MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Extended triple intrathecal chemotherapy trial for prevention of CNS relapse in good-risk and poor-risk patients with B-progenitor acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a Pediatric Oncology Group study.
Author: Pullen J, Boyett J, Shuster J, Crist W, Land V, Frankel L, Iyer R, Backstrom L, van Eys J, Harris M.
Journal: J Clin Oncol; 1993 May; 11(5):839-49. PubMed ID: 8487048.
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) acute leukemia in childhood (ALinC) 13 study tested two treatment regimens that used different CNS chemoprophylaxis for children older than 12 months with non-T, non-B acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and with no demonstrable CNS disease at diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With the first regimen, standard (S), six injections of triple intrathecal chemotherapy (TIC), consisting of methotrexate (MTX), hydrocortisone (HC), and cytarabine (ara-C), were administered during intensification treatment and at every-8-week intervals throughout the maintenance phase for 17 additional doses. The second regimen, standard and MTX pulses (SAM), also specified six TICs during intensification, but substituted every-8-week pulses of intermediate-dose parenteral methotrexate (IDM; 1 g/m2) for the 17 maintenance TIC injections, with a low-dose intrathecal (IT) MTX boost administered with the first four maintenance IDM pulses. Otherwise, systemic therapy on regimen SAM was identical to regimen S. There were 1,152 patients randomized to the S and SAM regimens after stratification by risk group (age/leukocyte count) and immunophenotype. RESULTS: The 5-year probabilities (+/- SE) of an isolated CNS relapse were regimen S: good risk (n = 381), 2.8% +/- 1.3%; poor risk (n = 196), 7.7% +/- 3.2%; good + poor risk (n = 577), 4.7% +/- 1.5%; regimen SAM: good risk (n = 388), 9.6% +/- 2.2%; poor risk (n = 187), 12.7% +/- 4.2%; good + poor risk (n = 575), 10.9% +/- 2.2%. In poor-risk patients, approximately one third of the isolated CNS relapses occurred before preventive CNS therapy was begun at week 9. Hence, regimen S has provided better CNS preventive therapy for both good- and poor-risk patients (P < .001 overall). The difference is statistically significant for good-risk patients (P < .001), but not for poor-risk patients (P = .20). Neither treatment has shown a significant advantage in terms of general outcome. CONCLUSION: TIC injections extended throughout the intensification and maintenance periods are superior to IDM pulses for prevention of CNS leukemia. Our results with TIC seem comparable with those achieved with other contemporary methods of CNS preventative therapy. Thus, extended TIC affords a reasonable alternative to CNS irradiation plus upfront IT MTX for patients with B-progenitor ALL.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]