|
|||||
|
|
||||||
© 2000 American Society for Clinical Oncology Randomized Comparison of ACVBP and m-BACOD in the Treatment of Patients With Low-Risk Aggressive Lymphoma: The LNH87-1 StudyFrom the Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôpital Saint-Louis and Hôpital Laënnec, Paris; Centre Hospitalier Régional, Vandoeuvre les Nancy; Centre Hospitalier Régional, Lille; Hôpital Edouard Herriot and Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon; Centre Hospitalier Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Hautepierre, Strasbourg; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Limoges; Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Pierre Bénite, France; and Clinique Universitaire de Mont Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium. Address reprint requests to Hervé Tilly, MD, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rue dAmiens, 76038 Rouen, France; email herve.tilly{at}rouen fnclcc.fr.
PURPOSE: To compare a short intensified regimen followed by sequential consolidation therapy (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin, and prednisone [ACVBP]) to the standard regimen of methotrexate, bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (m-BACOD) in patients with low-risk aggressive lymphoma.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 752 patients with intermediate- or high-grade lymphoma and no adverse prognostic factors (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 to 4, RESULTS: The complete remission rate was identical (86%) in the two groups. With a median follow-up duration of 7 years, the 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) rate was 65% in the ACVBP group and 61% in the m-BACOD group (P = .16). The 5-year overall survival rate was 75% in the ACVBP group and 73% in the m-BACOD group (P = .47). ACVBP was responsible for more severe and life-threatening infections (P < .01), but m-BACOD caused more pulmonary toxicity (P < .001). The number of treatment-related deaths did not differ between the two regimens. A multivariate analysis indicated that ACVBP was associated with a longer FFS in patients with two or three risk factors of the International Prognostic Index. CONCLUSION: In this population of patients with low-risk aggressive lymphoma, toxicities of the regimens are different, but the rates of response and survival are identical. The survival advantage of ACVBP over standard regimen in patients with advanced disease is suggested by this analysis but remains to be assessed in prospective studies specifically designed for this purpose.
PROGRESS IN THE treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma remains unsatisfactory. It has been established during the recent years that second- and third-generation chemotherapy regimens such as methotrexate, bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (m-BACOD); prednisone, methotrexate, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposidecytarabine, bleomycin, vincristine, and methotrexate; and methotrexate, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and bleomycin were not superior to the standard combination containing cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP), which was introduced in the early 1970s.1-3 The use of intensified regimens with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue as part of the front-line treatment could offer new opportunities to cure younger patients with high-risk disease,4-6 but the population to which it could be beneficial remains to be determined. Since 1980, the Groupe dEtudes des Lymphomes de lAdulte (GELA) has developed the doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin, and prednisone (ACVBP) regimen, which consists of an induction phase of three to four courses of intensified CHOP (with the addition of bleomycin and intrathecal methotrexate) within a short interval, followed by sequential consolidation chemotherapy.7,8 A large multicenter study published in 1989 demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of this regimen, but it was not clear whether this treatment was superior to the chemotherapy combinations widely used at that time.9 To address this question, in 1987, the GELA began in a phase III study to compare ACVBP plus sequential consolidation with m-BACOD in a population of patients with low-risk aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma that was not eligible to test more intensive approaches with5 or without stem-cell rescue.10
In October 1987, the GELA initiated a prospective multicenter study, designated as LNH-87, for patients with aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The study population was stratified in four treatment groups according to age and prognostic factors. Here we report the results of the LNH-87 group 1 trial.
Eligibility Criteria Patients were not included if they had a positive serology to human immunodeficiency virus, a concomitant or previous cancer (except in situ cervix carcinoma or skin epithelioma), congestive heart failure, recent myocardial infarction or conduction abnormalities, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and liver or kidney failure.
Staging
Histologic and Immunophenotypic Analysis
Treatment
Response
Statistical Methods The main objective of the trial was to detect a 10% difference between the ACVBP and m-BACOD regimens on the assumption of an 80% 2-year failure-free survival (FFS) rate in the m-BACOD arm (two-sided test, type I error of .05, type II error of .10). Secondary end points were response to induction, overall survival (OS), and toxicity.
