Advertisement

International Journal of Hematology

, Volume 80, Issue 4, pp 341–350 | Cite as

A Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating the Survival Benefit of Dose-Intensified Multidrug Combination Chemotherapy (LSG9) for Intermediate- or High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study 9002

  • Tomohiro Kinoshita
  • Tomomitsu Hotta
  • Kensei Tobinai
  • Tohru Kobayashi
  • Naoki Ishizuka
  • Masao Tomonaga
  • Toshiaki Sai
  • Youichiro Ohno
  • Masaharu Kasai
  • Michinori Ogura
  • Chikara Mikuni
  • Hironobu Toki
  • Masayuki Sano
  • Yasufumi Masaki
  • Tomoko Ohtsu
  • Yoshihiro Matsuno
  • Takeaki Takenaka
  • Shigeru Shirakawa
  • Masanori Shimoyama
  • Lymphoma Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG-LSG)
Article

Abstract

The effect of enhancing the dose intensity (DI) of the key drugs in multidrug combination chemotherapy for malignant lymphoma is uncertain. We investigated the survival benefit of dose-intensified multidrug combination chemotherapy for intermediate- or high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Patients without any prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned either to dose-intensified multidrug combination chemotherapy, LSG9 (VEPA-B/FEPP-AB/M-FEPA, treated 3 times every 10 weeks for 28 weeks total), or to control-arm combination chemotherapy, mLSG4 (VEPA-B/FEPP-B/M-FEPA, treated 4 times every 14 weeks for 54 weeks total). The planned DI of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide were 1.96 and 1.47 times higher, respectively, in LSG9 than in mLSG4. Overall survival, complete response (CR) rate, and toxicities were evaluated. The 447 patients (230 for LSG9 and 217 for mLSG4) were enrolled between February 1991 and March 1995.The 5-year overall survival rates were 56.8% for LSG9 patients and 55.1% for mLSG4 patients (log-rank P =.42).The rates for CR plus uncertain CR were 70.0% for LSG9 and 64.5% for mLSG4. The toxicities of both regimens were similar and tolerable. The median actual DI of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide were 1.56 and 1.17 times higher, respectively, in LSG9 than in mLSG4. Compared with the control regimen mLSG4, the dose-intensified regimen LSG9 did not show significant survival benefit. An increase in the DI of doxorubicin in multidrug combination chemotherapy did not improve the survival of patients with intermediate- or high-grade NHL.

