Randomized phase II study of biweekly CHOP and dose-escalated CHOP with prophylactic use of lenograstim (glycosylated G-CSF) in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study 9505

K. Itoh1,+, T. Ohtsu1, H. Fukuda2, Y. Sasaki1, M. Ogura3, Y. Morishima3, T. Chou4, K. Aikawa5, N. Uike6, F. Mizorogi7, T. Ohno8, S. Ikeda9, T. Sai10, M. Taniwaki11, F. Kawano12, M. Niimi2, T. Hotta13, M. Shimoyama14 and K. Tobinai15,§

1 Division of Hematology and Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa; 2 JCOG Data Center, Cancer Information and Epidemiology Division, National Cancer Center Research Institute, Tokyo; 3 Department of Hematology and Chemotherapy, Aichi Cancer Center, Nagoya; 4 Department of Medical Oncology, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata; 5 Department of Hematology, Sapporo National Hospital, Sapporo; 6 Department of Hematology, National Kyusyu Cancer Center, Fukuoka; 7 Department of Internal Medicine, Daisan Hospital, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo; 8 Division of Hematology and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ohtsu Red Cross Hospital, Ohtsu; 9 Department of Hematology, Sasebo City General Hospital, Sasebo, 10 Department of Internal Medicine, Iwaki Kyoritsu General Hospital, Iwaki; 11 Third Department of Internal Medicine, Kyoto Prefectural University School of Medicine, Kyoto; 12 Institute for Clinical Research, Kumamoto National Hospital, Kumamoto; 13 Department of Internal Medicine, Tokai University, Isehara; 14 Nagoya National Hospital, Nagoya; 15 Hematology Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

Received 10 December 2001; revised 20 March 2002; accepted 22 May 2002


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Background:

CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) is accepted as the best available standard treatment for first-line chemotherapy in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). However, the therapeutic efficacy of CHOP remains unsatisfactory, particularly in high-intermediate risk and high risk patients, and a new strategy is warranted in this patient population. The aim of the present study was to explore a suitable therapeutic-intensified regimen for the treatment of aggressive NHL.

Patients and methods:

Between May 1995 and July 1998, a total of 70 patients with high-intermediate risk or high risk aggressive NHL, according to the International Prognostic Index, were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either eight cycles of standard CHOP (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 and prednisolone 100 mg for 5 days) every 2 weeks, or six cycles of dose-escalated CHOP (cyclophosphamide 1,500 mg/m2, doxorubicin 70 mg/m2, vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 and prednisolone 100 mg for 5 days) every 3 weeks. Lenograstim (glycosylated rHuG-CSF), at a dose of 2 µg/kg/day s.c., was administered daily from day 3 until day 13 with biweekly CHOP and until day 20 with the dose-escalated CHOP. The primary endpoint was complete response rate.

Results:

The complete response rate was 60% [21 of 35; 95% confidence interval (CI) 42% to 76%] with biweekly CHOP and 51% (18 of 35; 95% CI 34% to 69%) with dose-escalated CHOP. The major toxicity was grade 4 neutropenia and was more frequent in the dose-escalated CHOP arm (86%) than in the biweekly CHOP arm (50%). Grade 4 thrombocytopenia was also more frequent in the dose-escalated CHOP arm (20%) than the biweekly CHOP arm (3%). Non-hematological toxicities were acceptable in both arms. One treatment-related death (due to cardiac arrhythmia) was observed in a dose-escalated CHOP patient. Progression-free survival at 3 years was 43% (95% CI 27% to 59%) in the biweekly CHOP arm and 31% (95% CI 16% to 47%) in the dose-escalated CHOP arm. Although seven patients were deemed ineligible by central review of the pathological diagnosis, the results for both eligible and all enrolled patients were similar.

