BACKGROUND: The prognosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the elderly is poor. The GRAALL-SA1 phase II, randomized trial compared the efficacy and toxicity of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus continuous-infusion doxorubicin in patients 55 years or older with Philadelphia chromosome-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia. DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixty patients received either continuous-infusion doxorubicin (12 mg/m(2)/day) and continuous-infusion vincristine (0.4 mg/day) on days 1-4 or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (40 mg/m(2)) and standard vincristine (2 mg) on day 1, accompanied by dexamethasone, followed at day 28 by a second cycle, reinforced by cyclophosphamide. End-points were safety, outcome and prognostic factors. RESULTS:Myelosuppression was reduced in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin arm with shorter severe neutropenia (P=0.05), shorter severe thrombocytopenia (P=0.03), and fewer red blood cell transfusions (P=0.04). Grade 3/4 infections and Gram-negative bacteremia were reduced in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin arm (P=0.04 and P=0.02, respectively). There was a trend towards fewer cardiac events among the patients who received pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (1/29 versus 6/31). The complete remission rate was 82% and, with a median follow-up of 4 years, median event-free survival and overall survival were 9 and 10 months, respectively. Despite the better tolerance of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, no differences in survival were observed between the two arms, due to trends towards more induction refractoriness (17 versus 3%, P=0.10) and a higher cumulative incidence of relapse (52% versus 32% at 2 years, P=0.20) in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin arm. CONCLUSIONS: With the drug schedules used in this study, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin did not improve the outcome of elderly patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia despite reduced toxicities.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the elderly is poor. The GRAALL-SA1 phase II, randomized trial compared the efficacy and toxicity of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus continuous-infusion doxorubicin in patients 55 years or older with Philadelphia chromosome-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia. DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixty patients received either continuous-infusion doxorubicin (12 mg/m(2)/day) and continuous-infusion vincristine (0.4 mg/day) on days 1-4 or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (40 mg/m(2)) and standard vincristine (2 mg) on day 1, accompanied by dexamethasone, followed at day 28 by a second cycle, reinforced by cyclophosphamide. End-points were safety, outcome and prognostic factors. RESULTS: Myelosuppression was reduced in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin arm with shorter severe neutropenia (P=0.05), shorter severe thrombocytopenia (P=0.03), and fewer red blood cell transfusions (P=0.04). Grade 3/4 infections and Gram-negative bacteremia were reduced in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin arm (P=0.04 and P=0.02, respectively). There was a trend towards fewer cardiac events among the patients who received pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (1/29 versus 6/31). The complete remission rate was 82% and, with a median follow-up of 4 years, median event-free survival and overall survival were 9 and 10 months, respectively. Despite the better tolerance of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, no differences in survival were observed between the two arms, due to trends towards more induction refractoriness (17 versus 3%, P=0.10) and a higher cumulative incidence of relapse (52% versus 32% at 2 years, P=0.20) in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin arm. CONCLUSIONS: With the drug schedules used in this study, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin did not improve the outcome of elderly patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia despite reduced toxicities.
Authors: K K Hussein; S Dahlberg; D Head; C C Waddell; L Dabich; J K Weick; F Morrison; J H Saiki; E Metz; S E Rivkin Journal: Blood Date: 1989-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: H M Kantarjian; R S Walters; M J Keating; T L Smith; S O'Brien; E H Estey; Y O Huh; J Spinolo; K Dicke; B Barlogie Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A J Gottlieb; V Weinberg; R R Ellison; E S Henderson; H Terebelo; S Rafla; J Cuttner; R T Silver; R W Carey; R N Levy Journal: Blood Date: 1984-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: D D Von Hoff; M W Layard; P Basa; H L Davis; A L Von Hoff; M Rozencweig; F M Muggia Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1979-11 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: M E R O'Brien; N Wigler; M Inbar; R Rosso; E Grischke; A Santoro; R Catane; D G Kieback; P Tomczak; S P Ackland; F Orlandi; L Mellars; L Alland; C Tendler Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Lillian Dong; Kevin Ke; Samina Badar; Ahmed H Mekkawy; Javed Akhter; Krishna Pillai; Carly J Carter; David L Morris Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2022-05-15 Impact factor: 3.940