Higher MIPI score at baseline (P = 037), age 65 years (P = 001), ECOG PS 0 (P = 025) or two (P = 019), standard (P = 049) or high LDH (P = 016), and six 9 109/l white blood cell (WBC) counts (P = 011) (Fig 2A). The evaluation of other patient and illness characteristics (Fig 2B) showed statistically substantial improvements in PFS favouring lenalidomide in females (P = 035), stage III/IV illness at diagnosis (P = 014) irrespective of tumour burden (low P = 018; high P = 007), in patients without having bulky disease (P = 004) or bone marrow involvementStatistical analysesPFS was characterized by Kaplan eier estimates with P values per log-rank test with determination of median values and 95 CIs. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models evaluated whether or not baseline subgroup variables have been predictive of your danger of progression or death. Variables with a P worth 00 by univariate analysis have been selected for multivariate evaluation. Final variables have been selected employing a stepwise choice process with entry level P = 00 and keep level P = 05. ORR was defined in line with Cheson et al (1999) and statistical significance determined by Wald 2 test (P 05).Benefits Patient demographics and dispositionThe ITT population comprised 254 patients (n = 170 lenalidomide; n = 84 IC) enrolled amongst April 2009 and March 2013. 3 individuals randomized to lenalidomide and 1 patient randomized to IC didn’t get study remedy. General, individuals had a median age of 68 years, 68 were 65 years or older, and 73 were male. Patients had received a median of two (range, 1) prior therapy regimens, of which 19 had received prior SCT. As previously reported, the treatment arms have been balanced in baseline characteristics except for high-risk MIPI score, higher tumour burden, bulky2017 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley Sons Ltd. British Journal of Haematology, 2018, 180, 224MCL-002 Subgroup Analysis of Lenalidomide versus IC in MCL(A)1 0 0All PatientsMedian PFS, months (95 CI) Sequential HR (95 CI) Sequential log-rank P value Lenalidomide IC 8 (52) 5 (three) 05 (077) 0Survival probability0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control 0 0 ten 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 LenalidomideMonths from randomizationNumber at danger Lenalidomide Handle 170 84 69 15 41 eight 29 six 17 three 11 2 six 0 2(B)1 0 0Age 65 years at baselineMedian PFS, months (95 CI) HR (95 CI) Log-rank P worth Lenalidomide Control ten (54) four (two) 00 (0) 0Survival probability0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ten 20 30 40 Handle 50 60 70 80 LenalidomideMonths from randomizationNumber at risk Lenalidomide Manage 115 57 49 10 28 4 19 two 11 1 8 0 5 2(C)1 0 0MCL stage III/IV at diagnosisMedian PFS, months (95 CI) HR (95 CI) Log-rank P worth Lenalidomide Manage six (three) 8 (53) 0 (0) 0Survival probability0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Handle 0 0 ten 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 LenalidomideMonths from randomizationNumber at risk Lenalidomide Manage 153 79 62 15 37 eight 25 six 17 3 11 2 6 0 2(D)1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0High LDH at baselineMedian PFS, months (95 CI) HR (95 CI) Log-rank P worth Lenalidomide Manage 3 (2) two (14) 0 (0) 0Fig 1.BMP-2 Protein site Kaplan eier curves of PFS within the lenalidomide versus IC remedy arms for all individuals (A) and for patient subgroups with age 65 years (B), advanced MCL stage III/IV at diagnosis (C), higher LDH at baseline (D), high tumour burden at baseline (E), bulky disease at baseline (F) and illness refractory to last remedy (G).Semaphorin-3C/SEMA3C Protein Synonyms 95 CI, 95 self-assurance interval; HR, hazard ratio; IC, investigator’s decision; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; MCL, mantle cell ly.PMID:23075432