11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Randomized phase III study of fludarabine phosphate versus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone in patients with recurrent low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma previously treated with an alkylating agent or alkylator-containing regimen.

      Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
      Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, administration & dosage, adverse effects, therapeutic use, Cyclophosphamide, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin, drug therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Prednisone, Quality of Life, Survival Rate, Treatment Outcome, Vidarabine, analogs & derivatives, Vincristine

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To compare in a phase III study the safety and efficacy of fludarabine to that of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) in recurrent, low-grade, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after previous response to systemic treatment. Patients were randomized to fludarabine (25 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 to 5, every 28 days) or CVP (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2) and vincristine 1.2 mg/m(2) both intravenously on day 1 and prednisone 40 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 to 5, every 21 days). The primary outcome assessed was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes included treatment-free survival (TFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related toxicity, and quality of life (QoL) according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30 version 1.0 instrument. Ninety-one patients were randomized, 47 to fludarabine and 44 to CVP. There was no difference in response rates, with 64% (complete response [CR], 9%) for fludarabine versus 52% (CR, 7%) for CVP (P =.72). With a median follow-up of 42 months, median PFS (11 months v 9.1 months; P =.03) and TFS (15 months v 11 months; P =.02) were superior in patients receiving fludarabine. No difference in median overall survival was detected (57 months for fludarabine v 44 months for CVP; P =.95). Three patients receiving fludarabine died of treatment-related toxicity compared with none of the patients receiving CVP. Peripheral neuropathy and alopecia were more common with CVP. Patients receiving fludarabine had higher scores for social function (P =.008); no other differences in QoL were detected. In recurrent low-grade lymphoma, fludarabine improves PFS, TFS, and social function scores in comparison with CVP but does not improve OS.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article