COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
ABVD compared with BEACOPP compared with CEC for the initial treatment of patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma: results from the HD2000 Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Linfomi Trial.
Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009 Februrary 11
PURPOSE: To compare doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) versus bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP) versus cyclophosphamide, lomustine, vindesine, melphalan, prednisone, epidoxirubicin, vincristine, procarbazine, vinblastine, and bleomycin (COPPEBVCAD; CEC) for advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seven patients with advanced HL (stage IIB, III, and IV) were randomly assigned to receive six courses of ABVD, four escalated plus two standard courses of BEACOPP, or six courses of CEC, plus a limited radiation therapy program.
RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 41 months, BEACOPP resulted in a superior progression-free survival (PFS), with a significant reduction in risk of progression (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50) compared with ABVD. No differences between BEACOPP and CEC, or CEC and ABVD were observed. The 5-year PFS was 68% (95% CI, 56% to 78%), 81% (95% CI, 70% to 89%), and 78% (95% CI, 68% to 86%), for ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC, respectively (BEACOPP v ABVD, P = .038; CEC v ABVD and BEACOPP v CEC, P = not significant [NS]). The 5-year overall survival was 84% (95% CI, 69% to 92%), 92% (95% CI, 84% to 96%), and 91% (95% CI, 81% to 96%) for ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC, respectively (P = NS). BEACOPP and CEC resulted in higher rates of grade 3-4 neutropenia than ABVD (P = .016); BEACOPP was associated with higher rates of severe infections than ABVD and CEC (P = .003).
CONCLUSION: As adopted in this study BEACOPP is associated with a significantly improved PFS compared with ABVD, with a predictable higher acute toxicity.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seven patients with advanced HL (stage IIB, III, and IV) were randomly assigned to receive six courses of ABVD, four escalated plus two standard courses of BEACOPP, or six courses of CEC, plus a limited radiation therapy program.
RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 41 months, BEACOPP resulted in a superior progression-free survival (PFS), with a significant reduction in risk of progression (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50) compared with ABVD. No differences between BEACOPP and CEC, or CEC and ABVD were observed. The 5-year PFS was 68% (95% CI, 56% to 78%), 81% (95% CI, 70% to 89%), and 78% (95% CI, 68% to 86%), for ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC, respectively (BEACOPP v ABVD, P = .038; CEC v ABVD and BEACOPP v CEC, P = not significant [NS]). The 5-year overall survival was 84% (95% CI, 69% to 92%), 92% (95% CI, 84% to 96%), and 91% (95% CI, 81% to 96%) for ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC, respectively (P = NS). BEACOPP and CEC resulted in higher rates of grade 3-4 neutropenia than ABVD (P = .016); BEACOPP was associated with higher rates of severe infections than ABVD and CEC (P = .003).
CONCLUSION: As adopted in this study BEACOPP is associated with a significantly improved PFS compared with ABVD, with a predictable higher acute toxicity.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
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