PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10707775

Diffuse large-cell lymphoma.

R I Fisher
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New treatments are desperately needed to improve the results obtained using CHOP chemotherapy for patients with diffuse large cell lymphoma. In order to develop successful new strategies we need to understand why prior promising therapies have failed and to develop new testable hypotheses based on our current knowledge. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The International Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Index has provided us with a methodology to compare the expected prognosis of patients on different clinical trials. Many prior, apparent improvements in treatment outcome can now be attributed to the inclusion of patients with better prognoses. RESULTS: Current areas of investigation include: 1) the identification of new active drugs for the treatment of lymphoma, 2) the use of colony stimulating factors to allow dose escalation of the active myelotoxic drugs, 3) the use of strategies which may overcome the problem of resistance to chemotherapy, 4) the combination of monoclonal antibodies with combination chemotherapy and 5) ablative chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell support. CONCLUSIONS: Based on all of the available data, the North American Lymphoma Intergroup has developed the hypothesis that high-intermediate and high risk patients with aggressive lymphoma who receive full course standard induction therapy will benefit form the addition of high dose therapy and has antedated a clinical trial testing that hypothesis.

Explore related subjects

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Trials as TopicCombined Modality TherapyDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseMalePrognosisSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R I Fisher. 2000. Diffuse large-cell lymphoma.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10707775/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

A standardization method to adjust for the effect of patient selection in phase II clinical trials.

New combination regimens evaluated in phase II cancer clinical trials often show promising results compared to the standard therapy for a disease system. Selection of patients with a better prognosis can be a prominent factor for this optimism. For most disease systems, prognostic variables that are related to the outcome are available and are called risk factors. Patients are classified into risk categories depending on the number of risk factors they possess. The patient distribution is defined as the proportion of patients falling into each of these risk categories. Typically, the patient distribution observed for a phase II study differs from the standard therapy reports so that the outcomes are not comparable. A randomized trial is the ultimate step for establishing the efficacy of a new treatment. In order to determine whether a regimen should progress to a phase III trial, we suggest adjusting the standard therapy outcome for the effect of the observed phase II patient distribution. If the endpoint of interest is tumour response proportion, a weighted average utilizing the standard therapy response proportions and the phase II patient distribution would provide an estimate of the adjusted standard therapy response proportion. Confirmatory phase II trials often attempt to estimate median survival in addition to response proportion, since this is the primary endpoint for most phase III cancer studies. Because data are censored, we propose an adjustment method based on the bootstrap resampling technique. We illustrate the problem of disparate patient selection with data from melanoma studies and demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed adjustment method with data from bladder cancer studies. A simulation study indicates that the magnitude of the adjustment is heavily dependent on the degree of separation of the risk categories. SAS code is available on a website (http://lib.stat.cmu.edu) for easy implementation.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
PubMed2001

Randomized trials of high dose chemotherapy for breast cancer.

'Now is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning'Winston Churchill in a speech to the Canadian Senate and House of Commons, December 30, 1941. In laboratory models of cancer, dose of cytotoxic chemotherapy correlates with curative therapy, while cumulative dose is associated with longer survival for those who are not cured. These observations suggests a strategy of using high doses when cure is the objective but smaller doses over a prolonged period when palliation and survival are the goal. A strategy combining repetitive cycles of higher doses of cytotoxic therapy, followed by the optimal combination of hormonal and biological agents based on the tumor's receptors might contribute to both the highest possible cure rate and the longest survival. The development of bone marrow transplant (BMT) for leukemias, and its subsequent modification for support after high dose therapy for other malignancies, has a long, complex and emotional history in medicine. At least partly because of firmly held opinions and the way large randomized trials are funded in the United States, few American randomized trials of BMT or high dose therapy strategies have been completed. The vast majority of published randomized BMT and high dose studies are European. Interestingly, in contrast, two large American randomized trials of high dose chemotherapy for breast cancer had actually completed accrual. Accrual on a third was on target until the presentation of five very small or very early randomized trials at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in May of 1999. Results from some of these trials, which were analyzed after a relatively brief follow-up, are too premature to allow definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, these data have been over and misinterpreted within the scientific and lay communities. The remaining studies included a limited number of patients, thus restricting the statistical power of the observations. The desire for quick answers impeded dispassionate analysis of the available data. The opportunity for collegial review of the data further deteriorated with another round of press coverage when the data from the South African adjuvant study were found to be unreliable. Rather than increasing commitment to accrual on randomized and appropriate pilot trials, accrual to the only large American study in existence at that time trickled to a halt. In response to press coverage, Susan Edmonds from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center observed that 'the NYT article tends to cast shadows generally on the therapy and those providing the therapy rather than pointing out early in the article (where the public will readily see it) that there are a number of very credible research institutions conducting research directed at breast cancer, some looking at high dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation.' Dr. Rodenhuis, presenting the large positive Dutch Randomized study (funded by the Dutch insurance industry) at ASCO in 2000, commented on the 'unreasonably high expectations until 1999' and 'unreasonably negative [opinion-ed] since 1999' for high dose adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