Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This retrospective study shows promising overall response rates in marginal zone lymphoma, suggesting a well-tolerated treatment option.
Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is an indolent subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma with heterogeneous clinical features. First-line treatment typically involves anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies with or without chemotherapy. Although Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in relapsed/refractory (R/R) MZL, their role as first-line therapy remains unclear. This single-center retrospective study included 25 treatment-naïve patients with MZL who received orelabrutinib (150 mg once daily) plus either rituximab or obinutuzumab for 6 cycles, followed by orelabrutinib maintenance for up to 6 months. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), assessed according to the 2014 Lugano criteria. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The ORR was 96.0%, comprising 12 complete response (CR) and 12 partial response (PR), with 1 case of stable disease (SD). Among the 13 patients with ocular adnexal MZL (OAML), 5 achieved CR, and 8 achieved PR. In the rituximab subgroup (n = 10), 5 patients achieved CR and 5 achieved PR, whereas in the obinutuzumab subgroup (n = 15), 7 achieved CR, 7 achieved PR, and 1 had SD; there was no significant difference in CR rate between the 2 groups (50.0% vs 46.7%, p = 1.000). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 32.0% of patients, with neutropenia (20.0%) and thrombocytopenia (12.0%) being the most common. Grade 3 to 4 events occurred in 12.0% of patients, with no significant differences in safety profiles between the rituximab and obinutuzumab subgroups. In conclusion, CD20 monoclonal antibodies combined with orelabrutinib may represent a feasible, low-toxicity first-line option for MZL, with favorable short-term efficacy and tolerability observed in this cohort. These preliminary findings warrant confirmation in larger prospective randomized studies to establish long-term benefits and safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: