively with recent exposure to bendamustine and high metabolic tumor volume.

41 Despite widespread use of bendamustine and rituximab (BR) as frontline therapy for

42 We investigated the safety and efficacy of bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in previously untreated

43 actory chronic lymphocytic leukemia received bendamustine and rituximab (BR) or fludarabine, cyclopho

44 ival was 41.7 months (95% CI 34.9-45.3) with bendamustine and rituximab and 55.2 months (95% CI not e

45 sphamide, and rituximab group and 279 in the bendamustine and rituximab group.

46 ents with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, but bendamustine and rituximab is associated with less toxic

47 d woman with MCL who attained remission with bendamustine and rituximab is presented.

48 nts and for patients with renal dysfunction, bendamustine and rituximab may be a better option.

49 the long-term outcomes of the rituximab plus bendamustine and rituximab plus fludarabine regimens.

50 h the objective to assess non-inferiority of bendamustine and rituximab to the standard therapy.

51 at the 2-year progression-free survival with bendamustine and rituximab was not 67.5% or less with a

52 mantle-cell lymphoma with the combination of bendamustine and rituximab.

53 ntially less toxic combination consisting of bendamustine and rituximab.

54 Trabectedin, bendamustine and the pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimer SG2000

55 d, including for subgroups by prior therapy (bendamustine and type of Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibito

56 the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens.

57 Clinical trials with rituximab, bendamustine, and conjugate immunotoxins will reveal wha

58 ycin) or eligibility (cisplatin, pemetrexed, bendamustine, and mitomycin) based on labelling approved

59 d toxicity of the combination of bortezomib, bendamustine, and rituximab in patients with follicular

60 The combination of bortezomib, bendamustine, and rituximab is highly active in patients

61 een approved for CLL treatment (fludarabine, bendamustine, and the monoclonal antibodies alemtuzumab,

62 ne therapy); had received a purine analogue, bendamustine, anti-CD20 antibody, chlorambucil, or alemt

63 ons was more prominent in patients receiving bendamustine as part of later (third-line and above) reg

64 lly at 160 mg twice per day (28-day cycles); bendamustine at 90 mg/m(2) of body surface area on days

65 ositivity was observed in patients receiving bendamustine at MI (4.8% v 16.0% in those receiving CHOP

66 assigned to receive brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine at the recommended phase 2 dose from phase

67 oclax (VEN) plus rituximab (R), and VEN plus bendamustine (B) and R, vs B + R (BR) alone in relapsed/

68 The combination of bendamustine (B) and rituximab (R) is efficacious, with

69 Conversely, the cumulative dose of bendamustine before apheresis did not affect CAR-T effic

70 Consensus guidelines suggest avoiding bendamustine before apheresis, but specific data in this

71 mercial CAR T cells, of whom 80 had received bendamustine before apheresis.

72 an exploratory analysis, patients with prior bendamustine benefited from KTE-X19, but showed a trend

73 tment agents (interferon-alpha, alemtuzumab, bendamustine, bortezomib, dasatinib, imatinib, lenalidom

74 Bendamustine-bortezomib-dexamethasone is active and well

75 conducted a multicenter phase 2 study of the bendamustine/bortezomib/rituximab combination.

76 pemetrexed, by 67% (from three to five) for bendamustine, by 150% (from ten to 25) for capecitabine,

77 nfusion hospitalization were observed in the bendamustine cohort compared with patients receiving flu

78 upport current and future studies evaluating bendamustine combinations in relapsed and refractory HL.

79 atforms have changed in the past 5 years, as bendamustine combined with rituximab has rapidly become

80 Rituximab-bendamustine comprised 90 mg/m(2) of bendamustine on day

81 or relapse within 24 months with a previous bendamustine-containing regimen, or haemopoietic stem-ce

82 ned infectious complications associated with bendamustine-containing regimens among older patients wi

83 Thirteen percent received bendamustine-containing regimens.

84 consensus recommendations, alkylating drugs (bendamustine, cyclophosphamide) and proteasome inhibitor

85 nib treatment, and subsequent treatment with bendamustine, cytarabine, or lenalidomide failed to reve

86 Twenty-seven patients started treatment with bendamustine debulking before induction and maintenance

87 venetoclax, and obinutuzumab after optional bendamustine debulking in 45 patients with relapsed/refr

88 netoclax, and obinutuzumab after an optional bendamustine debulking in patients with relapsed/refract

89 dies on the impact of the washout period and bendamustine dose were performed.

90 Obinutuzumab plus bendamustine dosing was obinutuzumab 1000 mg (days 1, 8,

91 ied out for all efficacy comparisons between bendamustine-exposed and bendamustine-naive patients.

92 Patients with recent bendamustine exposure (within 24 months before leukapher

93 Recent bendamustine exposure before apheresis was associated wi

94 trinsic features of MCL, and possibly recent bendamustine exposure, may be associated with inferior e

95 tics were analyzed according to preapheresis bendamustine exposure.

96 ter CAR T-cell therapy according to previous bendamustine exposure.

97 ultures, CAL-101 sensitizes CLL cells toward bendamustine, fludarabine, and dexamethasone.

98 Obinutuzumab plus bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance has im

99 Bendamustine for lymphodepletion before tisagenlecleucel

100 consisting of a debulking with two cycles of bendamustine for patients with a higher tumour load (70

101 e a rationale for combining fludarabine with bendamustine for patients with CLL.

102 brentuximab vedotin (BV) followed by BV plus bendamustine for patients with suboptimal response.

103 received 1.8 mg/kg BV plus 90 or 70 mg/m(2) bendamustine for up to 6 cycles (dose reduced due to tox

104 ety and preliminary efficacy of obinutuzumab-bendamustine (G-B) or obinutuzumab fludarabine cyclophos

105 phase II study evaluated the combination of bendamustine, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine (BeGEV) as in

106 ed T-cell functionality, with more impact of bendamustine given within 6 versus 12 months of leukaphe

107 ths (IQR 12.1-31.0) in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and 20.3 months (9.5-29.7) in the ben

108 vent-related deaths in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and five (42%) of 12 in the bendamust

109 8%) of 194 patients in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and in 123 (62%) of 198 patients in t

110 n 74 patients (38%) in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and in 65 patients (33%) in the benda

111 rogressing patients in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group received obinutuzumab maintenance (10

112 utropenia (64 [33%] in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group vs 52 [26%] in the bendamustine monot

113 In particular, patients treated with bendamustine had lower rates of cytokine release syndrom

114 Bendamustine has shown potential in the treatment of mul

115 ximately 30 patients were to receive BV plus bendamustine; however, the incidence of serious adverse

116 Bendamustine hydrochloride is an alkylating agent with n

117 T-531 synergizes with approved cancer drugs, bendamustine, idasanutlin, and venetoclax.

118 AIHA, and the combination of rituximab plus bendamustine in Evans syndrome secondary to lymphoprolif

119 This study confirms the efficacy of bendamustine in heavily pretreated patients with HL.

120 the combination of brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine in heavily pretreated patients with relapse

121 Limited data exist regarding the activity of bendamustine in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

122 a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic le

123 nd the benefits of maintenance rituximab and bendamustine in older patients.

124 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin plus 70 mg/m(2) of bendamustine in one (4%) patient.

125 study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of bendamustine in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymph

126 se 2 dose of ibrutinib in combination with R-bendamustine in patients with NHL is 560 mg.

127 his phase II study evaluated the efficacy of bendamustine in relapsed and refractory HL.

128 d type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and bendamustine in this patient population.

129 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin plus 80 mg/m(2) of bendamustine in two (7%) patients and diffuse rash at 1.

130 pothesized that similar to cyclophosphamide, bendamustine-induced DNA damage will be inhibited by flu

131 nts did not require additional chemotherapy (bendamustine intensification).

132 plus BV; those without CMR received BV plus bendamustine intensification.

133 Bendamustine is a newly approved and better-tolerated al

134 Bendamustine is a potent chemotherapy agent increasingly

135 Bendamustine is a unique cytotoxic agent with structural

136 Bendamustine is approved in Germany for the treatment of

137 Bendamustine is associated with an increased risk of com

138 Despite activity, BV plus bendamustine is not a tolerable regimen in these patient

139 This first phase 1/2 trial testing bendamustine, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone as treatme

140 se 1/2 trial investigated the combination of bendamustine, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in repeati

141 ituximab-refractory disease, suggesting that bendamustine may be the most effective drug available fo

142 significantly longer with obinutuzumab plus bendamustine (median not reached [95% CI 22.5 months-not

143 In patients responding to rituximab-bendamustine, median response duration was not reached a

144 95% CI 22.5 months-not estimable]) than with bendamustine monotherapy (14.9 months [12.8-16.6]; hazar

145 m(2) per day (days 1 and 2, cycles 1-6), and bendamustine monotherapy dosing was 120 mg/m(2) per day

146 ndamustine group and five (42%) of 12 in the bendamustine monotherapy group were treatment related.

147 b plus bendamustine group vs 52 [26%] in the bendamustine monotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (21 [1

148 ustine group and in 65 patients (33%) in the bendamustine monotherapy group, and deaths due to advers

149 tine group and 20.3 months (9.5-29.7) in the bendamustine monotherapy group, progression-free surviva

150 roup and in 123 (62%) of 198 patients in the bendamustine monotherapy group.

151 zumab maintenance has improved efficacy over bendamustine monotherapy in rituximab-refractory patient

152 to obinutuzumab plus bendamustine and 202 to bendamustine monotherapy).

153 cles) with obinutuzumab plus bendamustine or bendamustine monotherapy, both given intravenously.

154 ts (33%) received fewer than three cycles of bendamustine, mostly because of disease progression.

155 23.5 months; P = .01) in comparison with the bendamustine-naive group.

156 6 v 23.5 months; P < .01) in comparison with bendamustine-naive patients.

157 comparisons between bendamustine-exposed and bendamustine-naive patients.

158 The trial enrolled 31 patients who received bendamustine on days 1 and 2 (100 mg/m(2) intravenously)

159 tuximab-bendamustine comprised 90 mg/m(2) of bendamustine on days 1 and 2 of each cycle, in combinati

160 t (six 28-day cycles) with obinutuzumab plus bendamustine or bendamustine monotherapy, both given int

161 ith chemotherapy drugs (i.e. fludarabine and bendamustine) or with the PI3Kdelta inhibitor idelalisib

162 ituximab and cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone, bendamustine, or bortezomib-dexamethasone provide durabl

163 nations with cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone, bendamustine, or bortezomib/dexamethasone provided durab

164 otherapy (fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide, bendamustine, or chlorambucil) and anti-CD20 antibody (r

165 istic effects when combined with cytarabine, bendamustine, or rituximab.

166 or 14 days in a 28-day cycle or gemcitabine, bendamustine, or romidepsin according to the investigato

167 oice standard therapy (ICT; ie, gemcitabine, bendamustine, or romidepsin) in patients with relapsed o

168 to ibrutinib or placebo in combination with bendamustine plus rituximab (289 in each group).

169 rogression-free survival (PFS) compared with bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in patients with relaps

170 tle cell lymphoma (MCL) is not standardized, bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is commonly used in old

171 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) vs a standard rituximab

172 2 (NCT01886872) is a phase 3 study comparing bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) with ibrutinib and the

173 atients and maintenance rituximab (MR) after bendamustine plus rituximab (BR).

174 oved progression-free survival compared with bendamustine plus rituximab alone in patients with relap

175 The 4-cycle bendamustine plus rituximab combination is highly effica

176 l interactive web response system to receive bendamustine plus rituximab for a maximum of six cycles

177 igned (1:1) by a web-based system to receive bendamustine plus rituximab given in cycles of 4 weeks'

178 TERPRETATION: Idelalisib in combination with bendamustine plus rituximab improved progression-free su

179 ibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), to bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with previously

180 hosphoinositide-3-kinase delta inhibitor, to bendamustine plus rituximab in this population.

181 that previously reported with ibrutinib and bendamustine plus rituximab individually was noted.

182 ding the role of rituximab maintenance after bendamustine plus rituximab induction.

183 Bendamustine plus rituximab is a standard of care for th

184 Bendamustine plus rituximab is often used in the relapse

185 C plus rituximab; CLL10: FC plus rituximab v bendamustine plus rituximab) were analyzed according to

186 In patients eligible for bendamustine plus rituximab, the addition of ibrutinib t

187 e excluded because of known poor response to bendamustine plus rituximab.

188 Single-agent bendamustine produced durable objective responses with a

189 However, the availability of bendamustine provides another effective treatment option

190 addition of lenalidomide (LEN) to rituximab-bendamustine (R-B) as first-line treatment for elderly p

191 whereas 271 had CIT, consisting of rituximab-bendamustine (R-B; n = 101), R-B and cytarabine (R-BAC;

192 Thirteen patients (29%) had their dose of bendamustine reduced.

193 venetoclax after an optional debulking with bendamustine regimen requires further evaluation in larg

194 ltaneous or prior addition of fludarabine to bendamustine resulted in maximum cytotoxicity assayed by

195 the significant activity and tolerability of bendamustine, rituximab, and bortezomib in patients with

196 fludarabine-rituximab, 7 (50%) responded to bendamustine-rituximab (3 CR and 4 PR).

197 r phase 3 clinical trial NHL1-2003 comparing bendamustine-rituximab (B-R) with rituximab, cyclophosph

198 In a single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial, bendamustine-rituximab (BR) demonstrated an overall resp

199 etermine if pentostatin-rituximab (DCFR) and bendamustine-rituximab (BR) each have overall response r

200 survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) vs bendamustine-rituximab (BR).

201 del(17)(p13.1) to zanubrutinib (group A) or bendamustine-rituximab (group B) by sequential block met

202 assigned to zanubrutinib (group A; n=241) or bendamustine-rituximab (group B; n=238).

203 PFS and overall survival remain superior to bendamustine-rituximab (hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.12

204 ynthesis of available evidence, we recommend bendamustine-rituximab as primary therapy for bulky dise

205 In conclusion, bendamustine-rituximab combination therapy is highly eff

206 -duration venetoclax-rituximab compared with bendamustine-rituximab in relapsed/refractory chronic ly

207 We compared zanubrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab to determine its effectiveness as

208 The combination of bendamustine-rituximab was demonstrated to be noninferio

209 o the control group (53 to R-CHOP and 145 to bendamustine-rituximab) and 199 were allocated to interv

210 xorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone] or bendamustine-rituximab) in patients 60 years and older w

211 y (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) or 12 cycles of venetoclax-ritux

212 ad poor outcomes despite adding ibrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab, highlighting an urgent need for

213 -CHOP, the HR was 0.37 (0.22-0.62), and with bendamustine-rituximab, the HR was 0.91 (0.66-1.25).

214 ly improved progression-free survival versus bendamustine-rituximab, with an acceptable safety profil

215 erved for venetoclax-rituximab compared with bendamustine-rituximab.

216 uring the first six cycles, or six cycles of bendamustine-rituximab.

217 Bendamustine showed an encouraging high response rate ac

218 Bendamustine showed consistent efficacy independent of m

219 For BV plus bendamustine, the ORR was 100% and the CR rate was 88%.

220 Rituximab plus bendamustine therapy resulted in responses in 35 (78%) o

221 Questions related to the optimization of bendamustine therapy, including dose and schedule, role

222 Bendamustine-treated patients had higher nadir neutrophi

223 cells display resistance to doxorubicin and bendamustine, two drugs largely used in FL therapy, comp

224 Bendamustine was administered at a dose of 90 mg/m(2) on

225 Bendamustine was associated with an increased risk of bo

226 on, and unscheduled DNA synthesis induced by bendamustine was blocked by fludarabine.

227 lation phase, the maximum-tolerated dose for bendamustine was not reached; the 90 mg/m(2) dose level

228 Focusing on the impact of bendamustine washout before apheresis, those with recent

229 /kg of brentuximab vedotin and 90 mg/m(2) of bendamustine, which are the standard doses of the drugs

230 Bendamustine with bortezomib and dexamethasone was evalu

231 r trial to assess the efficacy and safety of bendamustine with dexamethasone (ben-dex) in patients wi

232 is study shows that brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine, with a favourable safety profile, is an ac