4.7 Article

Co-operative study group for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (COALL): long-term follow-up of trials 82, 85, 89 and 92

Journal

LEUKEMIA
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages 2234-2239

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.leu.2401974

Keywords

childhood; lymphoblastic leukemia; outcome; CNS control

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The German Go-operative Study Group COALL far treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in childhood started the first trial in 1980. This report gives an overview of the long-term results of the four consecutive studies COALL-82, COALL-85, COALL-89 and COALL-92. Besides improvement in long-term survival major objectives were reduction of treatment-related toxicity by transferring asparaginase (ASP) from induction therapy to intensive phase and omitting CNS irradiation by stepwise increase of the initial white blood count (WBC) up to 50 x 10(9)/1 (exception T-ALL) as criterion for irradiation. In study COALL-85 in high risk patients slow vs rapid rotational treatment was randomized. In study COALL-92 initial response to daunorubicin (DNR) as a l-h vs 24-h infusion and its prognostic value was investigated. Furthermore, g-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and B-thioguanine (6-TG) were randomized in maintenance treatment. In total, 1191 eligible patients were enrolled. Induction treatment without ASP has been shown to be as effective and less hazardous than the former four-drug induction. CNS control could be obtained in most without cranial irradiation (CNS relapse-free survival >95%). The leukemic cell kill with a 24-h DNR infusion was equivalent to that of a l-h infusion. DNR response was of less prognostic significance than prednisone response. The rapid rotation regimen failed to improve outcome as well as 6-TG in maintenance treatment. However, intensification of systemic treatment resulted in an increase in overall event-free survival (EFS) to approximately 80% which is comparable to other 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