Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2021
Dexa-BEAM versus MIFAP as salvage regimen for recurrent lymphoma: a prospective randomized multicenter phase II trial with a median follow-up of 14.4 years.
Клиническое исследование II фазыСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kürzel Sabine, Blaudszun André-René, Stahl Lilly, Herbst Regina, Kroschinsky Frank, Birkmann Josef, Hänel Annette, Schaefer-Eckart Kerstin, Ehninger Gerhard, Fiedler Friedrich, Bornhäuser Martin, Fricke Stephan, Hänel Mathias
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the MIFAP protocol, which had been shown to be effective in patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) or aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), to an established regimen like Dexa-BEAM.
METHODS: Seventy-three adult patients with HL (N = 25) or aggressive NHL (N = 48) suffering from relapse or refractory disease were randomly allocated to receive two cycles of Dexa-BEAM (dexamethasone, carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan; N = 37) or MIFAP (mitoxantrone, fludarabine, cytarabine, cisplatin; N = 36) prior to a consolidating high-dose therapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) [complete response (CR) and partial response (PR)] after two courses of salvage chemotherapy.
RESULTS: The ORR was 51% (CR 38%) and 53% (CR 36%) in the Dexa-BEAM arm and in the MIFAP arm (both not significant), respectively. There was a significantly higher grade 3-4 toxicity after MIFAP compared to Dexa-BEAM. Thirty-five patients were consolidated by autologous (N = 29), allogeneic (N = 1) or sequential autologous/allogeneic (N = 5) HCT. No significant differences were found in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the Dexa-BEAM and the MIFAP arms.
CONCLUSION: Compared to Dexa-BEAM, MIFAP is associated with a higher toxicity and does not improve the outcome of patients with recurrent HL or aggressive NHL. For those patients, innovative treatment concepts like recently developed immunotherapies are necessary.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT number 2021-001937-38.
DATE OF REGISTRATION: 7 April 2021, retrospectively registered.
METHODS: Seventy-three adult patients with HL (N = 25) or aggressive NHL (N = 48) suffering from relapse or refractory disease were randomly allocated to receive two cycles of Dexa-BEAM (dexamethasone, carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan; N = 37) or MIFAP (mitoxantrone, fludarabine, cytarabine, cisplatin; N = 36) prior to a consolidating high-dose therapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) [complete response (CR) and partial response (PR)] after two courses of salvage chemotherapy.
RESULTS: The ORR was 51% (CR 38%) and 53% (CR 36%) in the Dexa-BEAM arm and in the MIFAP arm (both not significant), respectively. There was a significantly higher grade 3-4 toxicity after MIFAP compared to Dexa-BEAM. Thirty-five patients were consolidated by autologous (N = 29), allogeneic (N = 1) or sequential autologous/allogeneic (N = 5) HCT. No significant differences were found in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the Dexa-BEAM and the MIFAP arms.
CONCLUSION: Compared to Dexa-BEAM, MIFAP is associated with a higher toxicity and does not improve the outcome of patients with recurrent HL or aggressive NHL. For those patients, innovative treatment concepts like recently developed immunotherapies are necessary.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT number 2021-001937-38.
DATE OF REGISTRATION: 7 April 2021, retrospectively registered.