Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Cancer Therapy: Clinical

Fc Gamma Receptor 3A and 2A Polymorphisms Do Not Predict Response to Rituximab in Follicular Lymphoma

Vaishalee P. Kenkre, Fangxin Hong, James R. Cerhan, Marcia Lewis, Leslie Sullivan, Michael E. Williams, Randy D. Gascoyne, Sandra J. Horning and Brad S. Kahl
Vaishalee P. Kenkre
1Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fangxin Hong
2Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Harvard School of Public Health, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James R. Cerhan
3Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcia Lewis
4Transgenomic, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leslie Sullivan
4Transgenomic, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael E. Williams
5Department of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Randy D. Gascoyne
6Department of Pathology, British Columbia Cancer Agency and Center for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandra J. Horning
7Genentech/Roche, Inc., South San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brad S. Kahl
8Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: bkahl@dom.wustl.edu
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1848 Published February 2016
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: Preclinical studies suggest that SNPs in the Fc gamma receptor (FCGR) genes influence response to rituximab, but the clinical relevance of this is uncertain.

Experimental Design: We prospectively obtained specimens for genotyping in the rituximab extended schedule or re-treatment trial (RESORT) study, in which 408 previously untreated, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL) patients were treated with single agent rituximab. Patients received rituximab in 4 weekly doses and responders were randomized to rituximab re-treatment (RR) upon progression versus maintenance rituximab (MR). SNP genotyping was performed in 321 consenting patients.

Results: Response rates to initial therapy and response duration were correlated with the FCGR3A SNP at position 158 (rs396991) and the FCGR2A SNP at position 131 (rs1801274). The response rate to initial rituximab was 71%. No FCGR genotypes or grouping of genotypes were predictive of initial response. A total of 289 patients were randomized to RR (n = 143) or to MR (n = 146). With a median follow-up of 5.5 years, the 3-year response duration in the RR arm and the MR arm was 50% and 78%, respectively. Genotyping was available in 235 of 289 randomized patients. In patients receiving RR (n = 115) or MR (n = 120), response duration was not associated with any FCGR genotypes or genotype combinations.

Conclusions: Based on this analysis of treatment-naïve, low tumor burden FL, we conclude that the FCGR3A and FCGR2A SNPs do not confer differential responsiveness to rituximab. Clin Cancer Res; 22(4); 821–6. ©2015 AACR.

See related commentary by Cartron et al., p. 787

Translational Relevance

Presented here are results of a correlative science study from the E4402 [rituximab extended schedule or re-treatment trial (RESORT)] study, which indicate a lack of predictive value of Fc gamma receptor (FCGR) polymorphisms in determining rituximab response in patients with previously untreated, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma. Prior studies have indicated differential responses to rituximab based on these polymorphisms. However, the prior studies tended to be small, retrospective analyses with heterogeneous patient populations. The submitted study was a prospectively planned evaluation of a large, homogeneous follicular lymphoma population, all treated with single agent rituximab. We were unable to find a differential response based on FCGR genotype or any combination of genotype. This manuscript presents definitive results, concluding that FCGR3A and 2A should not be used to select patients for single agent rituximab therapy.

Introduction

Follicular lymphoma (FL) patients who are asymptomatic and with low tumor burden are candidates for a watch and wait strategy, as early treatment has not been shown to improve survival (1, 2). However, single agent rituximab is often administered to these patients, with a goal of delaying the need for chemotherapy (3–7). Rituximab, an IgG1 subclass monoclonal antibody to CD20, has revolutionized therapy of FL by improving response rates, duration of responses (DORs), and overall survival (5, 8–13). One postulated mechanism of action is antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC). In this process, binding of the Fc gamma receptor (FCGR) on macrophages and NK cells to the Fc portion of the rituximab antibody induces phagocytosis of the target cell, to which the antibody is bound (14).

In vitro and animal studies have suggested that variation in specific SNPs in the FCGR sequence might confer variable responses to rituximab, due to the efficacy of Fc binding and triggering of ADCC (15, 16). The FCγRIIIA receptor (CD16a) is present on NK cells, monocytes, and macrophages (17). A valine/phenylalanine (V/F) polymorphism at amino acid position 158 of FCGR3A (rs396991) has been identified in humans, with the valine allele demonstrating higher affinity to human IgG1 than phenylalanine, resulting in enhanced ADCC (18). The FCγRIIA receptor is present on monocytes and macrophages, but not NK cells (17). A histidine/arginine (H/R) polymorphism at position 131 of FCGR2A (rs1801274) affects binding affinity of IgG2, with the histidine allele binding more strongly.

