4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

G-CSF is not necessary to maintain over 99% dose-intensity with ABVD in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma: low toxicity and excellent outcomes in a 10-year analysis

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 137, Issue 6, Pages 545-552

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06598.x

Keywords

Hodgkin lymphoma; chemotherapy; dose-intensity; granulocyte-colony stimulating factor; bleomycin lung toxicity

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [K23 CA109613-A1, R01CA 102713-01, P30 CA60553] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dose-intensity of chemotherapy is important in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly used to maintain it. We reviewed all newly diagnosed HL patients who were treated at our institution between 1996 and 2005. Fifty-nine patients received adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy with no dose reductions, treatment delays, and without G-CSF, regardless of absolute neutrophil count (ANC). The median ANC on all ABVD treatment days (n = 658) was 0.925 x 10(9)/l, and was < 0.5 x 10(9)/l on 26% of treatment days. Median normalised ABVD dose-intensity was 99.1% (range, 93-100%) and median cycle duration was 28.2 d. Incidence of bleomycin lung toxicity was 1.6%, 0.44% treatments were complicated by febrile neutropenia, and no secondary malignancies have occurred (median follow-up 48 months; range, 11-130 months). Five-year event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 92.9% and 97.4% respectively. Furthermore, the 5-year EFS and OS (87.4% and 94.1% respectively) for advanced stage patients compared favourably with a similar ABVD patient group who received routine prophylactic G-CSF (n = 23) with EFS 80.0% and OS 91.3% (P = 0.46 and 0.67 respectively). Our experience suggests that ABVD may be safely and effectively administered at > 99% dose-intensity without G-CSF support, regardless of the ANC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available