Skip to main content
Download PDF

Long-term outcomes with HLX01 (HanliKang®), a rituximab biosimilar, in previously untreated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: 5-year follow-up results of the phase 3 HLX01-NHL03 study

BMC Cancer volume 24, Article number: 124 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

HLX01 (HanliKang®) is a rituximab biosimilar that showed bioequivalence to reference rituximab in untreated CD20-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the phase 3 HLX01-NHL03 study. Here, we report the 5-year follow-up results from the open-label extension part. Patients were randomised to either rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or HLX01 plus CHOP (H-CHOP) every 21 days for up to six cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Of the 407 patients enrolled in HLX01-NHL03, 316 patients (H-CHOP = 157; R-CHOP = 159) were included in the 5-year follow-up for a median duration of 65.1 (range, 2.2–76.5) months. 96.5% of the patients had an International Prognostic Index (IPI) of 1 or 2, and 17.7% had bone marrow involvement. The 5-year OS rates were 81.0% (95% CI: 74.9–87.5%) and 75.4% (95% CI: 68.9–82.6%)( HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.47–1.20; p = 0.23) while 5-year PFS rates were 77.7% (95% CI: 71.4–84.6%) and 73.0% (95% CI: 66.3–80.3%) (HR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.54–1.30; p = 0.43) in the H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. Treatment outcomes did not differ between groups regardless of IPI score and were consistent with the primary analysis. H-CHOP and R-CHOP provided no significant difference in 5-year OS or PFS in previously untreated patients with low or low-intermediate risk DLBCL.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of lymphoid malignancy, accounting for 25–30% of all non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma [1]. In China, DLBCL accounts for more than one-third of lymphoid neoplasms [2]. Rituximab is a chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody directed against the CD20 antigen on the surface of B lymphocytes [3]. Rituximab destroys malignant B lymphocytes by inducing complement-dependent cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity or phagocytosis and apoptosis [3].

Although DLBCL is an aggressive tumour, patients respond well with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) [1], achieving a higher complete response than with CHOP alone (76% vs. 63%; p = 0.005) in the pivotal LNH-98.5 trial [4]. The long-term follow-up of the same study showed that the median OS in the R-CHOP arm (8.4 years [95% CI: 5.4–not reached]) was significantly prolonged than that in the CHOP arm (3.5 years [95% CI: 2.2–5.5]) (p < 0.0001), further confirming the long-term benefit of R-CHOP regimen [5]. Nowadays, rituximab in combination with chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for this lymphoma subtype, representing a standard of care in the first-line setting with a curative intent.

The clinical benefit of the R-CHOP regimen is also well documented in Chinese patients. First-line treatment with R-CHOP in Chinese patients with DLBCL yielded an objective response rate of 94.2% in a real-world study [6]. In a retrospective study of 411 patients, the overall response rate in R-CHOP was higher than that in CHOP alone (95.2% vs. 88.0%; p = 0.007) [7]. The Clinical practice guideline for lymphoma in China (2021 Edition) recommends anti-CD20 antibody plus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed patients with DLBCL [8].

Biosimilars are biological agents that are highly similar to the active ingredient of the reference biologic in terms of structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety. The process of developing a biosimilar includes structural and functional characterisation of the molecule, preclinical studies, and clinical studies, with the goal of proving no clinically meaningful difference between the biosimilar and the reference product [9]. To make rituximab more readily available, biosimilars are developed. HLX01 (HanliKang®; Shanghai Henlius Biotech, Inc., China) is a rituximab biosimilar that has demonstrated bioequivalence in terms of physicochemical properties and biological activity to the reference rituximab [10]. It was developed in a stepwise approach in accordance with the China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and the World Health Organization similar biotherapeutic product development guidelines [11].

In a phase 1 study, HLX01 and reference rituximab showed bioequivalence in terms of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in patients with CD20-positive B-cell lymphoma [11]. The efficacy and safety of HLX01, and bioequivalence to the reference rituximab in DLBCL, has also been demonstrated in a phase 3 HLX01-NHL03 trial of 407 treatment-naïve patients with low to intermediate risk (International Prognostic Index [IPI] 0–2) [12]. In order to have a consistent treatment plan in a clinical trial setting (i.e., H-CHOP or R-CHOP every 21 days for up to six cycles), patients with higher IPI scores of ≥ 3 were not recruited in this study as they would require R-CHOP at higher intensity or for extended cycles (e.g., eight cycles) [8]. The overall response rates for HLX01 plus CHOP (H-CHOP) group and R-CHOP group were 94.1% (95% CI: 89.8–97.0%) and 92.8% (95% CI: 88.2–96.0%), respectively (intergroup difference, 1.4%; 95% CI,−3.59 to 6.32, p = 0.608) in the per protocol set [12]. More recently, HLX01 demonstrated comparable efficacy compared with the reference rituximab in a real-world study, yielding an overall response rate of 86.7% versus 88.9% for the reference product in Chinese patients (p = 1.000) [13]. HLX01 has been approved by China NMPA as the first biosimilar in China on 22 February 2019 [14,15,16].

Here, we report the results from the 5-year follow-up analyses on the OS of the HLX01-NHL03 phase 3 study [12].

Methods

Study design and patient eligibility

In the phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind HLX01-NHL03 study, patients were randomised to receive either H-CHOP or R-CHOP at a dose of 375 mg/m2 for HLX01 or rituximab intravenously once every three weeks on a three-week cycle for up to six cycles. In the open-label extension part, the enrolled patients were those randomised in the HLX01-NHL03 study and were willing to be followed up for survival, disease progression, and treatment status. As such, the eligibility criteria are that of the HLX01-NHL03 study (chinadrugtrials.org.cn, identifier CTR20150583), which has been published previously [12].

Key inclusion criteria included treatment-naïve CD20-positive DLBCL patients confirmed by histopathology, IPI of 0–2, and with an expected survival of more than 6 months. Patients were excluded if they had central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma and secondary CNS invasion, double or triple hit DLBCL, or a history of other malignant tumours other than skin squamous cell carcinoma, skin basal cell carcinoma, and cervical carcinoma in situ. The full eligibility criteria are available in the Supplementary Methods.

All patients who agreed to participate in this extended phase were contacted every 3 months (± 7 days) or per routine clinical follow-up until the patient or the legal guardian voluntarily requested to withdraw or was deemed unsuitable to continue in the study by the investigator. This study was conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonization Good Practice for Clinical Trials and local applicable regulatory requirements. The study protocol, amendments, and all related materials were approved by the independent review board at each participating hospital. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04491721.

Study endpoints

The primary efficacy endpoint of this extended follow-up study was to evaluate the 5-year OS from the HLX01-NHL03 study. The secondary efficacy endpoint was PFS.

Statistical analysis

The OS, PFS, their median values and 95% CI, were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Comparison between groups was performed using the log-rank test. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates were also estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method; comparison between groups was performed using Chi-square test. Efficacy was analysed in patients who participated in the extended follow-up and in those who had completed six cycles of treatment. All statistical analyses were performed using the SAS statistical software, version 9.4 or above (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). All hypothesis tests were two-sided, using a test level of 0.05, and the reliability of all CIs was 95%.

Results

Patients

A total of 407 patients were included in the HLX01-NHL03 study; of whom 316 patients (H-CHOP, n = 157; R-CHOP, n = 159) from 27 hospitals in China were enrolled in this 5-year follow-up phase. At data cut-off date on 28 April 2022, the median duration of follow-up was 65.1 (range, 2.2–76.5) months. Of patients enrolled, 137 (87.3%) in the H-CHOP group and 146 (91.8%) in the R-CHOP group completed the six planned treatment cycles (Fig. 1). The patient demographics and baseline characteristics were well balanced between both treatment groups and are presented in Table 1. The median age of patients from this extended follow-up study was 56.1 years old; 305 patients (96.5%) were IPI 1 and 2, 149 (47.2%) were clinical stage III/IV, and 56 (17.7%) had bone marrow involvement.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Patient disposition in the long-term follow-up phase

Full size image
Table 1 Patient baseline demographics and disease characteristics
Full size table

Efficacy in the overall population

Thirty-one and 41 patients died in the H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. Among 316 patients, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of OS between the two treatment groups. The estimated 5-year OS rates were 81.0% (95% CI: 74.9–87.5%) and 75.4% (95% CI: 68.9–82.6%) in H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.47–1.20; p = 0.23; Fig. 2A). The detailed 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates are shown in Table 2. OS analysis in 283 patients who completed six treatment cycles at baseline is presented in Fig. 2B. Similarly, no significant difference was observed between both treatment groups. The 5-year OS rates were 83.3% (95% CI: 77.2–90.0%) and 77.6% (95% CI: 71.0–84.8%) for those who completed six treatment cycles in H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.42–1.19; p = 0.19).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall survival in (A) the overall population, (B) patients who completed six cycles of treatment, (C) patients with an IPI score of 1, and (D) patients with an IPI score of 2

Full size image
Table 2 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate of H-CHOP and R-CHOP for the overall population, those who had completed 6 cycles of treatment, IPI 1, and IPI 2
Full size table

Thirty-six and 43 patients had disease progression or died in the H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of PFS between the two treatment regimens. The estimated 5-year PFS rates were 77.7% (95% CI: 71.4–84.6%) and 73.0% (95% CI: 66.3–80.3%) in the H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively (HR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.54–1.30; p = 0.43; Fig. 3A). The detailed 1-, 3-, and 5-year PFS rates were shown in Table 2. PFS analyses in 283 patients who completed six cycles of treatment at baseline showed no significant difference in the H-CHOP group versus the R-CHOP group. The 5-year PFS rates were 79.6% (95% CI: 73.0–86.8%) and 75.6% (95% CI: 68.9–83.0%) for those who completed six treatment cycles in H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively (HR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.52–1.38; p = 0.50, Fig. 3B). The detailed 1-, 3-, and 5-year PFS rates are shown in Table 2.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Kaplan–Meier estimates of progression-free survival in (A) the overall population, (B) patients who completed six cycles of treatment, (C) patients with an IPI score of 1, and (D) patients with an IPI score of 2

Full size image

Subgroup analyses of efficacy outcomes according to IPI and gender

Further analysis was conducted among patients with an IPI score of 1 and 2 as this group of patients made up the majority (n = 305; 96.6%) and representing most of the low– and low-intermediate–risk groups in this study. There was no significant difference between H-CHOP and R-CHOP in terms of OS regardless of whether the patients had an IPI score of 1 (5-year OS rate: 86.8% [95% CI: 79.0–95.2%] vs. 80.2% [95% CI: 71.9–89.4%]; HR: 0.78 [95% CI:0.36–1.68]; p = 0.52; Fig. 2C) or 2 (5-year OS rate: 76.2% [95% CI: 67.4–86.2%] vs. 68.0% [95% CI: 57.7–80.0%]; HR: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.35–1.17]; p = 0.15; Fig. 2D). The detailed 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates are shown in Table 2. Similarly, PFS did not differ significantly between H-CHOP and R-CHOP whether the patients had an IPI score of 1 (5-year PFS rate: 84.1% [95% CI: 76.0–93.2%] vs. 75.3% [95% CI: 66.4–85.3%]; HR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.34–1.44]; p = 0.33; Fig. 3C) or 2 (5-year PFS rate: 72.0% [95% CI: 62.2–82.7%] vs. 68.2% [95% CI: 58.0–80.1%]; HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.46–1.48]; p = 0.52; Fig. 3D). The detailed 1-, 3-, and 5-year PFS rates are shown in Table 2.

There was no significant difference in OS between the two treatment groups among patients with an IPI score of 1 and 2 (p = 0.17; Figure S1A); 5-year OS rates were 81.0% (95% CI: 74.9–87.6%) and 74.6% (95% CI: 67.9–81.9%) in the H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively (Supplementary Table S1). Similar result was also observed with PFS between H-CHOP and R-CHOP among patients with IPI score of 1 and 2 (p = 0.34; Figure S1B). The 5-year PFS rates were 77.7% (95% CI: 71.2–84.7%) and 72.0% (95% CI: 65.1–79.6%) in the H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively (Supplementary Table S1).

OS (p = 0.023) and PFS (p = 0.048) were significantly different between patients with an IPI score of 1 and those with an IPI score of 2 regardless of treatment regimen (Figure S2). Higher OS and PFS rates were observed in patients with IPI score of 1 compared with those with IPI score of 2. The 5-year OS rates were 83.1% (95% CI: 77.3–89.4%) and 72.3% (95% CI: 65.5–79.9%), and 5-year PFS rates were 79.3% (95% CI: 73.1–86.1%) and 70.2% (95% CI: 63.1–78.0%) in the IPI 1 and 2 groups, respectively (Supplementary Table S1).

The impact of clinical staging on survival outcomes among patients with IPI score of 1 and 2 was further investigated. There was no statistical difference between patients with clinical stage I/II and those with clinical stage III/IV in terms of PFS (p = 0.06) and OS (p = 0.45) (Figure S3). The 5-year PFS rates were 79.0% (95% CI: 72.8–85.8%) and 70.4% (95% CI: 63.3–78.2%); similarly, 5-year OS rates were 79.4% (95% CI: 73.1–86.2%) and 76.0% (95% CI: 69.4–83.3%) in the clinical stage I/II and III/IV, groups respectively.

Gender appeared to have no effect on either OS or PFS, and the efficacy outcomes did not differ significantly between two treatment groups in either gender group (Figure S4 and Figure S5).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first rituximab biosimilar study to provide long-term efficacy insights in Chinese patients with low to intermediate risk (IPI score 0–2) DLBCL. The results in this study concur with the findings from the primary analysis, that there was no significant difference in terms of efficacy between both treatment groups [12]. Overall, HLX01 was comparable with the rituximab reference product as the survival rates in terms of OS and PFS were similar without statistical difference. After a median follow-up of 65.1 months, we noted a trend towards OS and PFS benefit although no statistical difference, the 5-year OS rate (study primary endpoint) between H-CHOP group and R-CHOP group (81.0% [95% CI: 74.9–87.5%] vs. 75.4% [95% CI: 68.9–82.6%]; HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.47–1.20; p = 0.23); similar results were also observed for the 5-year PFS rate between H-CHOP group and R-CHOP group (77.7% [95% CI: 71.4–84.6%] vs. 73.0% [95% CI: 66.3–80.3%]; HR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.54–1.30; p = 0.43). In addition, the results of the OS and PFS subgroup analyses stratified by IPI status, gender, or the completion of six treatment cycles at baseline were consistent with the overall results and yielded no significant difference between treatment groups.