Statistical analyses.
The stopping date was December 31, 1997. Patient characteristics, complete remission rates, and frequency of adverse reactions were compared with the
Because this trial started 6 years before publication of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) for aggressive lymphoma,22 inclusions could not be defined according to this model. The independent prognostic factors recognized by this model (age, LDH level, performance status, disease stage, and number of extranodal sites) were available in the database. However, because only patients with a performance status of 0 to 1 and
Patient Characteristics Between October 1987 and March 1993, 752 patients were registered for the study. Seventy-nine patients (ACVBP group, n = 40; m-BACOD group, n = 39) were considered ineligible for the following reasons: incorrect histologic diagnosis as determined by central review (n = 52: three carcinoma, six Hodgkins disease, eight lymphocytic lymphoma, 26 follicular lymphoma, three lymphoblastic lymphoma, one Burkitts lymphoma, and five other lymphoma); positive serology for human immunodeficiency virus (n = 1), CNS involvement (n = 1), bone marrow involvement (n = 1), more than one extranodal site involved (n = 8), tumor mass larger than 10 cm (n = 5), major protocol violation (n = 2), and absence of complete information on staging or response (n = 9). Thus, 673 patients were eligible for analysis: 332 were allocated to ACVBP treatment and 341 to m-BACOD. Their initial characteristics are listed in Table 1.
Response to Treatment The responses of the two groups of treatment did not differ significantly. Two hundred ninety-two of the patients treated with ACVBP (86.3%) and 291 patients treated with m-BACOD (86.5%) attained CR (P = .86). Two patients had unconfirmed CR in the ACVBP group compared with four patients in the m-BACOD group. The number of partial responses was four for ACVBP (1.2%) and six for m-BACOD (1.8%). Fifty-two patients (15.7%) who achieved partial response after three cycles of ACVBP received a fourth cycle. No radiation therapy was planned in the procedure; however, nine patients in the ACVBP group and four in the m-BACOD group received consolidation irradiation while in CR after chemotherapy. The theoretical dose-intensity of the two regimens could only be compared for doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: 37.5 mg/m2/wk and 600 mg/m2/wk for the three cycles of ACVBP and 15 mg/m2/wk and 200 mg/m2/wk for the eight cycles of m-BACOD, respectively. The median received dose of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide was, respectively, 30 mg/m2/wk and 480 mg/m2/wk (80% of the designed dose) for ACVBP and 13.7 mg/m2/wk and 183 mg/m2/wk (89% of the designed dose) for m-BACOD.
Toxicity
The mean number of hospitalizations did not differ between the two treatment groups (ACVBP, 2.86; m-BACOD, 2.87), but the mean time spent in hospital during the treatment was longer in the ACVBP group (8.3 days v 5.7 days; P = .01). At the time of this analysis, 10 second cancers (including one acute leukemia) had been diagnosed in patients treated with ACVBP and 11 (including two myelodysplastic syndromes) in patients treated with m-BACOD.
Survival
Eighty-six of the 294 CR patients relapsed in the ACVBP group as compared with 103 of the 295 in the m-BACOD group. There was no significant difference in disease-free survival between the two groups (P = .16).
