Rituximab plus lenalidomide (R²) versus standard therapies in follicular lymphoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is a common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma characterized by frequent relapses and the need for effective yet tolerable treatment strategies. Combining rituximab with lenalidomide (R²) has emerged as a promising chemo-free regimen aimed at improving patient outcomes while minimizing toxicity. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of R² versus standard therapies, including rituximab/lenalidomide monotherapies and chemoimmunotherapy (BR/RCHOP), remain to be fully clarified. Methods: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central through May 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing rituximab plus lenalidomide (R²) to standard treatments in follicular lymphoma. Outcomes included complete response (CR), overall response rate (ORR), partial response (PR), 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias using ROB 2.0. Pooled analyses were conducted using Review Manager version 5.4.1 with random-effects models; heterogeneity was assessed using I², and publication bias was evaluated via Egger's test. Results: Four randomized controlled trials (n = 1,315) evaluating rituximab plus lenalidomide (R²) versus control in follicular lymphoma were included. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced across arms, with a median age range of 55–64 years, 48–52% male patients, and most presenting with advanced-stage disease (Ann Arbor III/IV: 70–90%) and high tumor burden (FLIPI ≥2: 60–75%). Rituximab plus lenalidomide was associated with a non-significant improvement in 2-year progression-free survival (Risk Ratio [RR] = 1.50; 95% CI: 0.50–4.50; P = 0.254), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 85.3%), which resolved and reached statistical significance upon exclusion of one outlier study (RR = 2.05; 95% CI: 1.18–3.55; P = 0.038; I² = 0%). Overall survival at 3 years was comparable between treatment arms (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.96–1.05; P = 0.593; I² = 0%). Overall response rates (RR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.81–1.49; P = 0.697; I² = 65.2%) and complete response rates (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.25–2.47; P = 0.549; I² = 82.2%) were similar between groups, with persistently high heterogeneity in the latter. A non-significant trend favoring the R² regimen was observed for partial responses (RR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.74–1.94; P = 0.325; I² = 24.9%). Hematologic toxicities were more frequent with R², though not statistically significant, including any-grade neutropenia (RR = 1.56; 95% CI: 0.22–11.09; P = 0.434; I² = 75.8%), grade ≥3 neutropenia (RR = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.12–16.03; P = 0.620; I² = 86.9%), any-grade thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.19–6.10; P = 0.855; I² = 13.6%), grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.71; 95% CI: 0.34–8.59; P = 0.289; I² = 0%), any-grade anemia (RR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.17–8.41; P = 0.727; I² = 60.1%), and grade ≥3 anemia (RR = 2.96; 95% CI: 0.12–71.57; P = 0.504). Non-hematologic toxicities were more prominent with R², particularly skin reactions (RR = 2.79; 95% CI: 1.08–7.17; P = 0.033; I² = 65.2%) and diarrhea (RR = 1.98; 95% CI: 1.65–2.38; P = 0.004; I² = 0%), both of which reached statistical significance. Other adverse events, including fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and elevated aminotransferases, were similar between groups with no statistically significant differences. Publication bias was suggested for progression-free survival (Egger's test p = 0.04), while reporting appeared balanced for other outcomes Conclusion: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials suggests that rituximab plus lenalidomide may improve progression-free survival in follicular lymphoma, particularly after accounting for heterogeneity, while demonstrating comparable overall survival and response rates to standard treatments, validating a chemotherapy-free option. These findings support R² as an effective treatment option with a distinct safety profile, warranting further investigation and individualized clinical consideration.
Article Details
Authors (20)
Abat Khan
1memorial healthcare system, pembroke pines, United States
Name: Iftikhar Khan
2FMH college of medicine and dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan
Moosa Mubarika
Nishtar Medical University, Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan
Maheen Shaharyar
4Rawalpindi medical university, rawalpindi, Pakistan
Sara Aleem
5Sialkot medical college, sialkot, Pakistan
Umama Alam
Khyber Medical College, Peshawar, Pakistan
Hooria Aiman
7Ayub Medical College, Abottabad, Pakistan
Amna Binte Naeem
4Rawalpindi medical university, rawalpindi, Pakistan
Hareem Saleem
1memorial healthcare system, pembroke pines, United States
Muhammad Nouman
8Foundation University Medical College, Islamabad, Pakistan
Ayesha Imran Butt
9Allama iqbal medical college, Lahore, Pakistan
Hafiz Muhammad Haris
King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
Fajar Nadeem
11Rashid Latif Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan
Zunaira Maham Fatima
11Rashid Latif Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan
Muhammad Junaid Azhar
4Rawalpindi medical university, rawalpindi, Pakistan
Hira Habib
1University of Kansas Medical Center, Division of Hematologic Malignancies & Cellular Therapeutics, Kansas City, United States
Asim Ahmad Khan
5KMU institute of medical sciences, kohat, Pakistan
Carlos H Silva Rondon
8Moffitt Cancer Center at Memorial Healthcare System, Florida, USA, Pembroke Pines, United States
Fernando Vargas Madueno
13moffitt malignant hematology and cellular therapy at memorial healthcare system, pembroke pines, United States
Jose D. Sandoval-Sus
3Moffitt Cancer Center at Memorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, United States