19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      CHOP versus CHOP plus ESHAP and high-dose therapy with autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation for high-intermediate-risk and high-risk aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

      Clinical lymphoma
      Adolescent, Adult, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, therapeutic use, Cisplatin, Combined Modality Therapy, Cyclophosphamide, Cytarabine, Doxorubicin, Etoposide, Female, Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Humans, Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin, drug therapy, mortality, Male, Methylprednisolone, Middle Aged, Prednisone, Survival Rate, Transplantation, Autologous, Treatment Outcome, Vincristine

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The purpose of the study was to compare conventional cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisolone (CHOP) chemotherapy with CHOP (3 courses) plus etoposide/methylprednisolone/high-dose cytarabine/cisplatin (ESHAP), high-dose therapy (HDT), and autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation (PBPCT) as front-line treatment for poor-prognosis aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Between May 1, 1995, and April 30, 1998, 58 patients, aged 15-55 years, newly diagnosed with poor-prognosis aggressive NHL (category F-H by the Working Formulation) were enrolled. According to the age-adjusted international prognostic index, 65% of the patients were high-risk cases and 35% made up the high-intermediate group. After 3 courses of CHOP, 25 of 48 patients were randomized to continue with CHOP, and 23 were randomized to receive 2-4 cycles of ESHAP followed by HDT and PBPCT. There was no significant difference in the rate of complete remission between the two groups (36%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18%-57% in CHOP vs. 43%, 95% CI: 23%-65% in ESHAP/HDT) (P = 0.77). With a median follow-up duration of 39 months, the 4-year failure-free survival (FFS) was superior in the ESHAP/HDT group (38%, 95% CI: 18%-58% vs. 15%, 95% CI: 4%-32%) (P = 0.04). The disease-free survival was marginally different in favor of the ESHAP/HDT arm (90%, 95% CI: 47%-98% vs. 37%, 95% CI: 7%-69%) (P = 0.06). The 4-year overall survival between the two treatment arms was comparable (51%, 95% CI: 28%-70% for ESHAP/HDT vs. 30%, 95% CI: 13%-48% for CHOP) (P = 0.25). Treatment-related mortalities were not significantly different between both groups (17%, 95% CI: 5%-39% for ESHAP/HDT vs. 8%, 95% CI: 1%-26% for CHOP) (P = 0.41). However, only 61% of the patients assigned to the ESHAP/HDT arm underwent HDT and PBPCT. As compared with CHOP, the corporate regimen of CHOP/ESHAP/HDT seems to improve the FFS in patients with newly diagnosed, poor-prognosis aggressive NHL.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article