4.7 Article

Phase 2 trial of clofarabine in combination with etoposide and cyclophosphamide in pediatric patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 118, Issue 23, Pages 6043-6049

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-08-374710

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Genzyme Corporation
  2. Genzyme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The outcomes in children with refractory/relapsed (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are dismal. The efficacy and safety of intravenous clofarabine 40 mg/m(2) per day, cyclophosphamide 440 mg/m(2) per day, and etoposide 100 mg/m(2) per day for 5 consecutive days in pediatric patients with R/R ALL was evaluated in this phase 2 study. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (complete remission [CR] plus CR without platelet recovery [CRp]). Among the 25 patients (median age, 14 years; pre-B cell ALL, 84%; >= 2 prior regimens: 84%; refractory to previous regimen: 60%), the overall response rate was 44% (7 CR, 4 CRp) with a 67.3-week median duration or remission censored at last follow-up. Most patients proceeded to alternative therapy, and 10 patients (40%) received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Six patients (24%) died because of treatment-related adverse events associated with infection, hepatotoxicity, and/or multiorgan failure. The study protocol was amended to exclude patients with prior hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after 4 of the first 8 patients developed severe hepatotoxicity suggestive of veno-occlusive disease. No additional cases of veno-occlusive disease occurred. The regimen offered encouraging response rates and sustained remission in R/R patients. Future investigation should include exploration of patient selection, dosing, and supportive care. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00315705. (Blood. 2011;118(23):6043-6049)

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