Multivariate Analysis
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of ACVBP and m-BACOD in patients with low-risk aggressive lymphoma as defined by the absence of unfavorable prognostic factors found to be of significant importance in the first interim analysis of the LNH-84 study,9 namely, poor performance status, number of extranodal sites, large tumor mass, bone marrow or CNS involvement, and Burkitts or lymphoblastic subtypes. In 1987, when this trial was designed, the m-BACOD regimen was considered as a promising approach in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphomas.16,25-27 Since then, m-BACOD has been compared with the standard CHOP regimen in two phase III multicenter studies. Gordon et al1 showed that, for patients with stage III or IV diffuse mixed or large-cell lymphoma, there were no significant differences in the rates of CR, FFS, or OS in the those treated with CHOP as compared with those treated with m-BACOD. Furthermore, hematologic toxicities, infections, and pneumonitis were more frequent in the m-BACOD group. A few months later, Fisher et al2 achieved the same conclusion in a similar population. In the present study of a selected population of patients with low-risk aggressive lymphoma, there were no significant differences in the rates of CR, FFS, and OS between the two treatment groups. The serious adverse reactions were different in the two regimens. The 18.5% incidence of pulmonary toxicity with m-BACOD is in accordance with previous publications.1,28 The toxic reaction has been described to appear after three to eight cycles of m-BACOD. It did not seem predictable by the patient or the disease status and was certainly more related to methotrexate than to bleomycin or other drugs.28 Eight patients in this series died as a consequence of pulmonary toxicity during m-BACOD therapy. It is noteworthy that, although the overall frequency of pulmonary events did not declined with time, six of these deaths occurred during the first 2 years of the trial, and only two deaths occurred after the physicians had been warned of this possible toxicity. Granulocytopenia was the most important reaction after the induction cycles of ACVBP, with two thirds of the patients experiencing a grade 4 toxicity and 13% having severe, life-threatening, or fatal infection. Growth factor support, which was not used in this trial, has now been introduced after each ACVBP induction cycle.29 The patients in this study could be considered as a low-risk lymphoma population, with 65% with localized disease and more than 75% in the low-risk category of the IPI. As a consequence, the CR rate in the whole study population was 86%, and the 5-year OS was 74%. However, important prognostic factors could still influence the outcome in this population. Patients with localized disease had a 90% CR rate and a 80% 5-year OS rate, which is comparable to the largest series of patients treated with combined modalities.30,31 Compared with the population included in the Southwest Oncology Group study,31 patients with localized disease in this trial seemed to be younger and to have more stage II than stage I disease. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that ACVBP regimen may have a greater toxicity than a more standard approach in the treatment of localized disease stages. This has encouraged the GELA to propose a prospective multicenter study comparing the ACVBP regimen with the standard three cycles of CHOP plus radiotherapy in patients with low-risk localized aggressive lymphoma. The benefit of more intensive approaches than CHOP-like regimens in aggressive lymphoma is controversial. However, there is some evidence that intensive treatments with5,6,32 or without33 stem-cell support may only be of benefit for patients in the higher risk groups. Although results of unplanned analyses should be considered with caution,34 multivariate analysis strongly suggested that ACVBP may improve the outcome of patients with two or three IPI factors. In an attempt to confirm these results, the GELA is currently performing a trial comparing ACVBP with the standard eight cycles of CHOP in patients with high-risk lymphoma who could not benefit from high-dose therapy with stem-cell support.
The following clinicians actively participated in the study: C. Allard, G. Alsteens, B. Audhuy, G. Auzanneau, J.C. Barats, E. Baumelou, P. Biron, M. Blanc, J. Bonneterre, R. Bouabdallah, O. Boulat, P. Brice, J. Brière, J. Bury, D. Caillot, D. Canon, B. Christian, J.P. Clauvel, P. Colin, T. Conroy, J.F. Cordier, H. Curé, R. DOiron, E. Deconinck, A. Delannoy, A. Devidas, M. Dieras, H. Dombret, C. Doyen, S. Drony, F. Du Bourguet, M.L. Dubreuil, E. Dupuy, E. Duvivier, J.C. Eisenmann, M. Fabbro, P. Fargeot, M.C. Fauchet, C. Fermé, A. Ferrant, M. Ffrench, G. Fillet, M. Flesch, Y. Frilay, J. Gabarre, P. Gabez, J.P. Gaillard, J.A.. Gastaut, J.P. Gayno, C. Gisselbrecht, B. Grosbois, C. Haioun, V. Izrael, P. Jacomy, J. Jaubert, F. Kohser, R. Leblay, F. Lejeune, G. Lepeu, D. Lepillé, A. Le Rol, D. Maraninchi, G. Marit, J.P. Marolleau, C. Martin, M. Marty, F. Mayer, J.L. Michaux, J.M. Micléa, P. Mineur, P. Morel, M. Moriceau, F. Morvan, G. Nédellec, G. Netter-Pinon, E. Oksenhendler, P. Oriol, P.Y. Péaud, M. Perret, B. Pignon, H. Poizot-Martin, J.P. Pollet, E. Pujade-Lauraine, O. Reman, F. Reyes, R. Riou, H. Roché, J.F. Rossi, B. Salles, G. Salles, C. Sarazin, M. Schoenwald, M. Simon, P. Solal-Céligny, A. Stamatoullas, M. Symann, G. Tertian, A. Thyss, G. Tobelem, J. Troncy, A. Van den Bossche, G.L. Vaugier, and B. Velay. The following pathologists actively participated in the study: M.F. dAgay, R. Angonin, J. dAnjou, J. Audouin, F. Berger, S. Boucheron, N. Brousse, P. Brousset, P.A. Bryon, J.P. Carbillet, T. Caulet, D. Cazals, F. Charlotte, L. Charvillat, M. Delos, G. Delsol, J. Diebold, H. Duplay, C. Duval, J.M. Emberger, B. Epardeau, B. Fabiani, P. Felman, Y. Fonck, N. Froment, P. Galian, O. Gasser, P. Gaulard, B. Gosselin, J. Hamels, C. Hopfner, N. Horschowski, E. Labouyrie, B. Lancien, A. Lavergne, C. Lavignac, M. Lecomte-Houke, M.B. Leger-Ravet, R. Loire, R. Marcellin, C. Marty-Double, A. de Mascarel, S. Méhaut, J.P. Merlio, C. Merignargues, J.F. Mosnier, H. Noel, G. Perie, M. Peuchmaur, T. Petrella, M. Pluot, M. Raphael, M.C. Raymond-Gelle, A.M. Roucayrol, S. Thiebaut, D. Wendum, and L. Xerri.
Supported in part by grants from the Délégation à la Recherche Clinique de lAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, the Fondation contre la Leucémie, and the Caisse Nationale d Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Paris, France. We are grateful to Eric Lepage and Jacques Benichou for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript. We also thank Catherine Balmale for help with data management.
1. Gordon LI, Harrington D, Andersen J, et al: Comparison of a second-generation chemotherapeutic regimen (m-BACOD) with a standard regimen (CHOP) for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Med 327:1342-1349, 1992[Abstract]
2.
Fisher RI, Gaynor ER, Dahlberg S, et al: Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkins lymphoma. N Engl J Med 328:1002-1006, 1993 3. Cooper IA, Wolf MM, Robertson TI, et al: Randomized comparison of MACOP-B with CHOP in patients with intermediate grade non-Hodgkins lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 12:769-778, 1995[Abstract] 4. Freedman AS, Takvorian T, Neuberg D, et al: Autologous bone marrow transplantation as consolidation therapy for non-Hodgkins lymphoma in first remission: A pilot study. Clin Oncol 11:931-936, 1993
5.
Haioun C, Lepage E, Gisselbrecht C, et al: Benefit of autologous bone marrow transplantation over sequential chemotherapy in poor-risk aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma: Updated results of the prospective study LNH87-2. J Clin Oncol 15:1131-1137, 1997
6.
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 336:1290-1295, 1997
7.
Coiffier B, Bryon PA, Ffrench M, et al: Intensive chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma: Updated results of LNH-80 protocol and prognostic factors affecting response and survival. Blood 70:1394-1399, 1987
8.
Coiffier B: Fourteen years of high-dose CHOP (ACVBP regimen): Preliminary conclusions about the treatment of aggressive lymphoma patients. Ann Oncol 6:211-217, 1995 9. Coiffier B, Gisselbrecht C, Herbrecht R, et al: A multicenter study of intensive chemotherapy in 737 patients with aggressive malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 7:1018-1026, 1989[Abstract] 10. Bosly A, Lepage E, Coiffier B, et al: In elderly patients with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, alternance of chemotherapy is not superior to ACVBP + consolidation: A prospective randomized study on 884 patientsLNH87 protocol group 3. Ann Oncol 7:60, 1996 (suppl 3, abstr) 11. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma Classification Project: National Cancer Institute sponsored study of classification of non-Hodgkins lymphoma: Summary and description of a working formulation for clinical usage. Cancer 49:2112-2135, 1982[Medline] 12. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al: Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Oncol 5:649-655, 1982 13. Stansfeld AG, Diebold J, Noel H, et al: Updated Kiel classification for lymphomas. Lancet 1:292-293, 1988 (letter; published erratum appears in Lancet 1:372, 1988)[Medline]
14.
Tilly H, Gaulard P, Lepage E, et al: Primary anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in adults: Clinical presentation, immunophenotype and outcome. Blood 90:3727-3734, 1997
15.
Haioun C, Lepage E, Gisselbrecht C, et al: Comparison of autologous bone marrow transplantation with sequential chemotherapy for intermediate-grade and high-grade non-Hodgkins lymphoma in first complete remission: A study of 464 patients. J Clin Oncol 12:2543-2551, 1994 16. Shipp MA, Harrington DP, Klatt MM, et al: Identification of major prognostic subgroups in patients with large-cell lymphoma treated with m-BACOD or m-BACOD. Ann Intern Med 104:757-765, 1986 17. Bastion Y, Blay JY, Divine M, et al: Elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma: Disease presentation, response to treatment and survivalA Groupe dEtude des Lymphomes de lAdulte study on 453 patients older than 69 years. J Clin Oncol 15:2945-2953, 1997[Abstract]
18.
Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B, et al: Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkins lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 17:1244-1253, 1999 19. Freeman DH: Applied categorical data analysis, in Statistics: Text-Books and Monographs, Vol 79. New York, NY,Marcel Dekker, 1987 20. Kaplan EL, Meier P: Nonparametric estimation for incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457-481, 1958 21. Mantel N: Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:163-170, 1966[Medline]
22.
The International Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project: A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma. N Engl J Med 329:987-994, 1993 23. Cox DR: Regression model and life tables. J R Stat Soc B 34:187-220, 1972 24. Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M: A bootstrap resampling procedure for model building application to the Cox regression model. Stat Med 11:2093-2109, 1992[Medline] 25. Canellos GP, Skarin AT, Klatt MM, et al: The m-BACOD combination chemotherapy regimen in the treatment of diffuse large cell lymphoma. Semin Hematol 24:2-7, 1987 (suppl 1)
26.
Shipp MA, Yeap BY, Harrington DP, et al: The m-BACOD combination chemotherapy regimen in large-cell lymphoma: Analysis of the completed trial and comparison with the m-BACOD regimen. J Clin Oncol 8:84-93, 1990 27. Dana BW, Dahlberg S, Miller TP, et al: m-BACOD treatment for intermediate- and high-grade malignant lymphomas: A Southwest Oncology Group phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 8:1155-1162, 1990[Abstract] 28. Shapiro CL, Yeap BY, Godleski J, et al: Drug-related pulmonary toxicity in non-Hodgkins lymphoma: Comparative results with three different treatment regimens. Cancer 68:699-705, 1991[Medline] 29. Gisselbrecht C, Haioun C, Lepage E, et al: Placebo controlled phase III trial of lenograstim (glycosylated recombinant human G-CSF) in aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 25:289-300, 1997[Medline] 30. Glick JH, Kim K, Earle J, et al: An ECOG randomized phase III trial of CHOP versus CHOP plus radiotherapy for intermediate grade early stage non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Oncol 14:391, 1995 (abstr)
31.
Miller TP, Dahlberg S, Cassady JR, et al: Chemotherapy alone compared with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for localized intermediate and high grade non-Hodgkins lymphoma. N Engl J Med 339;21-26, 1998
32.
Stoppa AM, Bouabdallah R, Chabannon C, et al: Intensive sequential chemotherapy with repeated blood stem-cell support for untreated poor-prognosis non-Hodgkins lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 15;1722-1729, 1997 33. Shipp MA, Neuberg D, Janicek M, et al: High-dose CHOP as initial therapy for patients with poor prognosis aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma: A dose-finding pilot study. J Clin Oncol 13:2916-2923, 1995[Abstract] 34. Tannock IF: False-positive results in clinical trials: Multiple significance tests and problem of unreported comparisons. Cancer Inst 88:206-207, 1996 Submitted June 18, 1999; accepted November 18, 1999. This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||