Table 6

Second-line immunosuppressive therapy after failure or relapse

First-line treatment regimenSteroids alone (n = 142)
Steroids + cyclophosphamide (n = 83)
Rituximab-based (n = 51)
Relapse (n = 15)Nonresponse (n = 59)Relapse (n = 8)Nonresponse (n = 17)Relapse (n = 1)Nonresponse (n = 20)
Second-line treatment regimen, n       
    Steroids + cytotoxics 
    Steroids alone 
    Cytotoxics alone 17 
    Rituximab alone 25 
    Steroids + cytotoxics + rituximab 
    Cytotoxics + rituximab 
    Steroids + rituximab 
    No data available ND 
Second-line treatment outcome       
    Complete response, n/total evaluable (%) 7/8 (88) 28/44 (64) 5/6 (83) 8/11 (73) ND 7/14 (50) 
    Relapse, n ND 
    Stable complete response, n/total evaluable (%) 5/8 (63) 26/44 (59) 4/6 (67) 7/11 (64) ND 7/14 (50) 
First-line treatment regimenSteroids alone (n = 142)
Steroids + cyclophosphamide (n = 83)
Rituximab-based (n = 51)
Relapse (n = 15)Nonresponse (n = 59)Relapse (n = 8)Nonresponse (n = 17)Relapse (n = 1)Nonresponse (n = 20)
Second-line treatment regimen, n       
    Steroids + cytotoxics 
    Steroids alone 
    Cytotoxics alone 17 
    Rituximab alone 25 
    Steroids + cytotoxics + rituximab 
    Cytotoxics + rituximab 
    Steroids + rituximab 
    No data available ND 
Second-line treatment outcome       
    Complete response, n/total evaluable (%) 7/8 (88) 28/44 (64) 5/6 (83) 8/11 (73) ND 7/14 (50) 
    Relapse, n ND 
    Stable complete response, n/total evaluable (%) 5/8 (63) 26/44 (59) 4/6 (67) 7/11 (64) ND 7/14 (50) 

Second-line immunosuppressive therapy was reported as a proportion of cases and shown dependent on first-line treatment. In patients on whom data are available, 9 of 14 patients (64%) who relapsed had a stable CR, whereas 40 of 69 (58%) of those that did not achieve a first CR did so after second-line therapy.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal