These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 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.
    Author: Santini G, Salvagno L, Leoni P, Chisesi T, De Souza C, Sertoli MR, Rubagotti A, Congiu AM, Centurioni R, Olivieri A, Tedeschi L, Vespignani M, Nati S, Soracco M, Porcellini A, Contu A, Guarnaccia C, Pescosta N, Majolino I, Spriano M, Vimercati R, Rossi E, Zambaldi G, Mangoni L, Rizzoli V.
    Journal: J Clin Oncol; 1998 Aug; 16(8):2796-802. PubMed ID: 9704732.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The aim of this multicenter randomized study was to compare conventional therapy with conventional plus high-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) as front-line treatment for poor-prognosis non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1991 and June 1995, 124 patients, aged 15 to 60 years, with diffuse intermediate- to high-grade NHL (Working Formulation criteria), stages II bulky (> or = 10 cm), III, or IV were enrolled. Sixty-one patients were randomized to receive etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and bleomycin (VACOP-B) for 12 weeks and cisplatin, cytarabine, and dexamethasone (DHAP) as a salvage regimen (arm A), and 63 to receive VACOP-B for 12 weeks plus HDT and ABMT (Arm B). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in terms of complete remissions (CRS) in the two groups: 75% in arm A, and 73% in arm B. The median follow-up observation time was 42 months. The 6-year survival probability was 65% in both arms. There was no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) or progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups. DFS was 60% and 80% (P = .1) and PFS was 48% and 60% (P = .4) for arms A and B, respectively. Procedure feasibility was the major problem. In arm B, 29% of enrolled patients did not undergo HDT and ABMT. A statistical improvement in terms of DFS (P = .008) and a favorable trend in terms of PFS (P = .08) for intermediate-/high- plus high-risk group patients assigned to HDT and ABMT was observed. CONCLUSION: In this study, conventional chemotherapy followed by HDT and ABMT as front-line therapy seems no more successful than conventional treatment in terms of overall results. However, our results suggest that controlled studies of HDT plus ABMT should be proposed for higher risk patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]