|
|||||
|
|
||||||
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 24, No 10 (April 1), 2006: pp. 1590-1596 © 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.7952 Phase III Intergroup Study of Fludarabine Phosphate Compared With Cyclophosphamide, Vincristine, and Prednisone Chemotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Patients With Stage III and IV Low-Grade Malignant Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
From the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Lymphoma Group, the British National Lymphoma Investigation Group, and the Dutch-Belgian Working Party on Hemato-Oncology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Institut Bergonie Cancer Center, Bordeaux, France; Ospedale Civile di Padova, Padova; S Giovanni Battista Hospital, Torino, Italy; Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood; St James's University Hospital, Leeds; Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Leuven Medical Center, Leuven; EORTC Data Center, Brussels, Belgium; and Schering AG, Berlin, Germany. Address reprint requests to Anton Hagenbeek, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Department of Hematology (F4-224), PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands; e-mail: a.hagenbeek{at}amc.uva.nl
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of fludarabine phosphate with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) in 381 previously untreated, advanced-stage, low-grade (lg) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients in a phase III, multicenter study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1993 and 1997, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with either fludarabine (25 mg/m2 intravenously [IV] daily for 5 days every 4 weeks) or CVP (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 IV on day 1; vincristine, 1.4 mg/m2 IV on day 1; and prednisone, 40 mg/m2 orally on days 1 through 5 every 4 weeks). RESULTS: Overall response (OR) rates were significantly improved in the fludarabine arm versus the CVP arm, both for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and assessable patients (P < .001). Complete response (CR) rates in the ITT population were also higher after fludarabine treatment. The CR rate was 38.6% for fludarabine compared with 15.0% for CVP. There were no statistically significant differences in time to progression (TTP), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS) between treatment groups. WHO grades 3 and 4 hematologic adverse events were more common in the fludarabine arm. However, concerning the higher incidence of granulocytopenia, this did not translate to more infections in fludarabine-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Newly diagnosed lgNHL patients who received fludarabine achieved higher OR and CR rates compared with CVP-treated patients. No differences in TTP, TTF, and OS were noted. Fludarabine is a highly active single agent in lgNHL. Combination therapies incorporating fludarabine are now being further evaluated as first-line therapy in follicular NHL.
Low-grade (lg) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) is a group of B-cell malignancies that follow an indolent clinical course and are incurable with currently available treatment strategies. For patients presenting with stage III or IV malignant lgNHL, the overall median survival time is 6 to 10 years.1,2 Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of the disease, patients typically go through several cycles of increasingly shorter responses and rapid relapses. Initial remissions may be induced with single-agent chlorambucil. Combination chemotherapy, such as cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP); the addition of anthracyclines, as in combinations such as CVP plus doxorubicin; and chemotherapy followed by irradiation all increase remission rates but have little impact on progression-free survival.3-6 Prolonged, relapse-free survival is seldom achieved. The addition of interferon alfa to combination chemotherapy has been shown to prolong the duration of remission in some series but does not consistently improve survival.7,8 Interferon alfa may also have significant long-term toxicity. Recently, the addition of the monoclonal antibody rituximab to standard chemotherapy has been shown to increase response rates and progression-free survival, but its impact on overall survival (OS) is uncertain.9 The failure of any first-line regimens to influence long-term survival has led to the adoption of a watchful waiting (W/W) policy in low tumor burden or asymptomatic patients.10 Because there is some relationship between the duration of first and subsequent remissions and increasing the duration of the interval between successive treatments is a worthwhile goal, there is an obvious need to evaluate new regimens in the therapy of lgNHL. Fludarabine phosphate (Fludara; Ben Venue Laboratories, Bedford, OH [Schering AG, Berlin, Germany, from 1994 onward]) is a purine analog that has been shown to achieve substantial response rates, alone or in combination, in patients with relapsed low-grade lymphoma.11-14 It is generally well tolerated, with myelosuppression and related susceptibility to infection being the main complications associated with its use. In several phase II trials in previously untreated lgNHL patients, fludarabine phosphate achieved response rates of 65% to 84%, with complete response (CR) rates of 37% to 47%15-17 and response durations of up to 15.6 months.17 There have been few randomized trials conducted to establish a possible role for fludarabine phosphate, compared with conventional therapy, in lgNHL as either first- or second-line therapy. The results of a large phase III study in patients with relapsed lgNHL demonstrated that, although the overall response (OR) rate was similar, progression-free survival and treatment-free survival were significantly longer with fludarabine phosphate than with CVP (progression-free survival: 11 v 9.1 months, respectively; P = .03; and treatment-free survival: 15 v 11 months, respectively; P = .02).18 In addition, patients who received fludarabine phosphate achieved significantly improved scores for social function but not for other scores in a quality-of-life survey. However, these improvements did not translate into a significant difference in OS between the treatment groups. The objective of the present phase III study (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer No. 20921) was to directly compare the safety and efficacy of fludarabine phosphate with conventional CVP in patients with previously untreated, stage III or IV lgNHL.
A phase III, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted to directly compare the safety and efficacy of fludarabine phosphate versus conventional CVP in previously untreated patients with malignant lgNHL. The study was conducted at 60 study centers in nine countries participating in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lymphoma Group and the British National Lymphoma Investigation and in accordance with the European Good Clinical Practice guidelines (July 1990) and the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki (Hong Kong Amendments 1989). The protocol met all requirements of the appropriate regulatory authorities, and all participants gave informed, written consent.
Patient Population
Treatment Policy
Treatment
Dose Modification and Discontinuation Criteria
Evaluations Follow-up evaluations were performed every 2 months in the first year of follow-up, quarterly in the second year of follow-up, and every 4 months thereafter. All patients still in remission after 4 years entered an individual observation period from the fifth year onward. Patients showing progression or patients who had withdrawn from the study as a result of any other reason entered the observation period until death occurred. This subgroup included nonresponders and patients showing response to treatment but who later experienced progression, all patients who were later assessed as ineligible for the study, and all patients who refused treatment.
Outcomes
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses of categoric data were performed using Mantel-Haenszel
Patient Population In total, between April 1993 and January 1997, 381 patients were randomly assigned to treatment; patient demographics and characteristics are listed in Table 1. Both groups were quite similar. The same was true comparing the W/W and ITx subgroups (data not shown). Patient disposition is shown in Figure 1. Of the 381 patients included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, 14 (4%) did not receive study medication, primarily because of protocol violation, and 77 (20%) were declared ineligible because of inappropriate histology on central pathology review (eg, chronic lymphocytic leukemia or mantle-cell lymphoma). Responses were calculated in the ITT population (194 fludarabine phosphate patients v 187 CVP patients).
Efficacy OR rates were significantly improved in the fludarabine arm versus the CVP arm in the ITT population overall (70% v 51.9%, respectively; P < .001 both for the stratified and unstratified test) and in the W/W (69.5% v 49.0%, respectively) and ITx subgroups (70.8% v 55.3%, respectively; Table 2). For assessable patients, the OR rate was 76% for patients receiving fludarabine phosphate (n = 179) v 59% for patients receiving CVP (n = 165). CR rates in the ITT population were also higher after fludarabine phosphate treatment (Table 2). The CR rate was 38.6% for fludarabine phosphate v 15% for CVP. Subdividing the patients into patients with nonfollicular histologies (WF A) and follicular histologies (WF B and C) yielded CR rates of 16.7% v 0% (WF A) for fludarabine versus CVP patients and 48.2% v 22.4% (WF B and C) for fludarabine versus CVP patients, respectively. Comparing the W/W group with the ITx group yielded CR rates of 32.4% v 46.1%, respectively, after fludarabine phosphate treatment and 14.7% v 15.3%, respectively, after CVP treatment.
There was no statistically significant difference in TTP between treatment groups (Fig 2; 5-year progression-free estimate in the W/W cohort: 8% with fludarabine and 24% with CVP; in the ITx cohort: 17% with fludarabine and 19% with CVP; P = .27 and .20 for the unstratified and stratified log-rank tests, respectively). There were also no significant differences in TTF (5-year failure-free estimates in the W/W cohort: 8% with fludarabine and 21% with CVP; in the ITx cohort: 16% in both arms; P = .33 and .28 for the unstratified and stratified log-rank tests, respectively).
At a median follow-up of 79 months, the median survival time for both treatment groups has not yet been reached (Fig 3). A comparison of the OS rate showed that there was no difference between the two treatment groups, overall or when stratified by treatment policy (P = .34 and P = .37, respectively). The 5-year OS estimate in the W/W cohort was 65% with fludarabine and 56% with CVP, and in the ITx cohort, it was 76% with fludarabine and 62% with CVP.