The first clinical study in FL examining the influence of these SNPs in FL suggested the FCGR3A valine/valine (VV) genotype, (but not the FCGR2A HH genotype) was associated with improved response rates to single agent rituximab (3). A retrospective analysis from Stanford University then reported improved response rates and time to progression in patients with a FCGR3A VV genotype, and in patients with a FCGR2A histidine/histidine (HH) genotype (19). A prospective multicenter trial of single agent rituximab for FL found the FCGR3A VV genotype was associated with event-free survival but not response rate (4). These three studies support the hypothesis that ADCC plays an important role in cell killing and that certain polymorphisms in FCGR3A and FCGR2A may influence ADCC. However, each study had different findings on the relative importance of FCGR3A versus FCGR2A and different findings about the influence on response rate and/or response duration. Using patient derived samples from E4402, the rituximab extended schedule or re-treatment trial (RESORT), we conducted a correlative analysis, evaluating the impact of these candidate SNPs in the FCGR3A and FCGR2A genes. The goal was to definitively determine the clinical significance of these two polymorphisms.

Methods

Patients

RESORT was a multicenter randomized trial that enrolled 408 FL patients between November 2003 and September 2008 (20). Patients received single agent rituximab (375 mg/m2) in 4 weekly doses, followed by randomization for responders to re-treatment with rituximab upon progression (375 mg/m2 × 4 weekly doses) versus maintenance rituximab (MR) (375 mg/m2 once every 12 weeks) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Treatment schema for E4402 (RESORT) trial.

DNA extraction and genotyping

SNP genotyping was performed to assess the FCGR3A SNP genotype for rs396991 [valine (V) or phenylalanine (F)] and the FCGR2A SNP genotype at rs1801274 [histidine (H) or arginine (R)]. Using banked PBMCs (N = 212) or formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue (FFPE) (N = 109), DNA was extracted using an automated platform (AutoGen FlexStar Qiagen chemistries), followed by quantification by UV absorbance and quality control by 260/280 OD ratio and PicoGreen, and then storage in TE buffer. For SNP genotyping, samples were plated into 96 well plates and genotyped on the Taqman (TM) platform (Applied Biosystems 7900HT Fast RealTime PCR System). Sequence data and assay conditions for rs396991 (FCGR3A) and rs1801274 (FCGR2A) are provided at SNP500 (http://snp500cancer.nci.nih.gov). Genotype data were analyzed using Applied Biosystems SDS 2.3 analysis software. Quality control samples included study replicates (5%); FCGR2A and FCGR3A known wild-type homozygotes, heterozygotes, homozygote variants; and a DNA negative control. We summarized the call rates per SNP as well as per sample, examining samples that failed in 5% or more of SNPs. SNPs that failed in 5% or more of individuals were evaluated by Sanger sequencing. Likewise, if the error rate in the subjects for whom repeated genotypes was judged to be unacceptably high (>2%), genotyping was repeated until consistent results were achieved.

The FCGR3A rs396991 SNP has been reported to be difficult to accurately genotype, due to high copy number variation and high homology (97%) between FCGR3A and FCGR3B genes. FCGR3B carries an invariant G at the position that corresponds to FCGR3A 4985T > G and co-amplification of FCGR3A and FCGR3B can lead to SNP miscalls. Transgenomics, Inc., Omaha, NE developed primers and probes specific for genotyping the FCGR3A that does not co-amplify the FCGR3B. To test the transgenomics (TG) proprietary technology, cases with available PBMC DNA (N = 212) were run in duplicate using both the commercial TM platform and the TG platform. All PBMC cases were also subjected to Sanger sequencing, with the sequencing result used as the reference gold standard to determine assay accuracy.

Statistical analysis

Fisher's exact test was used to compare response rates among the different genotypes. A logistic regression model was employed to evaluate the polymorphism effect on response rate accounting for other patient characteristics. DOR was defined as the time from documented response to documented progression and estimated using the Kaplan and Meier method. Logrank test (one-sided significance level of 0.05) was used to compare DOR. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the significance of polymorphism effect on DOR after adjusting for other patient characteristics.

