Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

CHOP versus CHOP plus ESHAP and high-dose therapy with autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation for high-intermediate-risk and high-risk aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Clinical Lymphoma 2000 December
The purpose of the study was to compare conventional cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisolone (CHOP) chemotherapy with CHOP (3 courses) plus etoposide/methylprednisolone/high-dose cytarabine/cisplatin (ESHAP), high-dose therapy (HDT), and autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation (PBPCT) as front-line treatment for poor-prognosis aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Between May 1, 1995, and April 30, 1998, 58 patients, aged 15-55 years, newly diagnosed with poor-prognosis aggressive NHL (category F-H by the Working Formulation) were enrolled. According to the age-adjusted international prognostic index, 65% of the patients were high-risk cases and 35% made up the high-intermediate group. After 3 courses of CHOP, 25 of 48 patients were randomized to continue with CHOP, and 23 were randomized to receive 2-4 cycles of ESHAP followed by HDT and PBPCT. There was no significant difference in the rate of complete remission between the two groups (36%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18%-57% in CHOP vs. 43%, 95% CI: 23%-65% in ESHAP/HDT) (P = 0.77). With a median follow-up duration of 39 months, the 4-year failure-free survival (FFS) was superior in the ESHAP/HDT group (38%, 95% CI: 18%-58% vs. 15%, 95% CI: 4%-32%) (P = 0.04). The disease-free survival was marginally different in favor of the ESHAP/HDT arm (90%, 95% CI: 47%-98% vs. 37%, 95% CI: 7%-69%) (P = 0.06). The 4-year overall survival between the two treatment arms was comparable (51%, 95% CI: 28%-70% for ESHAP/HDT vs. 30%, 95% CI: 13%-48% for CHOP) (P = 0.25). Treatment-related mortalities were not significantly different between both groups (17%, 95% CI: 5%-39% for ESHAP/HDT vs. 8%, 95% CI: 1%-26% for CHOP) (P = 0.41). However, only 61% of the patients assigned to the ESHAP/HDT arm underwent HDT and PBPCT. As compared with CHOP, the corporate regimen of CHOP/ESHAP/HDT seems to improve the FFS in patients with newly diagnosed, poor-prognosis aggressive NHL.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app