Safety Drug exposure, dose reductions, dose-intensity, and dose discontinuations. Fourteen patients (six fludarabine patients and eight CVP patients) did not receive treatment and are excluded from safety analyses. A slightly higher proportion of fludarabine patients received the planned eight courses of treatment (134 fludarabine patients [69%] v 111 CVP patients [59%]). Dose reductions were necessary for both treatment groups during the study. The relative dose-intensity that was obtained by dividing the actual dose-intensity (ie, the total dose received divided by the total treatment duration) by the protocol dose-intensity was significantly higher in the CVP arm in which only cyclophosphamide was taken into account. In the fludarabine arm, 38% of the patients achieved 100% relative dose-intensity v 65% of patients in the CVP arm. In both treatment groups, discontinuations of treatment were mainly related to relapse or progression (fludarabine phosphate, n = 33; CVP, n = 38; Fig 1). Premature discontinuations as a result of toxicity occurred more frequently in the fludarabine phosphate group than in the CVP treatment group (fludarabine phosphate, n = 13; CVP, n = 1). Adverse events. The majority of frequently reported adverse events in both treatment groups were of mild to moderate intensity. Relevant grades 3 and 4 nonhematologic events are listed in Table 3. Grades 3 and 4 hematologic adverse events were more common in the fludarabine arm compared with the CVP arm (grade 3 granulocytopenia, 15.5% v 6.0%; grade 3 thrombocytopenia, 6.1% v 0.6%; grade 3 leukocytopenia, 22.1% v 4.5%; grade 3 anemia, 3.2% v 2.9%; grade 4 granulocytopenia, 11.6% v 5.4%; grade 4 thrombocytopenia, 1.6% v 0.5%; grade 4 leukocytopenia, 5.1% v 1.7%; grade 4 anemia, 1.5% v 1.2%, respectively). The low incidence of severe infections was similar in both groups (Table 3).
As indicated before, so far, 143 patients have died mainly as a result of NHL. In the fludarabine versus CVP arms, the causes of death were distributed as follows: NHL (58% v 67%, respectively), intercurrent disease (13% v 11%, respectively), secondary malignancies between 8 and 70 months (median, 23 months) after random assignment (9% v 5%, respectively), sepsis between 1 and 60 months (median, 25 months) after random assignment (7% v 3%, respectively), and other causes (13% v 14%, respectively). Death as a result of sepsis occurred in two fludarabine patients during treatment in whom the fludarabine dose was not reduced despite granulocytopenia (major protocol violations). Three additional septic deaths in the fludarabine arm and two in the CVP arm occurred late during the observation period and were not treatment related.
In phase II studies, fludarabine phosphate has demonstrated significant efficacy in the primary treatment of NHL,16,17 highlighting the need for a direct comparative study with alkylating-agent therapy. In the current, prospective, randomized phase III clinical trial, it was shown that fludarabine induced twice as many CRs compared with CVP (ie, 38.6% v 15.0%, respectively). It should be noted that the CVP regimen used in this study consisted of a relatively low dose of cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m2 IV administered every 4 weeks). Applying oral cyclophosphamide in a dose of 300 mg/m2 for 5 days as part of CVP administered every 3 weeks yields a CR rate of 45% and an OR rate of 79%.7 In additional studies, the CR rate after CVP was not different from the current study (ie, 15% CR rate after cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m2 IV in CVP administered every 3 weeks21 and 10% CR rate after cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 IV in CVP administered every 3 weeks9). OR rates in these last two studies were 79% and 56%, respectively. The CR rate reported for fludarabine in this study is similar to the rate in a large-scale, phase III, randomized trial treating chemotherapy-sensitive, relapsed patients.18 However, as in many other comparative studies, no benefit with regard to TTP or TTF was achieved, and there was no increase in OS. No firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the results reported when patients were analyzed according to recruitment at W/W or ITx centers because inconsistencies in treatment arose at several treatment centers, including unclear treatment timing and/or patients receiving treatment at W/W centers earlier than specified by the protocol. The improved efficacy of fludarabine phosphate in inducing partial responses and CRs is counterbalanced by an increase in grades 3 and 4 complications, particularly hematologic events, which is in line with the known safety profile of this agent. This study highlights the importance of appropriate dose reduction in the event of myelosuppression because two deaths were a result of a failure to reduce the dose, as dictated by the study protocol. The incidence of severe infections was similar in the two treatment arms. Recently published studies suggest that additional agents used in combination with fludarabine phosphate may prolong the duration of remission.15 There are also good scientific reasons why the addition of rituximab to fludarabine or fludarabine-containing combinations might prove beneficial, including sensitization of CD20 cell lines and the downregulation, by fludarabine, of the anticomplement antigen CD55, which increases the susceptibility of lymphoma cells to antibody-mediated cell lysis.22 These experimental predictions are now being borne out in clinical practice.23 Preliminary results with fludarabine phosphatebased regimens, such as fludarabine phosphate, mitoxantrone, and rituximab, in previously untreated patients with lgNHL have demonstrated OR rates of 97% and CR rates of 45%.24 Eradication of disease at the molecular level has been observed in some lgNHL patients who achieved CR in response to first-line fludarabine phosphate, mitoxantrone, and rituximab therapy,25 which is a finding that is promising for effective intervention early in the course of the disease and for the ability to achieve durable remissions. Other promising regimens include fludarabine phosphate, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone, and rituximab26,27 (OR rate, 83%; CR rate, 35%) and fludarabine phosphate, mitoxantrone, dexamethasone, and rituximab (OR rate, 94%; CR rate, 81%).28 Regimens now under active investigation as first-line therapy include combinations of fludarabine phosphate with cyclophosphamide,29-32 mitoxantrone,31-33 doxorubicin,34 rituximab,23,26-28 Y90-ibritumomab tiuxetan, and 131I-tositumomab.35-37 This study demonstrates that fludarabine phosphate is a highly effective single agent in the first-line therapy of lgNHL. Randomized studies to evaluate the potential role of this agent in combination with other cytotoxic drugs and monoclonal antibodies and yielding an increase in the duration of remission in lgNHL are based on this initial finding.
The following physicians and centers participated in this study: Dr Eghbali, Fondation Bergonié, Bordeaux, France; Dr Resegotti, Ospedale Le Molinette, Torino, Italy; Dr Monfardini, Ospedale Civile di Padova, Padua, Italy; Dr Hagenbeek, formerly at Dr Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Dr Hoskin, Mount Vernon, Northwood, Great Britain; Dr Hancock, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, Great Britain; Dr Van Hoof, St Jan Ziekenhuis, Brugge, Belgium; Dr Gouveia, Hospital Dos Capuchos, Lisbon, Portugal; Dr Somers, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Dr Thomas, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium; Dr Cavalli, Ospedale San Giovanni, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Dr Kluin-Nelemans, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Dr Marcus, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Great Britain; Dr Bron, Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium; Dr Carde, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France; Dr Carotenuto, Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, S.G. Rotondo, Italy; Dr Cunningham, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, Great Britain; Dr Schroyens, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; Dr van Marwijk Kooy, Sophia Ziekenhuis, Zwolle, the Netherlands; Dr Mansi, St George's Hospital, London, Great Britain; Dr Newland, Royal London Hospital, London, Great Britain; Dr Sonneveld, University Hospital Dijkzigt, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Dr Walewski, M. Sklodowska-Curie Institut, Warsaw, Poland; Dr Watkins, Lister Hospital, Herts, Great Britain; Dr Ferrazzi, Ospedale Civile, Rovigo, Italy; Dr Muller, Streekziekenhuis Gooi-Noord, Blaricum, the Netherlands; Dr Quigley, Oldchurch Hospital, Romford, Great Britain; Dr Stableforth, Sandwell District Hospital, London, Great Britain; Dr Wijermans, Leyenburg Hospital, The Hague, the Netherlands; Dr Catovsky, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, Great Britain; Dr Raemaekers, University Hospital Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Dr Rhodes, Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester, Great Britain; Dr Santini, Ospedale San Marino, Genova, Italy; Dr Schaafsma, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands; Dr Stahel, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Dr Van Aelst, Hartziekenhuis, Roeselare, Belgium; Dr Verhoef, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium; Dr De Bock, General Hospital Middelheim, Antwerp, Belgium; Dr MacWhannell, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, Great Britain; Dr Roozendaal, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Dr van Imhoff, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; Dr van Oers, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Dr Harper, Guy's Hospital, London, Great Britain; Dr Huijgens, University Hospital Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Dr Johnson, Taunton & Somerset Hospital, Taunton, Great Britain; Dr Milligan, Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, Great Britain; Dr Schouten, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Dr Varet, Hopital Necker, Paris, France; Dr Verdonck, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dr Martinelli, European Institut of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Dr Moffat, Royal Gwent Hospital, Gwent, Great Britain; Dr Woodcock, Southport & Formby Hospital, Southport, Great Britain; Dr Bernasconi, Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; Dr Jan-Mohamed, Hillingdon Hospital, Uxbridge, Great Britain; Dr Keuning, St Joseph's Hospital, Veldhoven, the Netherlands; Dr Kramer, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, the Netherlands; Dr Marangolo, Ospedale Civile, Ravenna, Italy; Dr Montserrat, Hospital Clínic y Provincial, Barcelona, Spain; Dr Singer, Royal United Hospital, Bath, Great Britain; and Dr Tanguy, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France.
Although all authors completed the disclosure declaration, the following authors or their immediate family members indicated a financial interest. No conflict exists for drugs or devices used in a study if they are not being evaluated as part of the investigation. For a detailed description of the disclosure categories, or for more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest section in Information for Contributors.
Dollar Amonut Codes (A) < $10,000 (B) $10,000-$99,900 (C)
Supported by Schering AG, Berlin, Germany. Presented in part at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Orlando, FL, December 7-11, 2001. Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
1. Portlock CS: Management of the low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Semin Oncol 17:51-59, 1990[Medline] 2. Lister TA: The management of follicular lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2:131-135, 1991 (suppl 2) 3. Morrison VA, Peterson BA: Combination chemotherapy in the treatment of follicular low-grade lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 10:29-33, 1993 (suppl) 4. Santoro A, Balzarotti M, Tondini C, et al: Dose-escalation of CHOP in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ann Oncol 10:519-525, 1999 5. Brereton HD, Young RC, Longo DL, et al: A comparison between combination chemotherapy and total body irradiation plus combination chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Cancer 43:2227-2231, 1979[Medline] 6. Meerwaldt JH, Carde P, Burgers JM, et al: Low-dose total body irradiation versus combination chemotherapy for lymphomas with follicular growth pattern. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:1167-1172, 1991[Medline] 7. Hagenbeek A, Carde P, Meerwaldt JH, et al: Maintenance of remission with human recombinant interferon alfa-2a in patients with stages III and IV low-grade malignant non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lymphoma Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 16:41-47, 1998 8. Arranz R, Garcia-Alfonso P, Sobrino P, et al: Role of interferon alfa-2b in the induction and maintenance treatment of low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Results from a prospective, multicenter trial with double randomization. J Clin Oncol 16:1538-1546, 1998 9. Marcus R, Imrie K, Belch A, et al: CVP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CVP as first-line treatment for advanced follicular lymphoma. Blood 105:1417-1423, 2005 10. Ardeshna KM, Smith P, Norton A, et al: Long-term effect of a watch and wait policy versus immediate systemic treatment for asymptomatic advanced-stage non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 362:516-522, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 11. Hiddemann W, Unterhalt M, Pott C, et al: Fludarabine single-agent therapy for relapsed low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: A phase II study of the German Low-Grade Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group. Semin Oncol 20:28-31, 1993[Medline] 12. Zinzani PL, Lauria F, Rondelli D, et al: Fludarabine: An active agent in the treatment of previously-treated and untreated low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ann Oncol 4:575-578, 1993 13. Gregory SA, Parameswaran, Venugopal P, et al: Safety and efficacy of fludarabine and mitoxantrone with rituximab consolidation in untreated advanced low grade Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (LG-NHL). Blood 98:605a, 2001 (abstr 2534) 14. Frewin R, Turner D, Tighe M, et al: Combination therapy with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide as salvage treatment in lymphoproliferative disorders. Br J Haematol 104:612-613, 1999[CrossRef][Medline] 15. Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Moretti L, et al: Randomized trial of fludarabine versus fludarabine and idarubicin as frontline treatment in patients with indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 18:773-779, 2000 16. Pigaditou A, Rohatiner AZ, Whelan JS, et al: Fludarabine in low-grade lymphoma. Semin Oncol 20:24-27, 1993[Medline] 17. Solal-Celigny P, Brice P, Brousse N, et al: Phase II trial of fludarabine monophosphate as first-line treatment in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma: A multicenter study by the Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte. J Clin Oncol 14:514-519, 1996 18. Klasa RJ, Meyer RM, Shustik C, et al: Randomized phase III study of fludarabine phosphate versus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone in patients with recurrent low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma previously treated with an alkylating agent or alkylator-containing regimen. J Clin Oncol 20:4649-4654, 2002 19. National Cancer Institute sponsored study of classifications of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: Summary and description of a Working Formulation for clinical usage. Cancer 49:2112-2121, 1982 20. Kaplan E, Meier P: Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457-481, 1958[CrossRef] 21. Hochster H, Weller E, Ryan T, et al: A phase III trial of CVP with or without maintenance rituximab in advanced indolent lymphoma (NHL). J Clin Oncol 23:556, 2004 (suppl, abstr 6502) 22. Demidem 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 Radiopharm 12:177-186, 1997[Medline] 23. Zinzani PL, Pulsoni A, Perrotti A, et al: Fludarabine plus mitoxantrone with and without rituximab versus CHOP with and without rituximab as front-line treatment for patients with follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 22:2654-2661, 2004 24. Gregory SA, Venugopal P, Adler S, et al: Combined fludarabine, mitoxantrone, and rituximab achieves a high response as initial treatment for advanced low grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (LGNHL). Blood 100:362a, 2002 (abstr 1401) 25. Zinzani PL: A randomised trial of fludarabine versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment in patients with follicular lymphoma. Ann Oncol 13:57, 2002 (suppl 2, abstr 185) 26. Hiddemann W, Forstpointner R, Fiedler F, et al: The addition of rituximab to combination chemotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone (FCM) results in a significant increase of overall response as compared to FCM alone in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular (FCL) and mantle cell lymphomas (MCL): Results of a prospective randomized comparison of the German Low Grade Study Group (GLSG). Blood 98:844a, 2001 (abstr 3507) 27. Hiddemann W, Dreyling M, Unterhalt M: Rituximab plus chemotherapy in follicular and mantle cell lymphomas. Semin Oncol 30:16-20, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 28. Vitolo U, Boccomini C, Astolfi M, et al: Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine + mitoxantrone + dexamethasone (FND) and rituximab in indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL): A pilot study to evaluate feasibility, safety, clinical and molecular response. Blood 98:252b, 2001 (abstr 4739) 29. Tuscano J, Lara PN, O'Donnell RT, et al: Safety and efficacy of a modified fludarabine/cyclophosphamide combination in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL and lgNHL. Blood 98:294b, 2001 (abstr 4922) 30. Flinn IW, Byrd JC, Morrison C, et al: Fludarabine and cyclophosphamide with filgrastim support in patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoid malignancies. Blood 96:71-75, 2000 31. Montoto S, Lopez-Giullermo A, Domingo-Domenech E, et al: Fludarabine cyclophosphamide and mitoxantrone (FCM) regimen as first line therapy in younger patients with advanced stage follicular lymphoma (FL). Ann Oncol 13:57, 2002 (abstr 184) 32. Santini G, Nati S, Spriano M, et al: Fludarabine in combination with cyclophosphamide or with cyclophosphamide plus mitoxantrone for relapsed or refractory low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Haematologica 86:282-286, 2001 33. McLaughlin P, Hagemeister FB, Romaguera JE, et al: Fludarabine, mitoxantrone, and dexamethasone: An effective new regimen for indolent lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 14:1262-1268, 1996 34. McMillan A, Cunningham D, Hancock B, et al: Fludarabine, adriamycin, and dexamethasone (FAD) in newly diagnosed stage III/IV follicular lymphoma: A phase II study by the British National Lymphoma Investigation. Ann Oncol 13:56, 2002 (abstr 182) 35. Gordon LI, Witzig T, Molina A, et al: Yttrium 90-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy produces high response rates and durable remissions in patients with previously treated B-cell lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma 5:98-101, 2004[Medline] 36. Kaminski MS, Tuck M, Estes J, et al: 131I-Tositumomab therapy as initial treatment for follicular lymphoma. N Engl J Med 352:441-449, 2005 37. Hagenbeek A: Future trends in radioimmunotherapy. Semin Oncol 32:S57-S62, 2005 (suppl) Submitted August 9, 2005; accepted January 24, 2006.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|