4.7 Article

Long-term results of three randomized trials (58831,58832,58881) in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia:: a CLCG-EORTC report

Journal

LEUKEMIA
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages 2257-2266

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.leu.2401960

Keywords

long-term follow-up; acute lymphoblastic leukemia; childhood; EORTC

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [5U10-CA11488-15, 5U10-CA11488-14, 5U10-CA11488-13] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present here the long-term results of three randomized clinical trials conducted on children with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between 1983 and 1998 by the Children Leukemia Cooperative Group (CLCG) from EORTC. In study 58831/32, the overall event-free survival (EFS) rates (+/- s.e.) at 6 and 10 years were 66% +/-1.8% and 65% +/-1.8%, respectively, and the risk of isolated central nervous system (CNS) relapse was 6%+/-1% and 7%+/-1%, respectively. In patients with a standard risk of relapse the omission of cyclophosphamide had no adverse effect on disease-free survival rates at 10 years (trial 58831). In medium- and high-risk patients the omission of radiotherapy did not increase the risk of CNS or systemic relapse (trial 58832). In study 58881 (1989-1998) the overall EFS rate at 8 years was 68.4% +/- 1.2% and the risk of isolated CNS relapse was 4.2% +/- 0.5%. In this trial which adressed three randomized questions, the following results were obtained: the combination of cytarabine at high doses with methotrexate at high doses during interval therapy did not improve prognosis. The addition of g-mercaptopurine iv during maintenance increased the risk of late relapse. E. coli asparaginase was more toxic and has a higher efficacy than Erwinia asparaginase. Leukocyte counts >100 x 10(9)/1, specific genetic abnormalities, a poor initial response to steroids or a high level of minimal residual disease at early time points were consistently associated with an adverse prognosis in the 58881 trial.

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