The results in this study were comparable (in view of baseline IPI status and age of patients enrolled) with other long-term follow-up studies with rituximab plus chemotherapy in DLBCL patients. In a retrospective, observational study conducted in China, the OS and PFS of patients who received R-CHOP was 84.1% and 81.5%, respectively, after a median follow-up of 86 months [17]. The majority (75.6%) of these patients had an IPI ≤ 2 and the median age was 53 years [17]. In a multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study in China, 3-year OS and PFS rates with rituximab plus chemotherapy were 90% and 59%, respectively, in previously untreated patients with DLBCL [18]. A large proportion of patients (77.0%) were low– and low-intermediate IPI risk score and median age was 57.2 years [18]. Of note, 92.4% of patients received R-CHOP in this study, while 7.6% were given rituximab monotherapy [18]. Elsewhere, Li et al. reported 3-year OS and PFS of 66.1% and 77.6%, respectively, among Chinese patients with a median age of 54 years who received R-CHOP every 3 weeks [19]. The higher proportion of patients (30.8%) with IPI > 2 could explain the slightly lower survival outcomes reported in this randomised, open-label phase 3 study [19]. When stratified by IPI scores, the 3-year OS and PFS rates were 86.8% and 76.5% for IPI 0–1, and 76.0% and 57.5% for IPI 2, respectively [19]. In a published study on the use of revised-IPI to predict treatment outcomes by Sehn et al., 4-year OS and PFS among patients with 1 or 2 IPI score was 79% and 80%, respectively, similar to the 5-year survival rates in our study where the majority of patients had a IPI score of 1 or 2 [20]. The clinical trial LNH98-5, which was conducted in Europe and included an older population (median age, 69 years) with IPI 0–5, showed a 5-year PFS of 54% and 5-year OS of 58% for R-CHOP [21]. A real-world study in Chile also reported a similar 5-year OS (66%) in an older population (median age 62, range 15–95) with higher risk (IPI 0–5) treated with R-CHOP [22]. The MabThera International Trial (MInT) Group enrolled a younger population (aged 18–60 years) with a favourable prognostic profile (age-adjusted IPI 0–1) and reported a 6-year PFS of 80.2% and 6-year OS of 90.1% for R-CHOP [23].

More recently, Shi et al. published the treatment outcomes of R-CHOP in 1084 Chinese patients with DLBCL from the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College which reported 5-year OS rates of 86.1% and 59.6% among low–risk and low-intermediate–risk patients by IPI risk categorisation, respectively [24]. The corresponding 5-year PFS rates were 78.3% and 51.8% [24]. Another large-scale retrospective study of 2124 patients reported 5-year OS rates of 87.7% and 76.1% in the IPI 0–1 and 2 risk groups, respectively [25]. Overall, the 5-year OS rates of H-CHOP at 86.8% and 76.2% for patients with IPI score of 1 and 2, respectively in this study were similar to that of previous published studies. IPI score is a prognostic tool to predict the outcome of patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP. In the subgroup analysis of this study, patients with IPI 2 exhibited poorer PFS and OS compared with those with IPI 1, regardless of treatment regimen, and this is well documented in literature [19, 20, 24].

Interestingly, Chinese patients appeared to have longer survival outcomes than those from western countries when treated with R-CHOP. This could be due to the differences in clinical characteristics such as age of diagnosis which has been documented to be lower in China (50–60 years) than in Caucasian patients (> 60 years) [24, 26,27,28]. Caucasian patients were also more likely to be presented with elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase and advanced stage than Chinese patients [26, 28], which are prognostic factors for survival outcomes [29]. Further studies are warranted to investigate the differences in prognostic factors between Asian and Caucasian patients and their impact on the long-term survival outcomes of R-CHOP.

The cost-effectiveness of R-CHOP was previously established in China for DLBCL [30]. Given that HLX01 is proven to be effective in the long-term in terms of survival and is relatively inexpensive, the former, therefore, represents a reasonable alternative to the reference rituximab, further improving treatment accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and positively impacting the financial sustainability of the healthcare system.

The current study had several limitations arising from the nature of the study design. Telephone follow-up may be subjected to non-response bias, and the absence of visual cues may compromise the representativeness and robustness of the data. Exploratory subgroup studies are warranted to further understand the impact of prognostic factors such as cell of origin, IPI, or the presence of molecular aberrations on the treatment outcomes of H-CHOP in Chinese patients with DLBCL [31].

