|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS, INTERVENTIONS, AND THERAPEUTIC TRIALS
From the Albert Einstein Comprehensive Cancer
Center/Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; Dana Farber Cancer
Institute, Boston, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Brookline,
MA; Albany Medical College, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN;
Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, IL; and Sylvester
Cancer Center, University of Miami, FL.
Preclinical and clinical evidence suggest a potential advantage for
infusional therapy in lymphoma. Sixty-two analyzable patients with
predominantly intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma received cyclophosphamide (200 mg/m2 per day), doxorubicin
(12.5 mg/m2 per day), and etoposide (60 mg/m2
per day) (CDE) by continuous intravenous infusion for 4 days (96 hours) every 3 weeks for a maximum of 8 cycles. By the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI), 42% were at high risk and 58%
were at high-intermediate risk. Complete response (CR) occurred in 30 (48%) patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%, 64%), and
partial response occurred in 16 (26%) patients, yielding an overall
response rate of 74% (95% CI, 62%, 84%). Failure-free survival
(FFS) rates at 1 and 2 years were 55% (95% CI, 43%, 67%) and 50%
(95% CI, 38%, 62%), respectively. When comparing the outcome for 62 patients receiving infusional CDE with historical data derived from 927 IPI-matched lymphoma patients using a Cox proportional hazards model,
there was a nonsignificant trend favoring CDE in FFS
(P = .12) and overall survival (P = .09).
Severe or life-threatening toxicity included neutropenia (68%), anemia
(57%), thrombocytopenia (44%), and infection (24%). Two patients
(3%) died of treatment-related infectious complications. The primary
end point of improving 1-year FFS from 55% to 70% was not achieved
with infusional CDE given as initial therapy in patients with poor-risk
intermediate-grade lymphoma. It is unlikely that infusional therapy as
used in this study produces a 25% or greater relative improvement in
FFS compared with standard therapy.
(Blood. 2002;100:1634-1640) Some preclinical and clinical evidence suggests a
therapeutic advantage for administering cytotoxic therapy by way of a
protracted rather than a brief intermittent schedule. For example,
tumor cell lines exhibit less resistance when exposed to low
concentrations of natural products (doxorubicin, etoposide, and
vincristine) for prolonged periods compared with brief exposure to
higher concentrations in vitro.1,2 Other evidence suggests
that fractionated schedules of alkylating agents such as
cyclophosphamide are also more effective in vitro and in vivo than
single administration at a higher dose.3 Clinical evidence
suggesting schedule dependence includes reports of the activity of
infusional cyclophosphamide in refractory acute lymphocytic
leukemia4 and infusional doxorubicin and vincristine in
refractory myeloma.5 Furthermore, a randomized trial in extensive-disease small cell lung carcinoma demonstrated that intravenous etoposide induces a significantly higher objective response
rate (89% vs 10%) when given as a daily 1-hour infusion for 5 days
compared with an equivalent dose given as a single 24-hour
infusion.6
These observations led to a series of trials performed at the Albert
Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center and the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) evaluating infusional therapy for the treatment of non-Hodgkin
lymphoma in patients who experienced relapse or disease progression
during treatment with intravenous bolus cyclophosphamide and
doxorubicin-based therapy. The Einstein group7 evaluated a
96-hour infusion of cyclophosphamide (187.5-200.0 mg/m2 per
day), doxorubicin (12.5 mg/m2 per day), and etoposide (60 mg/m2 per day) (CDE) in 58 patients with relapsed
intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma and reported a 17% complete
response (CR) rate and 52% objective response rate (complete and
partial responses). Likewise, the NCI group evaluated a 96-hour
infusion of etoposide (50 mg/m2 per day), doxorubicin (10 mg/m2 per day), vincristine (0.4 mg per day) plus
intravenous bolus cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m2 after
completion of the infusion), and prednisone (60 mg daily for 5 days)
(EPOCH) in 125 assessable patients with relapsed or resistant lymphoma,
of whom 24% achieved CR and 74% achieved objective response.8,9 A community-based multicenter phase 2 study in 96 assessable patients with relapsed Hodgkin disease and
non-Hodgkin lymphoma reported a 25% CR rate and a 63% response rate
for EPOCH,10 and several smaller studies using
EPOCH11,12 or similar regimens13 reported
comparable findings. Encouraging activity has also been reported for
both CDE14-19 and EPOCH20 when used as
first-line therapy for HIV-associated lymphoma. Although it is
estimated that infusional CDE costs approximately twice as much to
administer in an outpatient setting as CHOP,21 the cost
would be justifiable if it were associated with even a modest benefit.
Based on these considerations, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
initiated a multi-institutional phase 2 study of infusional CDE as
first-line therapy in patients with intermediate- and high-grade lymphoma expected to have a poor prognosis with standard therapy (E3493). Although the eligibility criteria permitted patients with
high-grade lymphoma to enroll, most patients had intermediate-grade lymphoma (as classified by the National Cancer Institute Working Formulation).22 The trial included only patients 65 years
of age or younger because another trial (E4494) evaluating standard therapy with or without rituximab was initiated at the same time in an
elderly population. The age-adjusted International Prognostic Index23 was used to select patients for the study.
Patients were required to have at least 2 of 3 adverse prognostic
features, including elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level,
stage III or IV disease, or poor performance status (ECOG 2, 3, or 4). The primary objective of the study was to determine whether infusional CDE improved 1-year failure-free survival (FFS) rate in this population from 55% to 70%.
Patient selection
Chemotherapy
Staging evaluation and evaluation of response All patients were required to undergo chest roentgenography, computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis, and unilateral bone marrow biopsy within 6 weeks of registration. Radiographic studies demonstrating measurable or evaluable disease were required within 2 weeks of registration. All studies that demonstrated measurable or evaluable disease were repeated after cycle 4, cycle 6, and cycle 8 (if administered). Response was defined using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group response criteria.26 CR was defined as complete regression of palpable, radiographic, and histologic evidence of disease. Lymph nodes were required to decrease in size to less than 1 cm; larger lymph nodes required biopsy for confirmation of CR or had to be shown not to have enlarged on repeat evaluation no sooner than 3 months later. Partial response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the sum of products of the dimensions of the measurable lesions that persisted for at least 4 weeks. Confirmation of CR or PR was required by repeating the physical examination or radiographic study no sooner than 4 weeks and documenting further shrinkage or stability. Patients were required to continue treatment for 2 cycles beyond achieving CR or for a maximum of 8 cycles.Other required studies All patients had complete blood counts taken twice weekly and liver function tests before each cycle of CDE. Representative pathologic materials were centrally reviewed by a single hematopathologist (TN), and all specimens were categorized by the National Cancer Institute Working Formulation, which was an accepted classification system at the time this study was conducted.Statistical considerations The primary objectives of the trial were to estimate the FFS rate, CR rate, and toxicity of this regimen. Accrual of 75 patients was planned to ensure 66 eligible patients. With this sample size, it was estimated that the trial would have 90% power (10% one-sided alpha level test) to detect a 15% improvement in 1-year FFS) from 55% to 70%. In terms of a parametric cure rate model,27 this corresponds to an improvement of the long-term plateau to 55% with no change in the exponential treatment failure (with an annual hazard rate of approximately 1.15) or to an improvement of the long-term plateau to 50% with a 25% decrease in the hazard rate among patients for whom the treatment fails. Exact 95% confidence intervals were computed for the objective response rate and the complete response rate. The Kaplan-Meier method28 was used to estimate failure-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, and disease-free survival. Failure-free survival was defined as the time between registration in the study and disease progression, relapse, or death from any cause. Duration of response was defined as the time between first documentation of response and relapse or last follow-up without relapse. Disease-free survival was defined as the time between first achievement of complete response and relapse or last follow-up without relapse. The initial design allowed for early stopping. In this design, if fewer than 16 patients of the first 30 eligible patients did not achieve complete response, the usefulness of the regimen was to be reconsidered. This design had a high likelihood (77% or higher) of ending early if the true complete response rate was less than that of standard regimens (45% or less) and a high likelihood (94% or higher) of continuing if the true complete response rate was at least 65%. In May 1996, the stopping rule was removed based on results in HIV-associated lymphoma with this regimen, suggesting a high response rate in populations at poor risk.19The study population had more adverse prognostic features than initially anticipated. Therefore, an analysis was performed that was not specified a priori by the treatment protocol. Comparison was made with a matched population of patients with intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma derived from the IPI database. Of the 27 possible combinations of the 5 IPI risk groups, patients treated in this trial fell into 13 of the 27 groups. Of the 1321 patients with 2 to 5 IPI factors, 927 had one of the 13 combinations of factors observed in E3493; therefore, they were selected as the control population. Failure-free survival and overall survival estimates were compared using a log-rank test with data up to 4.2 years (the maximum follow-up among survivors in this study). Selected patients in the IPI database with follow-up longer than 4.2 years were censored at 4.2 years. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate differences in failure-free survival and overall survival while accounting for the prognostic factors.
Patient characteristics Of 80 patients enrolled, 11 were pathology exclusions, 5 were ineligible, and 2 did not receive any therapy, leaving 62 analyzable patients. Reasons for pathology exclusion included insufficient material for review (n = 3), low-grade histology (n = 4), or other histologic types (n = 4) not specified in the eligibility criteria. Reasons for ineligibility included having only one adverse prognostic feature (n = 4) and failure to submit pathologic material (n = 1). Patients were enrolled between March 1995 and November 1997.Characteristics of the 62 analyzable patients are shown in Table
1. Adverse prognostic features by IPI
included stage III-IV disease in 92% of the patients, elevated serum
lactate dehydrogenase levels in 95%, poor performance status (ECOG 2, 3, or 4) in 55%, more than one extranodal site in 48%, and age older
than 60 years in 24%. By the age-adjusted IPI index, 42% of the
patients were at high risk and 58% were at high-intermediate risk.
Histologic findings consisted of diffuse large cell lymphoma in 48 (77%) patients, follicular large cell lymphoma in 3 (5%) patients,
diffuse mixed small and large cell lymphoma in 1 patient, diffuse
immunoblastic lymphoma in 1 patient, diffuse small noncleaved cell
lymphoma in 1 patient, and other subtypes that could not be classified by the Working Formulation in 8 (13%) patients. Other subtypes included anaplastic large cell lymphoma (n = 4), peripheral T-cell lymphoma (n = 1), high-grade Burkitt-like lymphoma (n = 2), and T-cell-rich diffuse large cell lymphoma (n = 1).
Response data Thirty patients had a complete response (48%; 95% CI, 35%, 64%), and 16 patients (26%) had a partial response, yielding an overall response rate of 74% (95% CI, 62%, 84%). Among the 46 responders, 20 (9 of the 30 patients in CR and 11 of the 16 patients in PR) had relapses. The median duration of response has not yet been reached at 25 months. Among those who have not had relapses (n = 26), the median follow-up time was 2.2 years. Among those who have not had relapses and are still alive (n = 22), the median follow-up time is 2.4 years. Four of 26 complete responders died of causes other than lymphoma (myocardial infarction, chronic lung disease, pulmonary embolus, and unknown cause).Failure-free survival and overall survival Thirty-one (50%) patients were alive at the time of this analysis after a median follow-up of 3.3 years (range, 2.1-4.2 years). Median FFS was 1.9 years, and median overall survival (OS) was 2.7 years. FFS rates at 1 year and 2 years were 55% (95% CI, 43%, 67%) and 50% (95% CI, 38%, 62%), respectively. OS rates at 1 year and 2 years were 74% (95% CI, 63%, 85%) and 58% (95% CI, 46%, 70%), respectively.Outcome by International Prognostic Index The CR, 2-year FFS, and 2-year OS rates were 56%, 56%, and 69%, respectively, for patients in the age-adjusted high-intermediate risk group, and 38%, 38%, and 42%, respectively, for patients in the age-adjusted high-risk group. Patients in the age-adjusted high-risk group were found to have a worse (though nonsignificant; P = .13) FFS rate (Figure 1) and a significantly inferior (P = .02) OS rate (Figure 2) when compared with patients who were in the age-adjusted high-intermediate group. Using the age-unadjusted IPI, the CR, 2-year FFS, and 2-year OS rates were 67%, 61%, and 72%, respectively, in the low-intermediate group, 38%, 48%, and 62%, respectively, in the high-intermediate group, and 44%, 43%, and 43%, respectively, in the high-risk group.
Comparison with IPI-matched historical data Characteristics and outcome of the 62 patients treated with CDE are compared with 927 IPI-matched controls in Table 2. There were no significant differences in the characteristics of the study populations, though there was a trend for patients treated with CDE to be younger (as dictated by the eligibility criteria) and to have poorer performance status. There was no significant difference in FFS (median, 1.9 vs 1.0 years; P = .71) (Figure 3) or OS (median, 2.7 vs 1.9 years; P = .62) (Figure 4). When compared with the IPI database, there was likewise no significant difference in FFS rate at 1 year (55% vs 50%) and 2 years (50% vs 39%). Results from the Cox proportional hazards model also showed no significant difference in FFS (P = .12) or OS (P = .09) after adjusting for prognostic factors.
Treatment data and dose-intensity analysis Among the 62 analyzable patients, 407 cycles of therapy were given. The median number of cycles given was 7 (range, 1-8 cycles). Treatment was discontinued early in 19 (31%) patients. Reasons for early treatment discontinuation included progressive disease (n = 12), patient withdrawal/refusal (n = 4), stable disease (n = 2), and excessive complications/toxicity (n = 1). Among the 4 patients who refused further therapy, 2 had 5 cycles, 1 had 6 cycles, and 1 had 7 cycles; all 4 are alive without progressive disease. Median relative dose intensity (expressed as a percentage of the designed dose) was 100% for cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide for all 8 cycles. The 25th percentile for all drugs was more than 95% for all cycles, indicating that most patients received the intended dose for all cycles. Mean relative dose intensity equaled or exceeded 95% of the intended doses for all cycles of cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin and 90% for all cycles of etoposide. Dose reduction was required for cyclophosphamide in 27% of all cycles given, for doxorubicin in 25% of all cycles given, and for etoposide in 29% of all cycles given. Dose reduction was required for cyclophosphamide in 45% of all patients, for doxorubicin in 48%, and for etoposide in 55%. The cyclophosphamide dose was in general reduced only for myelosuppression, whereas doxorubicin and etoposide doses might also have been reduced for nonhematologic toxicity (eg, mucositis) or hepatic/renal dysfunction.Toxicity Among all 78 patients who received therapy, 464 cycles of therapy were given. The median number of cycles was 6 (range, 1-8 cycles). Toxicity data for all 78 patients are shown in Table 3. The most common severe (grade 3) or life-threatening (grade 4) toxicities included neutropenia (68%), anemia (57%), thrombocytopenia (44%), and infection (24%). With regard to all nonhematologic toxicities, the worst grade was 1 or 2 in 19 (24%) patients, grade 3 in 38 (49%) patients, grade 4 in 18 (23%) patients, and grade 5 (lethal) in 2 (3%) patients. One patient died of disseminated Mycobacterium kansasii infection 29 days after therapy was initiated with CDE. Another patient died of sepsis and multisystem failure 20 days after therapy was initiated.
We report the results of a multi-institutional phase 2 trial of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide plus filgrastim in 62 analyzable patients with poor-prognosis non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Approximately 80% of patients enrolled in the study had diffuse large cell lymphoma. Cytotoxic agents were given at conventional doses but were administered in an unconventional manner by protracted intravenous infusion over 96 hours. Seventy-four percent of patients had CR or PR, including 48% who had CR. Failure-free survival rates were 55% at 1 year and 50% at 2 years. We therefore failed to achieve the primary objective of the study, which was to improve the 1-year FFS rate from 55% to 70%. Another commonly used 96-hour infusional regimen is EPOCH, reported to be highly active in patients with relapsed lymphoma and as initial therapy for HIV-associated lymphoma. EPOCH has not been extensively evaluated, however, as a first-line therapy in poor-prognosis lymphoma. The 58% incidence of grade 4 neutropenia in this study was higher than that reported for EPOCH (48%), as was the incidence of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (44% vs 24%) and infectious complications (26% vs 18%). Compared with EPOCH, the CDE regimen includes a higher intended dose per cycle of cyclophosphamide (800 vs 750 mg/m2), doxorubicin (50 vs 40 mg/m2), and etoposide (240 vs 200 mg/m2). Other differences include the administration of cyclophosphamide as a 96-hour infusion with CDE compared with an intravenous bolus with EPOCH, the inclusion of vincristine and prednisone in EPOCH (which are not included in CDE), and the routine use of filgrastim prophylaxis with CDE (which was not routinely used with EPOCH). Because of these dosing differences, the mean relative dose intensity in this study was higher for CDE than for EPOCH for cyclophosphamide (253 vs 177 mg/m2 per week), doxorubicin (16 vs 12 mg/m2 per week), and etoposide (75 vs 60 mg/m2 per week).9 Forty-five percent of patients treated with CDE required dose reduction for myelosuppression. We succeeded in selecting a group of patients expected to have very poor prognosis with conventional therapy. Ninety-five percent had elevated serum LDH levels, 92% had stage III-IV disease (61% had stage IV), and 55% had poor performance status (very high compared with 18% in the IPI Prognostic Factor Project).23 Because of this imbalance, we compared FFS with IPI-matched historical data (selected from the entire IPI database), an analysis that was not planned when the study was initiated. In this analysis, there was no significant difference in FFS rates at 1 year (55% vs 50%) or 2 years (50% vs 39%). The Cox proportional hazards model revealed a trend favoring infusional therapy when compared with the IPI data, though the conventional criteria for statistical significance were not met. One previously published report evaluated infusional therapy as first-line therapy for patients with intermediate grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma without HIV infection. The Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) evaluated a 96-hour infusion of doxorubicin (12.5 mg/m2 per day) and vincristine (0.5 mg per day) plus intravenous bolus cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m2 on day 1) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg daily for 4 days) in patients with intermediate- or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma used either alone (CVAD; n = 81) or in conjunction with the chemosensitizing (CS) P-glycoprotein modulators quinine (300 mg by mouth 3 times a day) and verapamil (240 mg twice a day) (CVAD+CS; n = 81).29 Patients were not selected for inclusion based on poor-risk IPI features, but approximately 40% to 50% were at high-intermediate or high risk by the age-unadjusted IPI. Toxicity and efficacy data were compared with a historical control group for 217 patients treated with CHOP in a prior SWOG study, of whom 44% were at intermediate-high or high risk. The relative dose intensity (RDI) for doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide was approximately 94% (of the intended dose) for CHOP, 90% for CVAD, and 81% for CVAD+CS. For vincristine the RDI for the 3 groups was 55%, 48%, and 42%, respectively. There was no significant difference among the 3 groups in CR rate (44% vs 39% vs 31%) or in 2-year FFS rate (46% vs 42% vs 41%), suggesting no advantage for infusional therapy. On the other hand, the CR rate and the 2-year FFS rate observed with infusional CDE in poor-prognosis patients compared favorably with the SWOG data when one considers that the SWOG report also included patients with low-risk disease. Several other treatment approaches have been evaluated in patients with average or poor-risk intermediate- or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Analysis of the U.S. Intergroup study found no evidence that multi-drug regimens were superior to CHOP, even in patients with poor-risk features by the IPI.30,31 Several studies have found no benefit for high-dose therapy plus stem cell transplantation compared with CHOP.32-34 A subset analysis of one study, however, showed a benefit for high-dose therapy in patients with IPI high-risk features.35 Another study demonstrated an advantage for high-dose sequential therapy, a treatment approach that was different than that used in other trials evaluating high-dose therapy.36 The role of high-dose therapy as initial treatment for poor-risk lymphoma remains investigational and is under evaluation in an Intergroup trial led by SWOG (S9704). Other evidence suggests a possible advantage for a dose-intensive therapy that requires colony-stimulating factor (CSF) support without stem cells, though this has not been borne out in all studies. On the negative side, dose-escalated CHOP was found to be no more effective in poor-risk patients37 despite initial results that seemed promising.38 On the positive side, Gordon et al39 reported that a dose-escalated ProMACE-CytaBOM regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, etoposide, prednisone, cytarabine, bleomycin, vincristine, methotrexate, and leucovorin) plus CSF resulted in a 69% CR rate and a 73% 4-year survival rate in 74 patients with intermediate-grade lymphoma treated in a multicenter ECOG study; the findings were nearly identical in the 46% of patients in the study who were at high-intermediate risk by age-adjusted IPI. Results in the high-intermediate risk group, therefore, compare favorably with the 56% CR rate and the 56% 2-year FFS observed for CDE and compared with historical IPI data. In the ProMACE-CytaBOM study, several drugs were given at a 2-fold higher dose than in the conventional ProMACE-CytaBOM regimen, including cyclophosphamide (1300 mg/m2 every 3 weeks), doxorubicin (50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks), etoposide (240 mg/m2 every 3 weeks), and cytarabine (600 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). When comparing the normalized dose intensity for the agents common to both dose-escalated ProMACE-CytoBAM and CDE, the doses delivered were nearly identical for doxorubicin and etoposide and approximately 1.6-fold higher for cyclophosphamide in the ProMACE-CytaBOM regimen. The incidence of grade 4 leukopenia and nonhematologic toxicity were 74% and 27%, respectively, for dose-escalated ProMACE-CytaBOM compared with 45% and 23% for infusional CDE. In contrast, grade 4 toxicity (hematologic and nonhematologic) occurred in 31% of patients treated with CHOP (without CSF) in the Intergroup trial.30 Secondary myelodysplasia and leukemia have been the principal concern of further investigation of these dose-intensive approaches.37 Another approach that merits further evaluation is the combination of the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab with standard chemotherapy. Interim analysis of a phase 3 trial performed by the Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de L'Adulte (GELA trial LNH 98-5) recently indicated significantly improved CR (76% vs 60%), event-free survival (69% vs 49%), and 1-year survival (83% vs 68%) rates in 328 elderly patients (60-80 years of age) treated with rituximab plus CHOP compared with CHOP alone,40 a finding that has been confirmed in the final report.41 Other trials of similar design are in progress, including a study performed by ECOG (E4494). E4494 also evaluates the role of maintenance rituximab in responders, an approach that was not evaluated in the GELA study. An unplanned interim analysis of E4494 was performed in October 2000, after accrual of 500 of the planned 630 patients and after approximately 25% of the events had occurred. An independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that the trial continue and complete its accrual goal. It is uncertain whether the benefit associated with rituximab, if confirmed, is attributed to an additive antineoplastic effect or to enhancement of the effect of cytotoxic therapy that has been observed in vitro.42 Should the latter phenomenon be true, infusional therapy may represent a better platform for concurrent administration with rituximab; the long half-life of rituximab,43 coupled with the protracted infusion of cytotoxic therapy, may maximize the potential for an additive or a synergistic effect. Preliminary evidence suggests that the combination of rituximab with infusional CDE or EPOCH is highly active in patients with HIV-associated lymphoma and relapsed lymphoma,44,45 and a study has been planned by the AIDS Malignancy Consortium to evaluate this approach in patients with HIV-associated lymphoma. In conclusion, infusional CDE in patients with poor-risk, intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in 1-year FFS, which was the primary end point of our study. There were modest improvements in FFS and OS in the Cox proportional hazards model when compared with IPI-matched historical controls, though these differences were not statistically significant. It is unlikely that infusional CDE is associated with more than a 25% relative improvement in FFS in this population. However, this study has not ruled out the possibility of a benefit in patients with lower risk features or the possibility that infusional therapy may be a superior method of combining cytotoxic therapy with rituximab.
Conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (Robert L. Comis, Chair). The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute. We thank Peter Wiernik, David Harrington, and Sandra Horning for their thoughtful review of the manuscript. We also thank Katherine Phillips, Richard Chung, and Candace Photopoulos for their expert data management and Amgen, Inc for providing filgrastim for this trial.
Submitted October 23, 2001; accepted April 24, 2002.
Supported in part by Public Health Service grants CA14958, CA23318, CA06594, CA13650, CA17145, CA66636, and CA21115 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734.
Reprints: Joseph A. Sparano, Department of Oncology, 2 South, Rm 47, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1825 Eastchester Rd, Bronx, NY 10461-2373; e-mail sparano{at}jimmy.harvard.edu.
1. Lai G, Chen Y, Mickley LA, et al. P-glycoprotein expression and schedule dependence of Adriamycin cytotoxicity in human colon carcinoma cell lines. Int J Cancer. 1991;49:696-703[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 2. Matsushima Y, Kanzawa F, Hoshi A. Time-schedule dependency of the inhibiting activity of various anticancer drugs in the clonogenic assay. Cancer Chemother Pharamacol. 1985;14:104-109[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
3.
Teicher BA, Holden SA, Eder JP, Brann TW, Jones SM, Frei E.
Influence of schedule on alkylating agent cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo.
Cancer Res.
1989;49:5994-5998 4. Solidoro A, Otero J, Vallejos C, et al. Intermittent continuous IV infusion of high-dose cyclophosphamide for remission induction in acute lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Treat Rep. 1981;65:213-218[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 5. Barlogie B, Smith L, Alexanian R. Effective treatment of advanced multiple myeloma refractory to alkylating agents. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1353-1356[Abstract]. 6. Slevin ML, Clark PI, Joel SP, et al. A randomized trial to evaluate the effect of schedule on the activity of etoposide in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:1333-1339[Abstract].
7.
Sparano JA, Wiernik PH, Leaf A, Dutcher JP.
Infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide in relapsed and resistant non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: evidence for a schedule dependent effect favoring infusional administration of chemotherapy.
J Clin Oncol.
1993;11:1071-1079
8.
Wilson WH, Bryant G, Bates S, et al.
EPOCH chemotherapy: toxicity and efficacy in relapsed and refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
J Clin Oncol.
1993;11:1573-1582
9.
Guiterrez M, Chabner B, Pearson D, et al.
Role of doxorubicin-containing regimen in relapsed and resistant lymphomas: an 8-year follow-up study of EPOCH.
J Clin Oncol.
2000;18:3633-3642 10. Jain VK, Ogden J, Mernel R, et al. A phase 2 trial of infusional etoposide, vincristine, and doxorubicin with bolus cyclophosphamide (EPOCH) along with filgrastim support in patients with relapsed Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Hematol. 1997;90:193. 11. Carrion JR, Garcia Arroyo FR, Salinas P. Infusional chemotherapy (EPOCH) in patients with refractory or relapsed lymphoma. Am J Clin Oncol. 1995;18:44-46[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 12. Case DC Jr, Aronson FR, Ervin TJ. EPOCH chemotherapy for recurrent lymphoma [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1996;15:419.
13.
Lichtman SM, Niedzwiecki D, Barcos M, et al.
Phase 2 study of infusional chemotherapy with doxorubicin, vincristine and etoposide plus cyclophosphamide and prednisone (I-CHOPE) in resistant diffuse aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: CALGB 9255 Cancer and Leukemia Group B.
Ann Oncol.
2000;11:1141-1146
14.
Sparano JA, Wiernik PH, Strack M, et al.
Infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide in HIV- and HTLV-I-related non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a highly active regimen.
Blood.
1993;81:2810-2815 15. Sparano JA, Wiernik PH, Strack M, et al. Infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide in HIV-related non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a follow-up report. Leuk Lymphoma. 1994;14:263-271[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 16. Sparano JA, Wiernik PH, Hu X, et al. A pilot trial of infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and etoposide plus didanosine and filgrastim in patients with HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:3026-3035[Abstract]. 17. Sparano JA, Wiernik PH, Hu X, Sarta C, Henry DH, Ratech H. Saquinavir enhances the mucosal toxicity of infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide in patients with HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Med Oncol. 1998;15:50-57[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 18. Sparano JA, Wiernik PH, Hu X, et al. Infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE) for HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: long-term follow-up and analysis of prognostic factors [abstract]. J AIDS Hum Retrovirol. 1997;14:A38[CrossRef]. 19. Sparano JA, Lee S, Chen M, et al. Phase 2 trial of infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE) in HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1999;18:12. 20. Little RF, Pearson D, Steinberg S, Elwood PE, Yarchoan R, Wilson WH. Dose-adjusted EPOCH chemotherapy in previously untreated HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1999;18:10. 21. Lokich JJ, Moore CL, Anderson NR. Comparison of costs for infusion versus bolus chemotherapy administration: analysis of five standard chemotherapy regimens in three common tumors, I: model projections for cost based on charges. Cancer. 1996;78:294-299[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 22. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Pathologic Classification Project. National Cancer Institute sponsored study of classification of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: summary and description of a working formulation for clinical usage. Cancer. 1982;49:2120-2135.
23.
International Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project.
A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
N Engl J Med.
1993;329:987-994
24.
Shulman LN, Frisard B, Antin JH, et al.
Primary Ki-1 anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in adults: clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcome.
J Clin Oncol.
1993;11:937-942 25. Lokich JJ, Zipoli TE, Moore C, et al. Doxorubicin-vinblastine and doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide combination chemotherapy by continuous infusion. Cancer. 1986;58:1020-1023[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 26. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649-655[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 27. Farewell VT. The use of mixture models for the analysis of survival data with long-term survivors. Biometrics. 1982;38:1041-1046[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 28. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457-481[CrossRef].
29.
Gaynor ER, Unger JM, Miller TM, et al.
Infusional CHOP chemotherapy (CVAD) with or without chemosensitizers offers no advantage over standard CHOP therapy in the treatment of lymphoma: a Southwest Oncology Group study.
J Clin Oncol.
2001;19:750-755
30.
Fisher RI, Gaynor ER, Dahlberg S, et al.
Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
N Engl J Med.
1993;328:1002-1006 31. Fisher RI. Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone versus intensive chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1997;40(suppl):S42-S46[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
32.
Haioun C, Lepage E, Gisselbrecht C, et al.
Comparison of autologous bone marrow transplantation with sequential chemotherapy for intermediate-grade and high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in first complete remission: a study of 464 patients.
J Clin Oncol.
1994;12:2543-2551 33. Santini G, Salvagno L, Leoni P, et al. VACOP-B versus VACOP-B plus autologous bone marrow transplantation for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of a prospective randomized trial by the Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Cooperative Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2796-2802[Abstract].
34.
Verdonck LF, Van Putten WL, Hagenbeek A, et al.
Comparison of CHOP chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation for slowly responding patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
N Engl J Med.
1995;332:1045-1051
35.
Haioun C, Lepage E, Gisselbrecht C, et al.
Benefit of autologous bone marrow transplantation over sequential chemotherapy in poor-risk aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: updated results of the prospective study LNH87-2.
J Clin Oncol.
1997;15:1131-1137
36.
Gianni AM, Bregni M, Siena S, et al.
High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation compared with MACOP-B in aggressive B-cell lymphoma.
N Engl J Med.
1997;336:1290-1297 37. Vose JM. Therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: high-risk and elderly patients. American Society of Clinical Oncology: 2001 Educational Book. Washington, DC: American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2001:256-261. 38. Shipp MA, Neuberg D, Janicek M, Canellos GP, Shulman LN. High-dose CHOP as initial therapy for patients with poor-prognosis aggressive lymphoma: a dose-finding pilot study. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:2916-2923[Abstract].
39.
Gordon LI, Young M, Weller E, et al.
A phase 2 trial of 200% ProMACE-CytaBOM in patients with previously untreated aggressive lymphomas: analysis of response, toxicity, and dose intensity.
Blood.
1999;94:3307-3314 40. Coiffier B, Lepage E, Herbrecht R, et al. Mabthera (rituximab) plus CHOP is superior to CHOP in elderly patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma: interim results of a randomized GELA trial [abstract]. Blood. 2000;96(suppl 1):223.
41.
Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, et al.
CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma.
N Engl J Med.
2002;346:235-242 42. Demiden A, Lam T, Alas S, et al. Chimeric anti-CD20 (IDEC-C2B8) monoclonal antibody sensitizes a B cell lymphoma cell line to cell killing by cytotoxic drugs. Cancer Biother Radiopharmacol. 1997;12:177-186[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 43. Maloney DG, Grillo-Lopez AJ, Bodkin DJ, et al. IDEC-C2B8: results of a phase I multiple-dose trial in patients with relapsed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:3266-3274[Abstract]. 44. Tirelli U, Sparano JA, Hopkins U, Spina M, Vaccher E. Pilot trial of infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide plus the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab in HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000;19:44. 45. Gutierrez ME, Grossbard ML, Little RF. Dose-adjusted EPOCH chemotherapy and rituximab: an effective regimen in poor prognosis agressive B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000;19:26.
© 2002 by The American Society of Hematology.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
  S. Combs, N. Neil, and D. M. Aboulafia Liposomal Doxorubicin, Cyclophosphamide, and Etoposide and Antiretroviral Therapy for Patients with AIDS-Related Lymphoma: A Pilot Study. Oncologist, June 1, 2006; 11(6): 666 - 673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Straus HIV-associated lymphoma: promising new results, but with toxicity Blood, March 1, 2005; 105(5): 1842 - 1842. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Spina, U. Jaeger, J. A. Sparano, R. Talamini, C. Simonelli, M. Michieli, G. Rossi, E. Nigra, M. Berretta, C. Cattaneo, et al. Rituximab plus infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide in HIV-associated non-Hodgkin lymphoma: pooled results from 3 phase 2 trials Blood, March 1, 2005; 105(5): 1891 - 1897. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Bower, N. McCall-Peat, N. Ryan, L. Davies, A. M. Young, S. Gupta, M. Nelson, B. Gazzard, and J. Stebbing Protease inhibitors potentiate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia Blood, November 1, 2004; 104(9): 2943 - 2946. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Sparano, S. Lee, M. G. Chen, T. Nazeer, A. Einzig, R. F. Ambinder, D. H. Henry, J. Manalo, T. Li, and J. H. Von Roenn Phase II Trial of Infusional Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Etoposide in Patients With HIV-Associated Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial (E1494) J. Clin. Oncol., April 15, 2004; 22(8): 1491 - 1500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Copyright © 2002 by American Society of Hematology Online ISSN: 1528-0020 | |||||||||
Top
Abstract
Introduction
