4.7 Article

Doxorubicin, vinblastine, and gemcitabine (CALGB 50203) for stage I/II nonbulky Hodgkin lymphoma: pretreatment prognostic factors and interim PET

期刊

BLOOD
卷 117, 期 20, 页码 5314-5320

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-10-314260

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA77651, CA33601, CA32291, CA77440, CA04457, CA77658, CA47642, CA77597]
  2. Lymphoma Foundation
  3. Ernest & Jeanette Dicker Charitable Foundation
  4. CALGB (National Cancer Institute)
  5. Eli Lilly and Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To reduce doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine toxicity, the Cancer and Leukemia Group B conducted a phase 2 trial of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and gemcitabine for newly diagnosed, nonbulky stages I and II Hodgkin lymphoma. Ninety-nine assessable patients received 6 cycles of doxorubicin 25 mg/m(2), vinblastine 6 mg/m(2), and gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2) (1000 mg/m(2) in first 6) on days 1 and 15 every 28 days. Computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) were performed before and after 2 and 6 cycles. Complete remission (CR)/CR unconfirmed was achieved in 72 of 99 patients (72.7%) and partial remission in 24 of 99 patients (24.2%). The CR rate was 81% when using PET criteria. Two patients have died of Hodgkin lymphoma progression. Median follow-up for nonprogressing patients is 3.3 years. The progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years was 77% (95% confidence interval, 68%-84%). The relapse rate was less than 10% for patients with favorable prognostic factors. The 2-year PFS for cycle 2 PET-negative and -positive patients was 88% and 54%, respectively (P = .0009), compared with 89% and 27% for cycle 6 PET-negative and -positive patients (P = .0001). Although the CR rate and PFS were lower than anticipated, patients with favorable prognostic features had a low rate of relapse. Cycle 2 PET and cycle 6 PET were predictive of PFS. This clinical trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00086801. (Blood. 2011;117(20):5314-5320)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据