Conclusion

This study showed the 5-year OS and PFS rates in previously untreated Chinese DLBCL patients who received H-CHOP was comparable to that of R-CHOP. Rituximab has revolutionised the treatment of DLBCL over the last decades, and HLX01 is an appropriate substitute for rituximab that can provide comparable efficacy in patients with low or low-intermediate IPI risk DLBCL.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence interval

CNS:

Central nervous system

DLBCL:

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

H-CHOP:

HLX01 plus cyclophosphamide,doxorubicin,vincristine,and prednisone

IPI:

International Prognostic Index

OS:

overall survival

PFS:

Progression-free survival

R-CHOP:

Rituximab plus cyclophosphamide,doxorubicin,vincristine,and prednisone

References

  1. Padala SA, Kallam A. Diffuse large B cell lymphoma. In: StatPearls. edn. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sun J, Yang Q, Lu Z, He M, Gao L, Zhu M, Sun L, Wei L, Li M, Liu C, et al. Distribution of lymphoid neoplasms in China: analysis of 4,638 cases according to the World Health Organization classification. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138(3):429–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cerny T, Borisch B, Introna M, Johnson P, Rose AL. Mechanism of action of Rituximab. Anticancer Drugs. 2002;13:3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, Herbrecht R, Tilly H, Bouabdallah R, Morel P, Van Den Neste E, Salles G, Gaulard P, et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(4):235–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coiffier B, Thieblemont C, Van Den Neste E, Lepeu G, Plantier I, Castaigne S, Lefort S, Marit G, Macro M, Sebban C, et al. Long-term outcome of patients in the LNH-98.5 trial, the first randomized study comparing rituximab-CHOP to standard CHOP chemotherapy in DLBCL patients: a study by the Groupe d’Etudes Des Lymphomes De l’Adulte. Blood. 2010;116(12):2040–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu J, Song Y, Su L, Xu L, Chen T, Zhao Z, Zhang M, Li W, Hu Y, Zhang X, et al. Rituximab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in Chinese patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in routine practice: a prospective, multicentre, non-interventional study. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:537.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng ZX, Zou SH, Li F, Li JM, Wang JM, Chen FY, Cao JN, Wang C, Wei Z, Cheng YF. [Evaluation of the impact of R-CHOP chemotherapy on efficacy, safety and prognosis in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients and its prognostic impact: a multicenter retrospective study with long term follow-up]. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2012;33(4):257–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. China Anti-cancer Association, Lymphoma C, Chinese Association for Clinical O, Medical Oncology Branch of Chinese International E. Promotion Association for M, Healthcare: [Clinical practice guideline for lympoma in China (2021 Edition)]. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2021;43(7):707–35.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Sabbagh A, Olech E, McClellan JE, Kirchhoff CF. Development of biosimilars. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016;45:11–S18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Xu Y, Xie L, Zhang E, Gao W, Wang L, Cao Y, Xie MH, Jiang W, Liu S. Physicochemical and functional assessments demonstrating analytical similarity between Rituximab biosimilar HLX01 and the MabThera(R). MAbs. 2019;11(3):606–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Shi Y, Zhang Q, Han X, Qin Y, Ke X, Su H, Liu L, Fu J, Jin J, Feng J, et al. Phase 1 studies comparing safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of HLX01 (a rituximab biosimilar) to reference rituximab in Chinese patients with CD20-positive B-cell lymphoma. Chin J Cancer Res. 2021;33(3):405–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Shi Y, Song Y, Qin Y, Zhang Q, Han X, Hong X, Wang D, Li W, Zhang Y, Feng J, et al. A phase 3 study of rituximab biosimilar HLX01 in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Hematol Oncol. 2020;13(1):38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Deng W, Yang S, Yang C, Chen H, Huang G, Wu H, Chen J. Rituximab biosimilar HLX01 versus reference rituximab in the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: real-world clinical experience. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2022:10781552221110470.

  14. Henlius Receives NMPA. Approval for its first product HLX01–The beginning of a New Era for Biosimilar [https://www.henlius.com/en/NewsDetails-1867-26.html].

  15. NMPA Has Accepted. The NDA of HLX01(Rituximab Injection) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis [https://www.henlius.com/en/NewsDetails-2921-26.html].

  16. Zeng X, Wang Y, Jiang Z, Zhang Z, He L, Zhang X, Lu X, Liu X, Xu J, Huang C, et al. SAT0139 a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel active-controlled clinical trial comparing pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and exploratory efficacy between HLX01 and Europe-sourced rituximab as a new indication in Chinese moderate to severe patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(Suppl 2):1140.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Li X, Liu Z, Cao J, Hong X, Wang J, Chen F, Wang C, Zou S, Li J, Shen Z. Rituximab in combination with CHOP chemotherapy for the treatment of diffuse large B cell lymphoma in China: a 10-year retrospective follow-up analysis of 437 cases from Shanghai Lymphoma Research Group. Ann Hematol. 2012;91(6):837–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu JQ, Song YP, Su LP, Zhang MZ, Li W, Hu Y, Zhang XH, Gao YH, Niu ZX, Feng R, et al. Three-year follow-up on the Safety and Effectiveness of Rituximab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line treatment of diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma and Follicular Lymphoma in real-world clinical settings in China: a prospective, Multicenter, Noninterventional Study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2018;131(15):1767–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Li X, Huang H, Xu B, Guo H, Lin Y, Ye S, Yi J, Li W, Wu X, Wang W, et al. Dose-dense Rituximab-CHOP versus Standard Rituximab-CHOP in newly diagnosed Chinese patients with diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma: a Randomized, Multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial. Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51(3):919–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sehn LH, Berry B, Chhanabhai M, Fitzgerald C, Gill K, Hoskins P, Klasa R, Savage KJ, Shenkier T, Sutherland J, et al. The revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) is a better predictor of outcome than the standard IPI for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. Blood. 2007;109(5):1857–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Feugier P, Hoof AV, Sebban C, Solal-Celigny P, Bouabdallah R, Fermé C, Christian B, Lepage E, Tilly H, Morschhauser F, et al. Long-term results of the R-CHOP study in the treatment of Elderly patients with diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma: a study by the Groupe d’Etude Des Lymphomes De l’Adulte. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(18):4117–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cabrera ME, Pena C, Leon P, Lois V, Rojas H, Vega V, Pizarro A, Calderon S, Rojas C, Aspillaga A, et al. Diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma in Chile: the impact of combined CHOP plus Rituximab in the Public Health System. JCO Glob Oncol. 2022;8:e2200165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Pfreundschuh M, Kuhnt E, Trumper L, Osterborg A, Trneny M, Shepherd L, Gill DS, Walewski J, Pettengell R, Jaeger U, et al. CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: 6-year results of an open-label randomised study of the MabThera International Trial (MInT) group. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(11):1013–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shi Y, Chen H, Qin Y, Yang J, Liu P, He X, Zhou S, Zhou L, Zhang C, Song Y, et al. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of Chinese diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in the era of Rituximab (2005–2018). Cancer Pathogenesis and Therapy. 2023;1(1):3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ruppert AS, Dixon JG, Salles G, Wall A, Cunningham D, Poeschel V, Haioun C, Tilly H, Ghesquieres H, Ziepert M, et al. International prognostic indices in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a comparison of IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI. Blood. 2020;135(23):2041–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hedstrom G, Hagberg O, Jerkeman M, Enblad G, Swedish Lymphoma Study G. The impact of age on survival of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma - a population-based study. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(6):916–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith A, Crouch S, Howell D, Burton C, Patmore R, Roman E. Impact of age and socioeconomic status on treatment and survival from aggressive lymphoma: a UK population-based study of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39(6):1103–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Shi Y, Han Y, Yang J, Liu P, He X, Zhang C, Zhou S, Zhou L, Qin Y, Song Y, et al. Clinical features and outcomes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma based on nodal or extranodal primary sites of origin: analysis of 1,085 WHO classified cases in a single institution in China. Chin J Cancer Res. 2019;31(1):152–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Vaidya R, Witzig TE. Prognostic factors for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the R(X)CHOP era. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(11):2124–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen W, Xu X. Cost-effectiveness of Rituximab in the treatment of diffuse large B-Cell Non-hodgkin’s Lyphoma patients (Dlbcl) in China. Value Health. 2016;19(7):A888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Susanibar-Adaniya S, Barta SK. 2021 update on diffuse large B cell lymphoma: a review of current data and potential applications on risk stratification and management. Am J Hematol. 2021;96(5):617–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the patients and their families who participated in the study, as well as the study site staff. Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Lawrence Law, MPH, of Parexel, which was funded by Fosun Pharmaceutical Distribution Jiangsu co., Limited.