Key words

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Combination chemotherapy Dose intensity Doxorubicin Randomized controlled trial 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Armitage JO. Treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1023–1030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shipp MA, Harrington DP, Klatt MM, et al. Identification of major prognostic subgroups of patients with large-cell lymphoma treated with m-BACOD or M-BACOD. Ann Intern Med. 1985;104:757–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Longo DL, DeVita VT Jr, Duffey PL, et al. Superiority of Pro- MACE-CytaBOM over ProMACE-MOPP in the treatment of advanced diffuse aggressive lymphoma: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:25–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klimo P, Connors JM. MACOP-B chemotherapy for the treatment of diffuse large-cell lymphoma. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:596–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gordon LI, Harrington D, Andersen J, et al. Comparison of a second -generation combination chemotherapeutic regimen (m- BACOD) with a standard regimen (CHOP) for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:1342–1349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher RI, Gaynor ER, Dahlberg S, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper IA, Wolf MM, Robertson TI, et al. Randomized comparison of MACOP-B with CHOP in patients with intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: the Australian and New Zealand Lymphoma Group. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:769–778.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Montserrat E, Garcia-Conde J, Vinolas N, et al. CHOP vs. Pro- MACE-CytaBOM in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: long-term results of a multicenter randomized trial. (PETHEMA: Spanish Cooperative Group for the Study of Hematological Malignancies Treatment, Spanish Society of Hematology). Eur J Haematol. 1996;57:377–383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linch DC, Vaughan Hudson B, Hancock BW, et al. A randomised comparison of a third-generation regimen (PACEBOM) with a standard regimen (CHOP) in patients with histologically aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a British National Lymphoma Investigation report. Br J Cancer. 1996;74:318–322.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jerkeman M, Anderson H, Cavallin-Stahl E, et al. CHOP versus MACOP-B in aggressive lymphoma: a Nordic Lymphoma Group randomised trial. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:1079–1086.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hryniuk WM. Average relative dose intensity and the impact on design of clinical trials. Semin Oncol. 1987;14:65–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frei E 3rd, Elias A, Wheeler C, Richardson P, Hryniuk W. The relationship between high-dose treatment and combination chemotherapy: the concept of summation dose intensity. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4:2027–2037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meyer RM, Hryniuk WM, Goodyear MD. The role of dose intensity in determining outcome in intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:339–347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kwak LW, Halpern J, Olshen RA, Horning SJ. Prognostic significance of actual dose intensity in diffuse large-cell lymphoma: results of a tree-structured survival analysis. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:963–977.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones SE, Grozea PN, Metz EN, et al. Superiority of Adriamycin- containing combination chemotherapy in the treatment of diffuse lymphoma: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer. 1979;43:417–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gams R, Rainey M, Dandy M, Bartolucci A, Silberman H, Omura G. Phase III study of BCOP v CHOP in unfavorable categories of malignant lymphoma: a Southeastern Cancer Study Group trial. J Clin Oncol. 1985;3:1188–1195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hagberg H, Bjorkholm M, Glimelius B, Lindemalm C, Mellstedt H, Killander A. CHOP vs MEV for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of unfavourable histopathology: a randomized clinical trial. EurJ Cancer Clin Oncol. 1985;21:175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer RM, Quirt IC, Skillings JR, et al. Escalated as compared with standard doses of doxorubicin in BACOP therapy for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1770–1776.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Pathologic Classification Project. National Cancer Institute sponsored study of classifications of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: summary and description of a working formulation for clinical usage. Cancer. 1982;49:2112–2135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tobinai K, Shimoyama M, Minato K, et al. Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) trial of second-generation “LSG4 protocol” in aggressive lymphoma including ATL: prognostic factors and a predictive model [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1994;13:378.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    World Health Organization. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1979. WHO offset publication No. 48.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harris NL, Jaffe ES,Diebold J, et al. World Health Organization classification of neoplastic diseases of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues: report of the Clinical Advisory Committee meeting—Airlie House, Virginia, November 1997. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3835–3849.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jaffe ES, Harris NL, Stein H, Vardiman JW, eds. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Shipp M, Neuberg D, Janicek M, Canellos G, Shulman L. High- dose CHOP as initial therapy for patients with poor-prognosis aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a dose-finding pilot study. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:2916–2923.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Santoro A, Balzarotti M, Tondini C, et al. Dose-escalation of CHOP in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:519–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Itoh K, Ohtsu T, Wakita H, et al. Dose-escalation study of CHOP with or without prophylactic G-CSF in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2000;11:1241–1247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tanosaki R, Okamoto S, Akatsuka N, et al. Dose escalation of biweekly cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone using recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer. 1994;74:1939–1944.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pronzato P, Lionetto R, Botto F, Pensa F, Tognoni A. High-dose intensity cyclophosphamide, epidoxorubicin, vincristine and pred- nisone by shortened intervals and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a phase II study. Br J Cancer. 1998;78:777–780.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Balzarotti M, Spina M, Sarina B, et al. Intensified CHOP regimen in aggressive lymphomas: maximal dose intensity and dose density of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:1341–1346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Itoh K, Ohtsu T, Fukuda H, et al. Randomized phase II study of biweekly CHOP and dose-escalated CHOP with prophylactic use of lenograstim (glycosylated G-CSF) in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study 9505. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:1347–1355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Budman DR, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, et al. Dose and dose intensity as determinants of outcome in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer: the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1205–1211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haioun C, Lepage E, Gisselbrecht 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’Adulte study. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3025–3030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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. 1997;336:1290–1298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Milpied N, Deconinck E, Gaillard F, et al. Initial treatment of aggressive lymphoma with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell support. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1287–1295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Santini G, Salvagno L, Leoni P, et al. VACOP-B versus VACOP-B plus autologous bone marrow transplantation for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results of a prospective randomized trial by the non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Cooperative Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2796–2802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Verdonck LF, van Putten WLJ, Hagenbeek A, et al. Comparison of CHOP chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation for slowly responding patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1045–1051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gisselbrecht C, Lepage E, Molina T, et al. Shortened first-line high- dose chemotherapy for patients with poor-prognosis aggressive lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2472–2479.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McLaughlin P, Grillo-Lopez AJ, Link BK, et al. Rituximab chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy for relapsed indolent lymphoma: half of patients respond to a four-dose treatment program. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2825–2833.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Coiffier B, Haioun C, Ketterer N, et al. Rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) for the treatment of patients with relapsing or refractory aggressive lymphoma: a multicenter phase II study. Blood. 1998;92:1927–1932.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grillo-Lopez AJ. Monoclonal antibody therapy for B-cell lymphoma. Int J Hematol. 2002;76:385–393.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tobinai K. Monoclonal antibody therapy for B-cell lymphoma: clinical trials of an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody for B-cell lymphoma in Japan. Int J Hematol. 2002;76:411–419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pfreundschuh M, Trumper L, Kloess 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-B2 trial of the DSHNHL. Blood. 2004;104:634–641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Hematology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomohiro Kinoshita
    • 1
  • Tomomitsu Hotta
    • 2
  • Kensei Tobinai
    • 3
  • Tohru Kobayashi
    • 4
  • Naoki Ishizuka
    • 5
  • Masao Tomonaga
    • 6
  • Toshiaki Sai
    • 7
  • Youichiro Ohno
    • 8
  • Masaharu Kasai
    • 9
  • Michinori Ogura
    • 10
  • Chikara Mikuni
    • 11
  • Hironobu Toki
    • 12
  • Masayuki Sano
    • 13
  • Yasufumi Masaki
    • 14
  • Tomoko Ohtsu
    • 15
  • Yoshihiro Matsuno
    • 3
  • Takeaki Takenaka
    • 3
  • Shigeru Shirakawa
    • 4
  • Masanori Shimoyama
    • 3
  • Lymphoma Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG-LSG)
  1. 1.Department of HematologyNagoya University Graduate School of MedicineShowa-ku, NagoyaJapan
  2. 2.Tokai UniversityIsehara
  3. 3.National Cancer Center HospitalTokyo
  4. 4.Mie University School of MedicineTsu
  5. 5.National Cancer Center Research InstituteTokyo
  6. 6.Nagasaki UniversityNagasaki
  7. 7.Iwaki Kyoritsu General HospitalIwaki
  8. 8.Tenri HospitalTenri
  9. 9.Sapporo Hokuyu HospitalSapporo
  10. 10.Aichi Cancer CenterNagoya
  11. 11.Sapporo National HospitalSapporo
  12. 12.National Shikoku Cancer CenterMatsuyama
  13. 13.Saga Medical SchoolSaga
  14. 14.Kanazawa Medical UniversityKanazawa
  15. 15.National Cancer Center Hospital EastKashiwaJapan

Personalised recommendations