4.7 Article

Dose-escalated CHOEP for the treatment of young patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: II. Results of the randomized high-CHOEP trial of the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group (DSHNHL)

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 545-552

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdm514

关键词

aggressive NHL; chemotherapy models; clinical trials; dose escalation

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The addition of etoposide to combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone [etoposide to combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone (CHOEP)] improved outcome of young patients with good-prognosis aggressive lymphoma. To improve results further, the maximal dose-escalated version of CHOEP-21 tolerable without stem-cell support (high CHOEP: cyclophosphamide 1400 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 65 mg/m(2), vincristine 2 mg, etoposide 175 mg/m(2) x3, prednisone 100 mg x5) was compared with CHOEP-21. Patients and methods: Intention-to-treat analysis of 389 young (18-60 years) patients with good-prognosis (age-adjusted International Prognostic Index = 0, 1) aggressive lymphoma randomized to CHOEP-21 (n = 194) or high CHOEP (n = 195). Results: There was no difference in 3-year event-free (64% versus 67%; P = 0.734) or overall survival (83% versus 87%; P = 0.849). Neither low-risk nor low-intermediate risk patients benefited from high CHOEP. High CHOEP was more toxic than CHOEP-21 (grades 3 and 4 leukocytopenia 100% versus 87.2%, P < 0.001; thrombocytopenia 80.8% versus 9.6%, P < 0.001; infections 35% versus 11%, P < 0.001; therapy-associated deaths 3.1% versus 0%, P = 0.03). Conclusion: Dose-escalated CHOEP-21 does not provide clinical benefit for young patients with good-prognosis aggressive lymphomas. Since differences between chemotherapy regimens are compressed by the addition of rituximab, the results of this trial have bearing on strategies aiming to improve outcome of good-prognosis aggressive lymphomas in the rituximab era.

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