Medical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 283–293 | Cite as

Outcome for young high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma patients treated with CHOEP-14 and rituximab (R-CHOEP-14)

  • Magdalena Adde
  • Gunilla Enblad
  • Hans Hagberg
  • Christer Sundström
  • Anna Laurell
Original Article



To study the effectiveness and tolerability of a dose-intensified treatment including rituximab for patients, not older than 65 yr, with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma.


Thirty-eight patients with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma, the majority classified as grade 2 or 3 using age-adjusted International Prognostic Index, were treated with six courses of CHOEP+rituximab on a 2-wk schedule with G-CSF d 4-11. CNS prophylaxis was administered using intravenous Ara-C as a single dose at the end of treatment.


All patients were considered responders after three courses. Thirty-one patients (82%) achieved a complete remission or a complete remission unverified. With a median follow up of 27 mo, overall and event-free survival are 79% and 60%, respectively. Treatment was given on an outpatient basis. There were no treatment-related unexpected toxic events or mortalities. Large-cell lymphoma involvement of the bone marrow was a poor prognostic sign even with this intensified treatment and 4/6 patients relapsed. CNS relapse occurred in three patients, two of whom had large cell bone marrow involvement.


Although only a short follow up, the R-CHOEP-14 regimen is promising and could be an improvement compared to conventional treatment, with acceptable toxicity. The value of intravenous Ara-C at the end of treatment can be questioned, as it did not prevent CNS relapse or affect treatment outcome.

Key Words

High-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma dose-intensified treatment rituximab 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Shipp MA, et al. The 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elias L, Portlock CS, Rosenberg SA. Combination chemotherapy of diffuse histiocytic lymphoma with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP). Cancer 1978; 42: 1705–1710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jerkeman M, et al. CHOP versus MACOP-B in aggressive lymphoma—a Nordic Lymphoma Group randomized trial. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 1079–1086.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisher RI, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Messori A, et al. Survival in patients with intermediate or high grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing third generation regimens with CHOP. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 303–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pfreundschuh M, et al. Two weekly or 3-weekly CHOP chemotherapy with or without etoposide for the treatment of elderly patients with aggressive lymphomas: results of the NHL-B-2 trial of the DSHNHL. Blood 2004; 104(3): 634–641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pfreundschuh M, et al. Two weekly or 3-weekly CHOP chemotherapy with or without etoposide for the treatment or young patients with good prognosis (normal LDH) aggressive lymphomas: result of the NHL-B-1 trial of the DSHNHL. Blood 2004; 104: 626–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tilly H, et al. Intensive conventional chemotherapy (ACVBP regimen) compared with Standard CHOP for poor-prognosis aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2003; 102: 4284–4289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Milpied N, et al. Initial treatment of aggressive lymphoma with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell support. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(13): 1287–1295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaiser U, et al. Randomized study to evaluate the use of high-dose therapy as part of primary treatment for “aggressive” lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20(22): 4413–4419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haioun C, et al. Survival benefit of high-dose therapy in poor-risk aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: final analysis of the prospective LNH87-2 protocol a Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adilte study. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3025–3030.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pettengell R, et al. Survival benefit from high-dose therapy with autologous blood progenitor-cell transplantation in poor-prognosis non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 586–592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gianni AM, et al. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone-marrow transplantation compared with MACOP-B in aggressive lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1290–1297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cortelasso S, et al. BEAM chemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation as front-line therapy for high-risk patients with diffuse large cell lymphoma. Br J Haematol 1997; 99: 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vitolo U, et al. Intensified and high-dose chemotherapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and autologous stem-cell transplantation support as first-line therapy in high-risk diffuse large-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 491–498.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Santini G, et al. VACOP-B versus VACOP-B plus autologous bone marrow transplantation for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: result of a prospective randomized trial by the Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Cooperative Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2796–2802.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reyes F, et al. Failure of first line induction high-dose chemotherapy in poor prognosis patients with aggressive lymphoma; updated results of the randomized LNH93-3 study (abstract 2640). Blood 1997; 90(Suppl 2): 594.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cuttica A, et al. Patients with high-risk aggressive lymphoma treated with frontline intensive chemotherapy and autografting: evidence of marked differences in outcome between patients with age-adjusted International Prognostic Index scores 2 and 3. Cancer 2003; 98(5): 983–992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coiffier B, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sehn L, et al. Introduction of combined CHOP plus rituximab therapy dramatically improved outcome of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in British Columbia. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 5027–5033.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Habermann TM, et al. Phase III trial of rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) vs CHOP with a second randomization to main-tenance rituximab (MR) or observation in patients 60 years of age and older with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (abstract 8). Blood 2003; 102: 6.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Pfreundschuh M, et al. First analysis of the completed mabthera international (MinT) trial in young patients with low-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): addition of rituximab to a CHOP-like regimen significantly improves outcome of all patients with the identification of a very favourable subgroup with IPI=0 and no bulky disease (abstract 157). Blood 2004; 104: 48.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Cheson BD, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. NCI Sponsored International Working Group. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1244–1253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Besien K, et al. Risk factors, treatment, and outcome of central nervous system recurrence in adults with intermediate-grade and immunoblastic lymphoma. Blood 1998; 91: 1178–1184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hedge U, et al. High incidence of occult leptomeningeal disease detected by flow cytometry in newly diagnosed aggressive B-cell lymphomas at risk for central nervous system involvement: the role of flow cytometry versus cytology. Blood 2005; 105(2): 496–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hollender A, Kvaloy S, Lote K, Nome O, Holte H. Prognostic factors in 140 adult patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with systemic central nervous system (CNS) involvement. A single centre analysis. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36(14): 1762–1768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Glantz MJ, et al. Randomized trial of a slow-term release versus standard formulation of cytarabine for the intrathecal treatment of lymphomatosous meningitis. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18(9): 2003–2004.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sanz L, et al. Risk of relapse and clinico-pathological features in 103 patients with diffuse large-cell lymphoma in complete response after first line treatment. Eur J Haematol 1998; 61(1): 59–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hodges GF, Lenhardt TM, Cotelingam JD. Bone marrow involvement in large-cell lymphoma. Prognostic implications of discordant disease. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 101(3): 305–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdalena Adde
    • 1
  • Gunilla Enblad
    • 1
  • Hans Hagberg
    • 1
  • Christer Sundström
    • 2
  • Anna Laurell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OncologyUppsala University HospitalUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of PathologyUppsala University HospitalUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations