HEALTH PROFESSIONAL · SOURCE READING
R-CHOP
Source: Aggressive B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version, National Cancer Institute.
Source updated: May 12, 2025 · Captured 2026-09-09.
Selected source text with whitespace normalised. This Triangle page is not an NCI PDQ summary. Independent clinical review is pending.
The following studies established R-CHOP as a standard regimen for patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL and noncontiguous stage II, stage III, and stage IV disease for over 20 years.[5] Dose intensification of R-CHOP by a 14-day versus a 21-day cycle did not result in improved outcomes.[6] R-CHOP is the preferred regimen when polatuzumab is not available or affordable, or when contraindicated due to adverse side effects.
Evidence (R-CHOP):
R-CHOP showed improved event-free survival (EFS) and OS compared with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) alone in 399 patients older than 60 years with advanced-stage DLBCL (EFS rate, 57% vs. 38%; P = .002, and OS rate, 70% vs. 57%; P = .007 at 2 years).[7][Level of evidence A1] At a median follow-up of 10 years, the OS rate of patients who received R-CHOP was 44% compared with 28% for patients who received CHOP (P < .0001).[8]
Source links and citations
Similarly, for 326 evaluable patients younger than 61 years, R-CHOP showed improved EFS and OS compared with CHOP alone (EFS rate, 79% vs. 59%, P = .001, and OS rate, 93% vs. 84%, P = .001 at 3 years).[9][Level of evidence A1]
Source links and citations
A randomized study (DSHNHL-1999-1A [NCT00052936]) of 1,222 patients older than 60 years compared R-CHOP given every 2 weeks for six or eight cycles with CHOP given every 2 weeks for six or eight cycles.[10] With a median follow-up of 72 months, the EFS favored R-CHOP given every 2 weeks for six or eight cycles (6-year EFS rate, 74% vs. 56%; P < .0001). The OS favored R-CHOP for only six cycles because of increased toxicity in the eight-cycle arm (6-year OS rate, 90% vs. 80%; P = .0004).[10][Level of evidence A1] There was no comparison with standard R-CHOP or CHOP given every 3 weeks.
Source links and citations
A trial (NCT00140595) of 380 patients younger than 60 years with DLBCL and an age-adjusted IPI score of 1 randomly assigned patients to receive ACVBP and R-ACVBP plus consolidation with methotrexate, ifosfamide, etoposide, and cytarabine versus CHOP and rituximab.[11] With a median follow-up of 44 months, 3-year OS rates favored R-ACVBP (92% vs. 84%; HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28–0.81, P = .007).[11][Level of evidence A1] The significantly worse toxicities with R-ACVBP, the narrow target population (<60 years with either elevated lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] or stage III-stage IV disease, but not both), and the lack of a confirmatory trial may inhibit adoption of R-ACVBP as a new standard of care.[12]
Source links and citations
There is no validated trial for interim positron emission tomography–based treatment intensification.[13] R-CHOP has curative potential, even in patients older than 80 years who are frail and require reduced dosage of R-CHOP components. In a retrospective review of 239 patients, the 5-year cause-specific survival rate was 48% (95% CI, 41%−55%).[14][Level of evidence C3]
Source links and citations
Less than 10% of patients with DLBCL present with a concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis, and these are predominantly of GCB phenotype. A retrospective review of 1,324 patients showed similar EFS (HR, 1.19) and OS (HR, 1.09).[15][Level of evidence C3] For 847 patients who were treated with R-CHOP and free of disease 24 months after therapy, the rate of indolent lymphoma relapse by 5 years was higher with a concurrent diagnosis of follicular lymphoma (7.4% vs. 2.1%, P < .01) and with a GCB phenotype (3.9% vs. 0.0% at 5 years, P = .02).[16]
Source links and citations
Modifications to R-CHOP to achieve improved efficacy continue to be explored in clinical trials.
Studies cited in this source section
Source citation is not a determination that a study applies to you.
Publication references
Read the original reference and check its publication notices.
- PubMed 11807147 · Original source
- PubMed 16155024 · Original source
- PubMed 16648042 · Original source
- PubMed 20548096 · Original source
- PubMed 21940214 · Original source
- PubMed 22118442 · Original source
- PubMed 23615461 · Original source
- PubMed 28621491 · Original source
- PubMed 28701367 · Original source
- PubMed 29750632 · Original source
- PubMed 31170029 · Original source
- PubMed 31350266 · Original source
Preserved source evidence · Independent clinical review pending · Not medical advice
Triangle