Results

A total of 408 FL patients were enrolled in RESORT. Of these, 321 underwent SNP genotyping, whereas unavailable clinical material precluded genotyping in 87 patients. There were no major differences in the baseline characteristics when comparing the genotyped population to the entire population (Table 1). PBMCs were the DNA source in 212 cases and FFPE tissue was the DNA source in 109 cases. PBMC DNA was subjected to genotyping by both commercially available TM technology and TG proprietary pyrosequencing technology. Using TM for genotyping the FCGR3A SNP, three cases could not be genotyped and 18 cases were miscalled (using sequencing as the gold standard) for an accuracy rate of 90% (191/212). Using TG genotyping for the FCGR3A SNP, there were nine cases that could not be genotyped and one case miscalled for an accuracy rate of 95% (202/212). Using TM for genotyping the FCGR2A SNP, five cases could not be genotyped and three cases were miscalled for an accuracy rate of 96% (204/212). Using TG for genotyping the FCGR2A SNP, there were no failures to genotype and there was one miscall for an accuracy rate of 99% (211/212). Including the 109 FFPE cases and the 212 PBMC cases, and after adjudicating discrepant PBMC cases by sequencing, the final FCGR3A and FCGR2A genotype frequencies were VV 14%, VF 45%, FF 40% and HH 28%, HR 47%, rituximab re-treatment (RR) 22%, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Patient characteristics for patients from RESORT trial as well as subset who had SNP sequencing

The overall response rate (ORR) to initial rituximab was 71%. The likelihood of obtaining a complete response or any response was not correlated with FCGR3A genotype (VV vs. VF vs. FF, or VV vs. F carrier; Table 2). Similarly, the likelihood of obtaining a complete response or any response was not correlated with FCGR2A genotype (HH vs. HR vs. RR, or HH vs. R carrier; Table 3). Additionally, no combination of genotypes (e.g., VV/HH vs. FF/RR) was associated with complete response or ORRs (data not shown).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Induction response by FCGR3A genotype. Three out of 321 samples have no FCGR3A data

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Induction response by FCGR2A genotype. Six out of 321 samples have no FCGR2A data

Genotyping was performed in 235 of 289 randomized patients, RR (n = 115) or to MR (N = 120). With a median follow-up of 5.5 years, the 3-year response duration in the RR arm and the MR arm was 50% and 78%, respectively. The FCGR3A genotype was not associated with response duration in the RR (P = 0.92) or the MR (P = 0.58) treatment arms (Fig. 2A). Similarly, the FCGR2A genotype was not associated with response duration in the RR (P = 0.19) or the MR (P = 0.61) treatment arms (Fig. 2B). Additionally, no combination of genotypes (e.g., VV/HH vs. FF/RR) influenced DOR or survival (data not shown).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Response duration by FCGR3A genotype on RR arm (A1) and MR arm (A2) and by FCGR2A genotype on RR arm (B1) and MR arm (B2).

Discussion

Based on this analysis of a treatment-naïve population of low tumor burden FL, we conclude that the two candidate missense SNPs in FCGR3A (rs396991) and FCGR2A (rs1801274), alone or in combination, does not predict the likelihood or the durability of response to single agent rituximab. These data are in contrast to three early reports examining this question and suggesting these polymorphisms impact the efficacy of rituximab.

In a study with a patient population similar to ours, Cartron and colleagues, determined the FCGR3A and FCGR2A genotypes in 49 patients receiving rituximab (3). The objective response rates at 12 months were 90% for VV patients and 51% for F carriers (P = 0.03). Progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years was 56% for VV patients and 35% for F carriers (P = NS). There was no impact of the FCGR2A polymorphism on outcome. A retrospective analysis of 87 FL patients receiving single agent rituximab at Stanford University demonstrated that FCGR3A V/V patients (n = 13) and FCGR2A H/H patients (n = 20) experienced higher response rates and more durable remissions compared with FCGR3A F carriers and FCGR2A H carriers, respectively (19). Finally, a retrospective analysis from the SAKK (Swiss group for Clinical Cancer Research), in which patients with follicular and mantle cell lymphoma were treated with single agent rituximab, followed by no further treatment or MR, the FCGR3A V/V genotype was associated with superior event-free survival (4). Because these studies were retrospective, relatively small with a heterogeneous FL population, the true impact of these polymorphisms remained unclear. Analysis of the RESORT patients was an ideal opportunity to evaluate these findings in a large prospective study of homogeneous FL patients. The findings from the present work should be considered definitive and highlight the importance of prospective studies in homogenous populations and with adequate power to identify predictive biomarkers.

Consistent with our findings, another large prospective study evaluating these polymorphisms in FL patients receiving single agent rituximab found no association with response rate or response duration (21). This United Kingdom sponsored intergroup trial randomized low tumor burden and asymptomatic FL to “watch and wait” versus rituximab induction alone versus rituximab induction followed by rituximab maintenance. No difference was seen in the 257 patients for whom FCGR genotyping was available with respect to CR rate, time to next treatment, or PFS.

Analyses of previously untreated high tumor burden FL patients treated with combination rituximab-chemotherapy, similarly found no impact of these SNPs on response rate, progression, or overall survival (22, 23). The PRIMA study (24), which showed an improvement in PFS after MR in patients who were treated with immunochemotherapy induction, was designed with prespecified objectives to clarify the role of FCGR polymorphisms in this context. The PRIMA investigators also found no impact of different FCGR genotypes on response rates to initial immunochemotherapy or MR, nor any difference in PFS at any timepoint (22).

Our results were somewhat unexpected given the strong preclinical data suggesting the FCGR3A 158V/F polymorphism positively influences both the binding of IgG as well as the expression of CD16 by NK cells (18, 19). It is possible that the models do not accurately recapitulate the human tumor environment or it is possible that ADCC is not the major mechanism of cell killing after rituximab therapy. Rituximab's precise mechanism of action remains ill-defined and could include components of ADCC, complement-mediated cytotoxicity, and direct killing (13, 15, 25, 26). Direct effects attributed to rituximab include inhibition of cell proliferation, induction of phosphatidylserine translocation, cell signaling via increased phosphorylation, and induction of apoptosis (27).

Many factors can influence FL response to rituximab, including biologic heterogeneity, clonal evolution, tumor bulk, prior treatments, and host factors. This analysis attempted to minimize many of these factors, by evaluating a relatively homogeneous FL population with low tumor burden, no prior therapy, and protocolized treatment and follow-up of patients. Despite this, we were unable to find a differential response based on FCGR genotype at the two candidate loci, as hypothesized by preclinical and small clinical studies. Although this does not preclude a role of other genetic variation in these genes in treatment response and outcomes, none has been identified to date. Given these definitive results, we conclude that the selection of patients for single agent rituximab therapy should not be based upon these FCGR3A or FCGR2A genotype status and these data raise additional questions regarding the mechanism of rituximab cytotoxicity.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

J.R. Cerhan is a consultant/advisory board member for Genentech. R.D. Gascoyne reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Seattle Genetics, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Celgene and Janssen. S.J. Horning has ownership interest (including patents) in Roche. B. Kahl is a consultant/advisory board member for Roche.

Disclaimer

This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: M. Lewis, M.E. Williams, S.J. Horning, B.S. Kahl

Development of methodology: L. Sullivan, M.E. Williams, B.S. Kahl

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): J.R. Cerhan, L. Sullivan, M.E. Williams, R.D. Gascoyne, S.J. Horning, B.S. Kahl

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): V.P. Kenkre, F. Hong, J.R. Cerhan, M. Lewis, L. Sullivan, M.E. Williams, R.D. Gascoyne, B.S. Kahl

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: V.P. Kenkre, F. Hong, J.R. Cerhan, M.E. Williams, R.D. Gascoyne, S.J. Horning, B.S. Kahl

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): J.R. Cerhan, M. Lewis, M.E. Williams

Study supervision: M.E. Williams, S.J. Horning, B.S. Kahl

Grant Support

This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD, and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported in part by Public Health Service Grants CA180820, CA180794, CA180799, CA180790, CA180847, CA180816 and from the NCI, NIH, and the Department of Health and Human Services. This work was supported by a grant from the Lymphoma Research Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Forward Lymphoma Fund.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

