Fludarabine Versus Conventional CVP Chemotherapy in Newly C Diagnosed Patients With Stages III and IV Low-Grade Malignant Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: Preliminary Results From a Prospective, Randomized Phase III Clinical Trial in 381 Patients

Publication
Article
OncologyONCOLOGY Vol 13 No 3
Volume 13
Issue 3

To establish the role of fludarabine (Fludara) in previously untreated patients with low-grade malignant non-Hodgkin’s

To establish the role of fludarabine (Fludara) in previously untreated patients with low-grade malignant non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), 381 patients were enrolled by 60 centers in nine countries between April 1993 and January 1997. Patients older than 18 years with NHL Working Formulation class A (chronic lymphocytic leukemia [CLL] excluded), B, and C were eligible. They were randomized, either immediately after diagnosis or after a wait-and-see period, to either eight courses of fludarabine (25 mg/m² intravenously [IV] daily for 5 days every 4 weeks) or eight courses of onventional CVP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m² IV on day 1; vin-cristine, 1.4 mg/m² IV on day 1; and prednisone, 40 mg/m² PO on days 1-5 every 4 weeks). At entry and after the last course of treatment, complete (re)staging was performed, including computed tomographic (CT) scans and a bone marrow biopsy. From the 381 patients randomized, 72 (19%) were declared ineligible, mainly because of inadequate histology (CLL, mantle cell lymphoma) on central pathology review.

Response rates and survival times are presented according to intent-to-treat analysis. The overall response rate was 69% (39% complete response [CR], 30% partial response [PR]) in the fludarabine group and 53% (17% CR, 36% PR) in the CVP group (P = .001). In both treatment arms, these response rates were not significantly different between the subgroups of patients treated immediately after diagnosis or those treated after a wait-and-see period.

With a median follow-up of 570 days since randomization, the time to progression was 494 and 396 days for the fludarabine- and CVP-treated groups, respectively. With the limited number of deaths that have occurred so far, it is not possible to accurately assess any influence on overall survival at this time.

Toxicity > 2 (according to the World Health Organization [WHO] scale) was observed more frequently in the fludarabine arm for granulocytopenia and thrombocytopenia (P = .001). Significant hair loss occurred in the CVP group only. There were no significant differences in the frequency of severe infections between the two groups (2%). So far, 50 patients have died, 24 from NHL, 2 from a secondary malignancy, 3 from complications of treatment, 4 from intercurrent disease, and 17 from a variety of other causes (including missing data).

CONCLUSION: From the present study it can be concluded that fludarabine monotherapy is established as up-front treatment of patients with extensive low-grade malignant NHL, given the significant response rate (two times higher CR rate) and response duration without enhanced life-threatening toxicities. Apparently, it is too early to judge about possible differences in overall survival time. Fludarabine adds another important ingredient to the treatment strategy of patients with low-grade malignant NHL.

Click here for Dr. Bruce Cheson’s commentary on this abstract.

Articles in this issue

WHO Declares Lymphatic Mapping to Be the Standard of Care for Melanoma
Rituximab: Phase II Retreatment Study in Patients With Low-Grade or Follicular Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Response Criteria for NHL: Importance of “Normal” Lymph Node Size and Correlations With Response
Chemotherapy Plus Radiation Improves Survival in Patients With Cervical Cancer
A Randomized Trial of Fludarabine, Mitoxantrone (FM) Versus Doxorubicin, Cyclophosphamide, Vindesine, Prednisone (CHEP) as First Line Treatment in Patients With Advanced Low-Grade Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Multicenter Study by GOELAMS Group
Navelbine Increased Elderly Lung Cancer Patients’ Survival
Fludarabine Versus Conventional CVP Chemotherapy in Newly C Diagnosed Patients With Stages III and IV Low-Grade Malignant Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: Preliminary Results From a Prospective, Randomized Phase III Clinical Trial in 381 Patients
Multicenter, Phase III Study of Iodine-131 Tositumomab (Anti-B1 Antibody) for Chemotherapy-Refractory Low-Grade or Transformed Low-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
T-Cell–Depleted Allogeneic Bone Marrow Transplant From HLA-Matched Sibling Donors for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Consensus Statement on Prevention and Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer
In Vivo Purging and Adjuvant Immunotherapy With Rituximab During PBSC Transplant For NHL
Fludarabine and Cyclophosphamide: A Highly Active and Well-Tolerated Regimen for Patients With Previously Untreated Indolent Lymphomas
Campath-1H Monoclonal Antibody in Therapy for Advanced Low-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas: A Phase II Study
AIDS Drugs Effective Against Most Common HIV Strain
Rituximab Therapy in Previously Treated Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia: Preliminary Evidence of Activity
Recent Videos
Educating community practices on CAR T referral and sequencing treatment strategies may help increase CAR T utilization.
The FirstLook liquid biopsy, when used as an adjunct to low-dose CT, may help to address the unmet need of low lung cancer screening utilization.
An 80% sensitivity for lung cancer was observed with the liquid biopsy, with high sensitivity observed for early-stage disease, as well.
9 Experts are featured in this series.
9 Experts are featured in this series.
Harmonizing protocols across the health care system may bolster the feasibility of giving bispecifics to those with lymphoma in a community setting.
2 experts are featured in this series.
Patients who face smoking stigma, perceive a lack of insurance, or have other low-dose CT related concerns may benefit from blood testing for lung cancer.
9 Experts are featured in this series.
Related Content