Highlights
Outside of the clinical trial setting, we’d normally administer an anti-CD20 antibody (typically rituximab or obinutuzumab) combined with chemotherapy. The majority of our patients would have rituximabbendamustine. If they achieve a remission after their standard induction treatment, I would discuss maintenance anti-CD20 interventions as well. This would continue for two years. That’s typical of the landscape in the front-line setting.
I think the main challenge is that drugs in the first-line setting are pretty effective already. We already saw with the GALLIUM and the RELEVANCE trials, where they tried to go head-to-head with standard rituximab-chemotherapy, they didn’t come out as superior. The overall response rate of rituximab-chemo is incredibly high, PFS is very high, so you need to have a wonder drug to be able to show superiority to the conventional rituximab regimens in first line… The challenge of course with FL trials – potentially another reason why there haven’t been any new front-line drugs – is that a Phase III trial is incredibly long and expensive due to the indolent nature of the disease. So to be able to capture the kind of progression-free survival data, you need a lot of time and money.
Overview
This interview with a UK-based key opinion leader (KOL) provides insights into prescribing habits, key marketed brands, and late-phase pipeline therapies for follicular lymphoma. Disease stratification by staging and expression as well as unmet needs are also discussed. Key assets highlighted include Rituxan, Revlimid, Gazyva, Yescarta, Imbruvica, Kymriah, Tazverik, and mosunetuzumab.