Funding

The study was supported by the sponsor, Shanghai Henlius Biotech, Inc., and by grants from the China National Major Project for New Drug Innovation (Grant No. 2015ZX09501008, 2017ZX09304015) and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) (Grant No. 2016-I2M-1-001).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study on Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs,National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Chaoyang District, 100021, Beijing, China

    Yan Qin & Yuankai Shi

  2. Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

    Yongping Song

  3. Department of Oncology, Army Characteristic Medical Center, Chongqing, China

    Dong Wang

  4. Department of Hematology, Cancer Center, the First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China

    Ou Bai

  5. Department of Oncology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China

    Jifeng Feng

  6. Department of Medical Oncology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China

    Xiuhua Sun

  7. Department of Lymphoma, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Tianjin, China

    Lihua Qiu

  8. Department of Hematology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China

    Jianmin Yang

  9. Department of Lymphoma & Head and Neck Tumors, Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China

    Yu Yang

  10. Department of Hematology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Zhao Wang

  11. Department of Hematology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China

    Jianda Hu

  12. Department of Medical Oncology, Tianjin Union Medical Centre of Nankai University, Tianin, China

    Huaqing Wang

  13. Department of Lymphoma, the Fifth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China

    Hang Su

  14. Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China

    Zhengming Jin

  15. Department of Hematology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Wenbin Qian

  16. Department of Oncology, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

    Chuan Jin

  17. Department of Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

    Mingzhi Zhang

  18. Department of Oncology Medicine, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China

    Ding Yu

  19. Department of Hematology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University (Tangdu Hospital), Xian, China

    Li Liu

  20. Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China

    Guoan Chen

  21. Hematology and Oncology Department, the Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China

    Yarong Li

  22. Department of Breast Medicine, Liaoning Cancer Hospital, Shenyang, China

    Tao Sun

  23. Department of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Jie Jin

  24. Department of Lymphology and Hematology, Jilin Provincial Cancer Hospital, Changchun, China

    Huizheng Bao

  25. Department of Hematology, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, China

    Xin Du

  26. Department of Lymphoma & Hematology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, China

    Hui Zhou

  27. Department of Hematology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China

    Gan Fu

Authors
  1. Yan Qin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yongping Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ou Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jifeng Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiuhua Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lihua Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jianmin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yu Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Zhao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jianda Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Huaqing Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Hang Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Zhengming Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Wenbin Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Chuan Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Mingzhi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Ding Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Li Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Guoan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Yarong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Tao Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Jie Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Huizheng Bao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Xin Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Hui Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Gan Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Yuankai Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to analysis and interpretation of the data, critically reviewed, and revised the manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuankai Shi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The protocol was developed by the sponsor of the study, Shanghai Henlius Biotech, Inc. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the relevant independent ethics committee at each participating study centre. Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to screening. Data were collected by the site investigators who vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and the fidelity of the trial to the protocol. The sponsor analysed the data. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, and applicable national and local regulations for clinical trials.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qin, Y., Song, Y., Wang, D. et al. Long-term outcomes with HLX01 (HanliKang®), a rituximab biosimilar, in previously untreated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: 5-year follow-up results of the phase 3 HLX01-NHL03 study. BMC Cancer 24, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-11876-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-11876-9

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us