Randomized trials of CHOP versus other regimens in newly diagnosed previously untreated aggressive lymphomas
Author . | Regimens . | Patient characteristics . | Diseases . | Results . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early trials | ||||
| Gordon et al51 (1992) | CHOP vs m-BACOD | 325 patients, all ages, stages III, IV | WF* groups F, G | No difference in TTF, OS |
| Cooper et al52 (1994) | CHOP vs MACOP-B | 236 patients, aged > 16 y, stage I (bulky), II-IV | WF groups D, E, F, G, H | No difference in FFS, OS |
| Fisher et al50 (1994) | CHOP vs m-BACOD vs ProMACE-CytaBOM vs MACOP-B | 899 patients, all ages, stage II (bulky), III, IV | WF groups D, E, F, G, H, J (80% were F, G, H) | No difference in TTF, OS |
| Recent trials | ||||
| Tilly et al56 (2003) | CHOP vs ACVBP | 635 patients, aged 61-69 y, stage I-IV, at least one adverse prognostic factor by aaIPI | WF groups F, G, H, I, J (79% were DLBCL) | 5 y EFS: ACVBP 39% vs CHOP 29% (P = .005); 5 y OS†: ACVBP 46% vs CHOP 38% (P = .036) |
| Pfreundschuh et al54 (2004) | CHOP-14 vs CHOP-21 vs CHOEP-21 vs CHOEP-14 | 710 patients, aged 18-60, stage I-IV, normal LDH level | REAL/WHO: DLBCL (60%), MLBCL (3.0%), Follicular grade III, Burkitt, aggressive marginal zone, anaplastic large-cell lymphoblastic, PTCL, angioimmunoblastic, extranodal NK/T, nasal type, aggressive NOS | 5 y EFS: CHO(E)P-14 65% vs CHO(E)P-21 62% (P = NS), CHOEP-14/21 69% vs CHOP-14/21 58% (P = .004); 5 y OS: CHO(E)P-14 85% vs CHO(E)P-21 58% (P = .004), CHOEP-14/21 84% vs CHOP-14/21 80% (P = NS) |
| Pfreundschuh et al55 (2004) | CHOP-14 vs CHOP-21 vs CHOEP-14 vs CHOEP-21 | 689 patients, aged 61-75 y, stage I-IV | REAL/WHO: DLBCL (71%), MLBCL (0.6%), Follicular grade III, Burkitt, marginal zone, anaplastic large cell, lymphoblastic, PTCL, angioimmunoblastic, extranodal NK/T, nasal type, aggressive NOS | 5 y EFS: CHOP-14 44% vs CHOP-21 33% (P = .003), CHOEP-21 41% vs CHOP-21 33% (P = NS); 5 y OS: CHOP-14 53% vs CHOP-21 41%, (P < .001), CHOEP-21 46% vs CHOP-21 41% (P = NS) |
Author . | Regimens . | Patient characteristics . | Diseases . | Results . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early trials | ||||
| Gordon et al51 (1992) | CHOP vs m-BACOD | 325 patients, all ages, stages III, IV | WF* groups F, G | No difference in TTF, OS |
| Cooper et al52 (1994) | CHOP vs MACOP-B | 236 patients, aged > 16 y, stage I (bulky), II-IV | WF groups D, E, F, G, H | No difference in FFS, OS |
| Fisher et al50 (1994) | CHOP vs m-BACOD vs ProMACE-CytaBOM vs MACOP-B | 899 patients, all ages, stage II (bulky), III, IV | WF groups D, E, F, G, H, J (80% were F, G, H) | No difference in TTF, OS |
| Recent trials | ||||
| Tilly et al56 (2003) | CHOP vs ACVBP | 635 patients, aged 61-69 y, stage I-IV, at least one adverse prognostic factor by aaIPI | WF groups F, G, H, I, J (79% were DLBCL) | 5 y EFS: ACVBP 39% vs CHOP 29% (P = .005); 5 y OS†: ACVBP 46% vs CHOP 38% (P = .036) |
| Pfreundschuh et al54 (2004) | CHOP-14 vs CHOP-21 vs CHOEP-21 vs CHOEP-14 | 710 patients, aged 18-60, stage I-IV, normal LDH level | REAL/WHO: DLBCL (60%), MLBCL (3.0%), Follicular grade III, Burkitt, aggressive marginal zone, anaplastic large-cell lymphoblastic, PTCL, angioimmunoblastic, extranodal NK/T, nasal type, aggressive NOS | 5 y EFS: CHO(E)P-14 65% vs CHO(E)P-21 62% (P = NS), CHOEP-14/21 69% vs CHOP-14/21 58% (P = .004); 5 y OS: CHO(E)P-14 85% vs CHO(E)P-21 58% (P = .004), CHOEP-14/21 84% vs CHOP-14/21 80% (P = NS) |
| Pfreundschuh et al55 (2004) | CHOP-14 vs CHOP-21 vs CHOEP-14 vs CHOEP-21 | 689 patients, aged 61-75 y, stage I-IV | REAL/WHO: DLBCL (71%), MLBCL (0.6%), Follicular grade III, Burkitt, marginal zone, anaplastic large cell, lymphoblastic, PTCL, angioimmunoblastic, extranodal NK/T, nasal type, aggressive NOS | 5 y EFS: CHOP-14 44% vs CHOP-21 33% (P = .003), CHOEP-21 41% vs CHOP-21 33% (P = NS); 5 y OS: CHOP-14 53% vs CHOP-21 41%, (P < .001), CHOEP-21 46% vs CHOP-21 41% (P = NS) |
CHOP indicates cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone; m-BACOD, methotrexate, bleomycin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, dexamethasone; TTF, time to treatment failure; OS, overall survival; MACOP-B, methotrexate, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, bleomycin; FFS, failure-free survival; ProMACE-CytaBOM, prednisone, procarbazine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, etoposide/cytarabine, bleomycin, vincristine, methotrexate; ACVBP, induction: doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin, prednisone, intrathecal methotrexate; consolidation: intravenous methotrexate, etoposide, ifosfamide, cytosinearabinoside; aaIPI, age-adjusted International Prognostic Index; EFS, event-free survival; CHOEP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone; LDH, lactic dehydrogenase; MLBCL, mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma; PTCL, peripheral T-cell lymphoma; NOS, not otherwise specified; CHO(E)P, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone with or without etoposide; NS, not significant.
Working Formulation: group D, follicular large cleaved; E, diffuse small cleaved; F, diffuse mixed; G, diffuse large cell; H, large cell immunoblastic; I, lymphoblastic; J, small noncleaved cell (Burkitt)
Treatment-related mortality: ACVBP 13% versus CHOP 7% (P = .014).56