  • Received August 4, 2015.
  • Revision received September 18, 2015.
  • Accepted October 6, 2015.
  • ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ardeshna KM,
    2. Smith P,
    3. Norton A,
    4. Hancock BW,
    5. Hoskin PJ,
    6. MacLennan KA,
    7. et al.
    Long-term effect of a watch and wait policy versus immediate systemic treatment for asymptomatic advanced-stage non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:516–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Brice P,
    2. Bastion Y,
    3. Lepage E,
    4. Brousse N,
    5. Haioun C,
    6. Moreau P,
    7. et al.
    Comparison in low-tumor-burden follicular lymphomas between an initial no-treatment policy, prednimustine, or interferon alfa: a randomized study from the Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires. Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:1110–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Cartron G,
    2. Dacheux L,
    3. Salles G,
    4. Solal-Celigny P,
    5. Bardos P,
    6. Colombat P,
    7. et al.
    Therapeutic activity of humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and polymorphism in IgG Fc receptor FcgammaRIIIa gene. Blood 2002;99:754–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ghielmini M,
    2. Rufibach K,
    3. Salles G,
    4. Leoncini-Franscini L,
    5. Leger-Falandry C,
    6. Cogliatti S,
    7. et al.
    Single agent rituximab in patients with follicular or mantle cell lymphoma: clinical and biological factors that are predictive of response and event-free survival as well as the effect of rituximab on the immune system: a study of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK). Ann Oncol 2005;16:1675–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hainsworth JD,
    2. Burris HA 3rd.,
    3. Morrissey LH,
    4. Litchy S,
    5. Scullin DC Jr.,
    6. Bearden JD 3rd.,
    7. et al.
    Rituximab monoclonal antibody as initial systemic therapy for patients with low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2000;95:3052–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Friedberg JW,
    2. Taylor MD,
    3. Cerhan JR,
    4. Flowers CR,
    5. Dillon H,
    6. Farber CM,
    7. et al.
    Follicular lymphoma in the United States: first report of the national LymphoCare study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1202–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ardeshna KM,
    2. Qian W,
    3. Smith P,
    4. Braganca N,
    5. Lowry L,
    6. Patrick P,
    7. et al.
    Rituximab versus a watch-and-wait approach in patients with advanced-stage, asymptomatic, non-bulky follicular lymphoma: an open-label randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:424–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. McLaughlin P,
    2. Grillo-Lopez AJ,
    3. Link BK,
    4. Levy R,
    5. Czuczman MS,
    6. Williams ME,
    7. et al.
    Rituximab chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy for relapsed indolent lymphoma: half of patients respond to a four-dose treatment program. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2825–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  9. 9.↵
    1. Maloney DG,
    2. AJ Grillo-Lopez,
    3. White CA,
    4. Bodkin D,
    5. Schilder RJ,
    6. Neidhart JA,
    7. et al.
    IDEC-C2B8 (Rituximab) anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy in patients with relapsed low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Blood 1997;90:2188–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Colombat P,
    2. Salles G,
    3. Brousse N,
    4. Eftekhari P,
    5. Soubeyran P,
    6. Delwail V,
    7. et al.
    Rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) as single first-line therapy for patients with follicular lymphoma with a low tumor burden: clinical and molecular evaluation. Blood 2001;97:101–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Coiffier B,
    2. Haioun C,
    3. Ketterer N,
    4. Engert A,
    5. Tilly H,
    6. Ma D,
    7. et al.
    Rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) for the treatment of patients with relapsing or refractory aggressive lymphoma: a multicenter phase II study. Blood 1998;92:1927–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Foran JM,
    2. Rohatiner AZ,
    3. Cunningham D,
    4. Popescu RA,
    5. Solal-Celigny P,
    6. Ghielmini M,
    7. et al.
    European phase II study of rituximab (chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) for patients with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma and previously treated mantle-cell lymphoma, immunocytoma, and small B-cell lymphocytic lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:317–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Anderson DR,
    2. Grillo-Lopez A,
    3. Varns C,
    4. Chambers KS,
    5. Hanna N
    . Targeted anti-cancer therapy using rituximab, a chimaeric anti-CD20 antibody (IDEC-C2B8) in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's B-cell lymphoma. Biochem Soc Trans 1997;25:705–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Maloney DG,
    2. Smith B,
    3. Rose A
    . Rituximab: mechanism of action and resistance. Semin Oncol 2002;29(1 Suppl 2):2–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Clynes RA,
    2. Towers TL,
    3. Presta LG,
    4. Ravetch JV
