4.7 Article

No advantage of dexamethasone over prednisolone for the outcome of standard- and intermediate-risk childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the Tokyo Children's Cancer Study Group L95-14 protocol

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 27, Pages 6489-6498

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.982

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate whether dexamethasone (DEXA) yields a better outcome than prednisolone (PRED) in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial for the treatment of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Patients and Methods Two hundred thirty-one standard-risk (SR) patients and 128 intermediate-risk (IR) non-B-cell ALL patients were registered from March 1995 to March 1999. After random assignment in each group, the PRED arm patients received PRED 60 mg/m(2) during induction followed by PRED 40 mg/m(2) over four intensifications in the SR group and three intensifications in the IR group. DEXA arm patients received DEXA 8 mg/m(2) during induction and DEXA 6 mg/m(2) during the intensifications. The maintenance phase was continued until week 104. Results Event-free survival rates at 8 years in the DEXA and PRED arms were 81.1% +/- 3.9% (n = 117) and 84.4% +/- 5.2% (n = 114), respectively, in the SR group (P = .217) and 84.9% +/- 4.6% (n = 62) and 80.4% +/- 5.1 % (n = 66), respectively, in the IR group (P = .625). The primary reason for treatment failure was marrow relapse. Only two extramedullary relapses occurred in the DEXA arm compared with seven relapses in the PRED arm. Although complications were more prevalent in the DEXA arm than in the PRED arm, fatal toxicity was rare both groups. Conclusion DEXA administered at 8 mg/m(2) during induction and 6 mg/m(2) during intensification showed no advantage over PRED administered at 60 mg/m(2) during induction and 40 mg/m(2) during intensification in both the SR and IR groups.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available