| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Blood, 1 April 2007, Vol. 109, No. 7, pp. 2759-2766. Prepublished online as a Blood First Edition Paper on November 28, 2006; DOI 10.1182/blood-2006-07-035709.
CLINICAL TRIALS AND OBSERVATIONS Intensified 12-week CHOP (I-CHOP) plus G-CSF compared with standard 24-week CHOP (CHOP-21) for patients with intermediate-risk aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase 3 trial of the Dutch-Belgian Hemato-Oncology Cooperative Group (HOVON)1 Department of Hematology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; 2 HOVON Data Center, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 3 Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam; 4 Department of Hematology, University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 5 Department of Internal Medicine, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands; 6 Department of Hematology, Vrije Universiteit (VU) Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 7 Department of Hematology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 8 Department of Hematology, University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands; 9 Department of Hematology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium Optimal dose and timing of CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemotherapy for aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is still an unresolved issue. We assessed whether dose intensifications with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin might improve outcome in younger patients with intermediate-risk aggressive NHL. Previously untreated patients were assigned to receive either 8 courses of standard CHOP (n = 239) or 6 courses of intensified (I)CHOP (n = 238). Although there was a tendency in favor of I-CHOP for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and event-free survival (EFS), the differences were not significant. However, although these analyses were not planned, when the intermediate-risk group was divided into low-intermediate- and high-intermediate-risk patients according to the International Prognostic Index (IPI), low-intermediate-risk patients had improved 6-year OS (67% vs 52%; P = .05), DFS (58% vs 45%; P = .06), and EFS (41% vs 30%; P = .21) when they were treated with I-CHOP compared with standard CHOP. On the other hand, high-intermediate-risk patients seem to have no benefit from I-CHOP. Although clinically relevant side effects occurred more often in the I-CHOP arm, treatment-related mortality was similar. These data suggest that I-CHOP might be preferable to standard CHOP in younger patients with low-intermediate-risk aggressive NHL.
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Hematology Online ISSN: 1528-0020 | |||||||||