    . Inhibitory Fc receptors modulate in vivo cytotoxicity against tumor targets. Nat Med 2000;6:443–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hatjiharissi E,
    2. Hansen M,
    3. Santos DD,
    4. Xu L,
    5. Leleu X,
    6. Dimmock EW,
    7. et al.
    Genetic linkage of Fc gamma RIIa and Fc gamma RIIIa and implications for their use in predicting clinical responses to CD20-directed monoclonal antibody therapy. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 2007;7:286–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Cartron G,
    2. Watier H,
    3. Golay J,
    4. Solal-Celigny P
    . From the bench to the bedside: ways to improve rituximab efficacy. Blood 2004;104:2635–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Koene HR,
    2. Kleijer M,
    3. Algra J,
    4. Roos D,
    5. von dem Borne AE,
    6. de Haas M
    . Fc gammaRIIIa-158V/F polymorphism influences the binding of IgG by natural killer cell Fc gammaRIIIa, independently of the Fc gammaRIIIa-48L/R/H phenotype. Blood 1997;90:1109–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Weng WK,
    2. Levy R
    . Two immunoglobulin G fragment C receptor polymorphisms independently predict response to rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3940–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kahl BS,
    2. Hong F,
    3. Williams ME,
    4. Gascoyne RD,
    5. Wagner LI,
    6. Krauss JC,
    7. et al.
    Rituximab extended schedule or re-treatment trial for low-tumor burden follicular lymphoma: eastern cooperative oncology group protocol e4402. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:3096–102.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Lowry LPM,
    2. Ardeshna K,
    3. et al.
    editor. FCgR polymorphisms do not influence response to rituximab in asymptomatic, non-bulky follicular lymphoma; results from the intergroup trial of rituximab vs “watch and wait”. In: International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma; 2011. Lugano, Switzerland: Annals of Oncology.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Ghesquieres H,
    2. Cartron G,
    3. Seymour JF,
    4. Delfau-Larue MH,
    5. Offner F,
    6. Soubeyran P,
    7. et al.
    Clinical outcome of patients with follicular lymphoma receiving chemoimmunotherapy in the PRIMA study is not affected by FCGR3A and FCGR2A polymorphisms. Blood 2012;120:2650–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Carlotti E,
    2. Palumbo GA,
    3. Oldani E,
    4. Tibullo D,
    5. Salmoiraghi S,
    6. Rossi A,
    7. et al.
    FcgammaRIIIA and FcgammaRIIA polymorphisms do not predict clinical outcome of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients treated with sequential CHOP and rituximab. Haematologica 2007;92:1127–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Salles G,
    2. Seymour JF,
    3. Offner F,
    4. Lopez-Guillermo A,
    5. Belada D,
    6. Xerri L,
    7. et al.
    Rituximab maintenance for 2 years in patients with high tumour burden follicular lymphoma responding to rituximab plus chemotherapy (PRIMA): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377:42–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Reff ME,
    2. Carner K,
    3. Chambers KS,
    4. Chinn PC,
    5. Leonard JE,
    6. Raab R,
    7. et al.
    Depletion of B cells in vivo by a chimeric mouse human monoclonal antibody to CD20. Blood 1994;83:435–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Golay J,
    2. Zaffaroni L,
    3. Vaccari T,
    4. Lazzari M,
    5. Borleri GM,
    6. Bernasconi S,
    7. et al.
    Biologic response of B lymphoma cells to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab in vitro: CD55 and CD59 regulate complement-mediated cell lysis. Blood 2000;95:3900–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Maloney DG
    . Mechanism of action of rituximab. Anti-cancer drugs 2001;12 Suppl 2:S1–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 22 (4)
February 2016
Volume 22, Issue 4
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Fc Gamma Receptor 3A and 2A Polymorphisms Do Not Predict Response to Rituximab in Follicular Lymphoma
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Fc Gamma Receptor 3A and 2A Polymorphisms Do Not Predict Response to Rituximab in Follicular Lymphoma
Vaishalee P. Kenkre, Fangxin Hong, James R. Cerhan, Marcia Lewis, Leslie Sullivan, Michael E. Williams, Randy D. Gascoyne, Sandra J. Horning and Brad S. Kahl
Clin Cancer Res February 15 2016 (22) (4) 821-826; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1848

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Fc Gamma Receptor 3A and 2A Polymorphisms Do Not Predict Response to Rituximab in Follicular Lymphoma
Vaishalee P. Kenkre, Fangxin Hong, James R. Cerhan, Marcia Lewis, Leslie Sullivan, Michael E. Williams, Randy D. Gascoyne, Sandra J. Horning and Brad S. Kahl
Clin Cancer Res February 15 2016 (22) (4) 821-826; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1848
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Disclaimer
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Biomarker Analysis from the BERIL-1 Study
  • Radiation and TGFβ Blockade in Metastatic Breast Cancer
  • AR Robustly Predicts Outcome in Breast Cancer
Show more Cancer Therapy: Clinical
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement