Table 3.

Comparison of OS and ORR for the JULIET FAS vs CORAL follow-up FAS

MethodNMedian (95% CI) OS, moHR (JULIET vs CORAL follow-up)
JULIETCORAL follow-upJULIETCORAL follow-upEstimate (95% CI)P
Unadjusted analyses 114 170 11.07 (6.64, 23.85) 5.36 (4.34, 6.37) 0.54 (0.41, 0.73) <.001* 
Adjusted analyses† 
 FSW 111 145 12.48 (6.64, 28.68) 4.40 (3.48, 5.45) 0.44 (0.32, 0.59) <.001* 
 SMRW 111 145 12.48 (6.64, 28.68) 4.34 (3.48, 5.39) 0.44 (0.32, 0.59) <.001* 
MethodNMedian (95% CI) OS, moHR (JULIET vs CORAL follow-up)
JULIETCORAL follow-upJULIETCORAL follow-upEstimate (95% CI)P
Unadjusted analyses 114 170 11.07 (6.64, 23.85) 5.36 (4.34, 6.37) 0.54 (0.41, 0.73) <.001* 
Adjusted analyses† 
 FSW 111 145 12.48 (6.64, 28.68) 4.40 (3.48, 5.45) 0.44 (0.32, 0.59) <.001* 
 SMRW 111 145 12.48 (6.64, 28.68) 4.34 (3.48, 5.39) 0.44 (0.32, 0.59) <.001* 
NORR (%)Response rate difference (JULIET main cohort vs CORAL follow-up)
JULIET main cohortCORAL follow-upJULIET main cohortCORAL follow-upEstimate (95% CI)P
Unadjusted analyses 98 170 55% 31% 0.25 (0.12, 0.37) <.001* 
Adjusted analyses† 
 FSW 95 145 57% 21% 0.36 (0.22, 0.48) <.001* 
 SMRW 95 145 57% 21% 0.36 (0.23, 0.48) <.001* 
NORR (%)Response rate difference (JULIET main cohort vs CORAL follow-up)
JULIET main cohortCORAL follow-upJULIET main cohortCORAL follow-upEstimate (95% CI)P
Unadjusted analyses 98 170 55% 31% 0.25 (0.12, 0.37) <.001* 
Adjusted analyses† 
 FSW 95 145 57% 21% 0.36 (0.22, 0.48) <.001* 
 SMRW 95 145 57% 21% 0.36 (0.23, 0.48) <.001* 
*

P < .05.

†

Age at initial diagnosis, Ann Arbor disease stage, extranodal site involvement, status of disease, time to 2L start after diagnosis, prior HCT, and number of relapses were included in the adjusted analyses.

View Large
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal