Phase 2 trial of rituximab with either pentostatin or bendamustine for multiply relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia

B Brett Schroeder (1Developmental Therapeutics Branch, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) C Constance Yuan (2Laboratory of Pathology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) H Hao-Wei Wang C Chirayu Mohindroo H Hong Zhou (Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Agri-Seeds, School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University) M Mark Raffeld (Department of Pathology, NCI, Bethesda, MD) L Liqiang Xi (2Laboratory of Pathology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) E Evgeny Arons (3Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Centers for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) J Julie Feurtado (4Office of Research Nursing, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) L Lacey James-Echenique (3Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) K Katherine R. Calvo (National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, United States) I Irina Maric (5Department of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) R Robert J. Kreitman (3Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Centers for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD)

Abstract

Abstract The primary objective in multiply relapsed hairy cell leukemia and variant (HCL/HCLv) was to determine whether pentostatin-rituximab (DCFR) and bendamustine-rituximab (BR) each achieve an overall response rate (ORR) exceeding that historically achieved by rituximab alone (∼40%) in favor of 65%. Prospective data were unreported for either regimen. Fifty-six patients received 6 28-day cycles of rituximab (375 mg/m2, days 1 and 15) with either bendamustine (90 mg/m2, days 1 and 2) or pentostatin (4 mg/m2, days 1 and 15). Eligibility required ≥2 purine analogs, or 1 purine analog plus rituximab for response of <1 year to the initial purine analog. Although patients were assigned to either regimen through randomization to increase homogeneity of the 2 treatment groups, the DCFR arm had fewer previous purine analogs (P = .021) and lower baseline marrow HCL/HCLv infiltration (P = .013). ORRs for DCFR and BR were 93% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 83-102) and 86%, (95% CI, 73-99), respectively, exceeding 40% (P< .0001) for each group. Rates for complete remission (CR) and minimal residual disease-free CR and median progression-free survival (141 vs 50 months; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.32-1.25) numerically favored DCFR, but that arm was significantly enriched with less previous purine analogs and marrow infiltration, each of which was associated post hoc with better response. Post hoc subgroup analysis, particularly for 41 patients with classic HCL, suggested any superiority of DCFR vs BR might apply to patients with more favorable disease. DCFR and BR were highly effective in multiply relapsed HCL/HCLv. Possible DCFR superiority was hypothesis-generating, given uneven baseline risks and trial design. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01059786.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 147, Issue 7
Published February 12, 2026
Pages 725-738
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (13)

B

Brett Schroeder

1Developmental Therapeutics Branch, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

C

Constance Yuan

2Laboratory of Pathology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

H

Hao-Wei Wang

C

Chirayu Mohindroo

H

Hong Zhou

Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Agri-Seeds, School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University

M

Mark Raffeld

Department of Pathology, NCI, Bethesda, MD

L

Liqiang Xi

2Laboratory of Pathology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

E

Evgeny Arons

3Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Centers for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

J

Julie Feurtado

4Office of Research Nursing, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

L

Lacey James-Echenique

3Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

K

Katherine R. Calvo

National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, United States

I

Irina Maric

5Department of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

R

Robert J. Kreitman

3Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Centers for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD