|
|||||
|
|
||||||
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 24, No 34 (December 1), 2006: pp. 5472-5473 © 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.4319
In ReplyDepartment of Medicine, Hematology, and Oncology, University of Münster, Germany
Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Germany
Department of Medicine, Hematology, and Oncology, University of Münster, Germany
Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Germany
Department of Human Genetics, University of Münster, Germany
Department of Hematology and Oncology, University of Regensburg, Germany
Department of Hematology and Oncology, University of Mannheim, Heidelberg, Germany
Department of Hematology and Oncology, University of Cologne, Germany
Department of Hematology and Oncology, University of Berlin, Germany
Department of Hematology and Oncology, St Johannes Hospital, Duisburg, Germany
Catholic Hospital, Hagen, Germany
Evangelian Hospital, Hamm, Germany
Department of Medical Informatics and Biomathematics, University of Münster, Germany
Department of Hematology and Oncology, Municipal Medical Centre, Braunschweig, Germany
Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, and the GSF National Center for Environment and Health, Munich, Germany Up-front randomization in acute myeloid leukemia (AML; Fig 1) is a method for strictly prospective comparison of complete treatment strategies according to intention-to-treat, avoiding patient withdrawals and selection by later randomization.1
It is important to show that patient outcomes are not improved by escalating cytotoxicity both in induction using high-dose cytarabine and postremission using autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT). Autologous SCT versus maintenance chemotherapy did not affect outcome overall or in complete remission (CR) patients. The rates of relapses (36% v 39%) and death in CR (8% v 8%) were similar. The patients having received thioguanine, cytarabine, and daunorubicin (TAD) consolidation show 37% versus 38% relapses and 7% versus 6% death in CR, respectively, in the autologous SCT and maintenance arm. Beyond the intention-to-treat analysis we also explored the effects of autologous SCT and maintenance in the assigned pa-tients who did receive the treatments and again confirmed no difference in the relapse-free survival and remission duration. General problems lie in the small numbers of patients eventually undergoing autologous SCT. Among the patients assigned up-front to autologous SCT versus maintenance and achieving CR only 51% started maintenance and 24% underwent autologous SCT. Wheatley et al in their AML 10 trial (Hann et al2; Burnett et al3) used late randomization for autologous SCT versus no further treatment (Hann et al2) or for one more consolidation course followed by autologous SCT versus consolidation and no further treatment (Burnett et al3). Their compliance rates of randomization (37% of patients chose nonrandomly assigned treatment) was 25% of the primary CR patients and their proportion of autologous SCT received was 17%. Thus, autologous SCT patients whether assigned up-front or randomly assigned late are a small highly selected and poorly defined population where the therapeutic effects are hard to translate into treatment standards. Regarding the fundamental controversy with Drs Hills and Wheatley, we also refer to three sequential publications (Büchner et al4; Hills et al5; Büchner et al6) discussing up-front randomization in the context of cross-trial networking. Authors' Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Supported by Grants No. M17/92/Bü1 and 70-2839-Bü4 from Deutsche Krebshilfe; Grant No. 01 GI 9976 from Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung Competence Network Acute and Chronic Leukemias; Grant No. LSH-2002-2.2.0-3 European LeukemiaNet from European Commission; and an unrestricted grant from AMGEN (Munich, Germany). REFERENCES
1. Büchner T, Berdel WE, Schoch C, et al: Double induction containing either two courses or one course of high-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone and postremission therapy by either autologous stem-cell transplantation or by prolonged maintenance for acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 24:2480-2489, 2006 2. Hann IM, Stevens RF, Goldstone AH, et al: Randomized comparison of DAT versus ADE as induction chemotherapy in children and younger adults with acute myeloid leukemia: Results of Medical Research Council's 10th AML trial (MRC AML 10). Blood 89:2311-2318, 1997 3. Burnett AK, Goldstone AH, Stevens RMF, et al: Randomised comparison of addition of autologous bone-marrow transplantation to intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia in first remission: Results of MRC AML 10 trial. Lancet 351:700-708, 1998[CrossRef][Medline] 4. Büchner T, Döhner H, Ehninger G, et al: Up-front randomization and common standard arm: A proposal for comparing AML treatment strategies between different studies. Leuk Res 26:1073-1075, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 5. Hills RK, Richards SM, Wheatley K: Corner cutting compromises clinical trials: The inherent problems with up-front randomization and a common standard arm. Leuk Res 27:1071-1073, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 6. Büchner T, Döhner H, Ehninger G, et al: Cross-trial networking in AML: A step forward rather than corner cutting. Leuk Res 28:649-650, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|