Conclusions:

Similar complete response rates and progression-free survival rates, but lower toxicity, indicated that biweekly CHOP was superior to dose-escalated CHOP in the treatment of aggressive NHL. Based on these results, the Lymphoma Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group is conducting a randomized phase III study comparing biweekly CHOP with standard CHOP in newly diagnosed patients with advanced-stage aggressive NHL.

Key words: biweekly CHOP, dose-escalated CHOP, dose intensity, G-CSF, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The development of an effective combination cytotoxic chemotherapy is of great interest as a potential cure for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Relapse of aggressive NHL is observed in a significant proportion of patients during long-term follow-up [1]. In an effort to improve the treatment outcome of patients with NHL, new therapeutic strategies employing alternative non-cross resistant agents and dose intensification have been developed. However, the results of several randomized trials show that CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) remains the best available treatment for first-line chemotherapy in aggressive NHL [27]. One potential explanation for these results is that the addition of other myelosuppressive agents in second- and third-generation regimens results in a decrease in the dose intensities of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide [8].

With regard to dose intensity, high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support has been established as an optimal therapy to improve the event-free and overall survival (OS) rates for patients with chemosensitive relapsed aggressive NHL [9]. Moreover, myeloablative chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell support in the front-line setting might be useful for patients with high-intermediate and high risk according to the International Prognostic Index (IPI) for NHL [1012]. Therefore, a dose intensification strategy in the treatment of NHL is worthy of further investigation.

There are two ways to increase the therapeutic intensity of CHOP, namely dose escalation and interval shortening. The doses intensities of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide can be escalated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support [1315]. Another strategy for therapeutic-intensification of CHOP is also possible with G-CSF, by shortening the interval of standard CHOP [1618].

However, it is not known which type of therapeutic-intensified CHOP is suitable for comparison with the therapeutic efficacy of standard CHOP in a phase III study. To address this issue, the Lymphoma Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG-LSG) conducted a randomized phase II study, in order to choose a more suitable regimen for a further phase III trial between dose-escalated CHOP and biweekly CHOP in patients with high-intermediate and high risk aggressive NHL.


    Patients and methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Eligibility criteria
Twenty-six hospitals participated in this trial (JCOG 9505). Eligibility criteria were as follows: newly diagnosed patients with intermediate- and high-grade NHL according to the Working Formulation [19]; clinical stage II, III or IV according to the Ann Arbor staging system; age 15–69 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0–3; and no serious co-morbidity. Patients had at least three of the following adverse factors according to the IPI [12]: age >60 years; clinical stage of III or IV; ECOG PS 2 or 3; abnormally increased serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH); and two or more extranodal sites of involvement. Patients having a diagnosis of mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, adult T-cell leukemia-lymphoma (ATL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma were excluded.

Other eligibility criteria included a white blood cell count >=3000/µl, neutrophil count >=1200/µl, platelet count >=75 000/µl, total bilirubin level <=2 mg/dl, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels <=5 times the upper limit of the normal range, serum creatinine level <=2 mg/dl, PaO2 level >=60 mmHg, normal ECG and normal cardiac left ventricular ejection fraction (>=50%). If AST and ALT were within normal limits, patients who were positive for anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) and/or positive for hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBs) were deemed eligible for the study. After the study activation, the protocol was amended and patients with HCV antibody or HBs antigen became ineligible. Pre-treatment staging procedures included a physical examination, complete blood count with differential and platelet counts, biochemical analyses, bone marrow aspiration and/or biopsy, chest X-ray, computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest and abdomen, fiberscopic examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract and gallium scintigraphy. Toxicities were evaluated according to the JCOG toxicity criteria [20], which was an expanded version of the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) version 1 [21]. Written or oral informed consent was obtained from all patients or their families before randomization, in accordance with the policies of JCOG in 1995. The study protocol was approved by the Clinical Trials Review Committee of JCOG and the institutional review board (IRB) of each participating institution that had already established an IRB in 1995, before study activation.

Treatment
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either biweekly CHOP or dose-escalated CHOP by the minimization method of balancing the groups according to the institution, high-intermediate or high risk by IPI. Randomization was performed at the JCOG Data Center (JCOG-DC) by telephone or fax. Biweekly CHOP consisted of eight cycles of standard CHOP every other week [cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 (maximum 2 mg) i.v. day 1 and prednisolone 100 mg p.o. for 5 days]. Dose-escalated CHOP consisting of cyclophosphamide 1.5 g/m2 i.v. day 1, doxorubicin 70 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 (maximum 2 mg) i.v. day 1 and prednisolone 100 mg p.o. for 5 days was repeated every 3 weeks for six cycles. Drug dosages in the dose-escalated CHOP group were based on the dose-escalation study of CHOP with prophylactic use of G-CSF conducted at the National Cancer Center Hospital East of Japan [15]. Lenograstim (glycosylated rHuG-CSF), at a dose of 2 µg/kg/day s.c., was administered daily from day 3 until day 13 with biweekly CHOP, and until day 20 with the dose-escalated CHOP. Sixty-three patients participated in a companion study for evaluation of mobilization kinetics of circulating CD34+ cells by lenograstim, which was supported by Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Tokyo, Japan [22]. Unless progression or relapse of lymphoma occurred, the treatment was repeated every 2 or 3 weeks provided that the patient fulfilled the following criteria: white blood cell count >=2000/µl, neutrophil count >=1200/µl, platelet count >=75 000/µl, total bilirubin level <3 mg/dl, AST and ALT levels <=5 times the upper limit of the normal range, serum creatinine level <2 mg/dl, and any non-hematological toxicity, except nausea/vomiting and alopecia, of grade 1 or less. If there was grade 4 leukopenia lasting for 3 days or more, or grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia, dose reduction of both cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin to 75% was made for the subsequent cycles. If there was liver injury with a total bilirubin level of >1.2 mg/dl, the dose of doxorubicin was reduced to 50%, and if there was grade 2 or higher cardiotoxicity, doxorubicin was omitted. If there was grade 2 or higher hemorrhagic cystitis, the dose of cyclophosphamide was reduced to 75% for the subsequent cycles. If there was grade 2 neurotoxicity, the dose of vincristine was reduced to 50%; vincristine was omitted in the case of grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.

Responses
Complete response (CR) was defined as the disappearance of all measurable lesions and symptoms of disease for at least 4 weeks. Partial response (PR) was defined as a reduction of 50% or greater in the sum of the products of the perpendicular diameters of all measurable lesions and the lack of appearance of new lesions for at least 4 weeks. CR unconfirmed (CRu) was defined as maintenance of the PR without chemotherapy for >3 months after completion of the study. Progressive disease was defined as an increase of 25% in the size of any existing lesion or development of any new lesions. Relapse was defined as an increase of 25% in the size of any existing lesion or development of any new lesions in CR and CRu patients. All other circumstances were considered to indicate stable disease.

Statistical methods
All patients randomized were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. It was anticipated that the CR rate achieved would be at least 65% in both groups. To achieve a 90% probability of selecting the better arm when the CR rate is 15% higher on one arm than the other, at least 30 patients would be required in each arm [23]. It was therefore planned to randomize a total of 70 patients.

Overall survival was calculated from the date of randomization until the date of death from any cause or the date of the last follow-up. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the date of randomization until the date of progression, death from any cause or the date confirmed to be progression free. Overall survival and PFS curves were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

All patient information forms were collected and managed at JCOG-DC. In-house interim monitoring was performed at JCOG-DC for quality control, and the monitoring reports were submitted to and reviewed by the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee of JCOG semi-annually.

Central review of the pathological diagnosis
Following enrolment of the patients, biopsy specimens were collected and forwarded to the central pathology group for review. Four hematopathologists reviewed the pathology specimens and classified each according to Working Formulation [19]. A modified WHO system [24] was also used to classify the cases. Immunohistochemical studies were performed on paraffin sections by the avidin–biotin–peroxidase complex technique using a panel of monoclonal antibodies. Antibodies employed in the central review of the pathological diagnosis were CD20 (L26; Dako A/S, Glostrup, Denmark) and CD3 (UCHT-1; Dako A/S). When further immunohistochemical staining was necessary to establish a specific diagnosis, the following antibodies were also used: CD15 (LeuM-1; Becton Dickinson, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) and CD30 (BerH2; Dako A/S) for Hodgkin’s disease; anti-cyclin D1 (Medical & Biological Labs, Nagoya, Japan) for mantle cell lymphoma; CD10 (SS2/36, Dako A/S) and bcl-2 (124; Dako A/S) for follicular lymphoma; CD56 (H28.123; Immunotech SA, Marseilles, France) for natural killer (NK)/T-cell lymphoma; anti-TdT (polyclonal; Supertech, Bethesda, MD, USA) for lymphoblastic lymphoma; and anti-ALK protein (ALK1; Dako A/S) and CD30 for anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) was detected by in situ hybridization in NK cell lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. An EBER PNA probe (Dako A/S) was used for this purpose. Central pathological review was performed by four hematopathologists with knowledge of the patient’s outcome when it was difficult to reach a consensus on the diagnosis. Sixty-five cases out of all 70 randomized cases were reviewed independently by each of the four pathologists in order to reach a diagnosis. A consensus diagnosis was established when a three-quarters majority was reached. If the agreement was less than three-quarters, the cases were shown on a video monitor and discussed by the four pathologists who reached a three-quarters majority by reconciliation with knowledge of the patient’s outcome when it was difficult to reach a consensus on the diagnosis.

Following the consensus diagnosis, response, PFS and OS were evaluated in both the group of eligible patients as well as in all those randomized.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Between May 1995 and July 1998, a total of 70 patients were randomized. Thirty-five patients were assigned to the biweekly CHOP arm and the remaining 35 to the dose-escalated CHOP arm. The characteristics of the 70 patients are shown in Table 1. However, in one patient, the information on B symptom, immunophenotype, clinical stage and performance status was not available because of missing data due to loss of medical records. A total of 22 enrolled patients (n = 11 per arm) had a bulky mass that was >10 cm in diameter. The characteristics of patients were well balanced between the groups. Each institutional diagnosis and the consensus diagnosis of the pathological review are shown in Table 2. According to the Working Formulation, seven patients (three in the biweekly CHOP arm and four in the dose-escalated CHOP arm) were considered to be ineligible. The characteristics of the 63 eligible patients are also shown in Table 1, and are well balanced between the two treatment arms. A total of 19 eligible patients (10 in the biweekly CHOP arm and nine in the dose-escalated CHOP arm) had a bulky mass. The study profile is shown in Figure 1. A total of 47 patients, 22 of whom received biweekly CHOP and 25 dose-escalated CHOP, completed the planned treatment. One patient in the biweekly CHOP arm received an emergency operation due to an intestinal perforation caused by lymphoma infiltration before the start of chemotherapy. This patient was treated with another chemotherapeutic regimen after the operation. Biweekly CHOP was not given to one patient because of objections raised by family members. Thus, two patients were not considered assessable for toxicity. All data for one patient in the biweekly arm were missing due to loss of medical records. This patient could not be assessed for toxicity and response, but was evaluated for OS. One patient with ATL, who was afterwards found to be ineligible, refused the treatment during the first cycle of biweekly CHOP because of the sudden death of her spouse. Six patients in the biweekly CHOP arm and four patients in the dose-escalated arm were withdrawn because of progressive disease. Among them, one patient in the dose-escalated arm was found to have ATL by the central pathological review.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Patient characteristics
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Pathological diagnosis
 


View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Study profile.

 
Toxicities were evaluated in all patients randomized except for two who did not receive the protocol chemotherapy of the biweekly CHOP and one for whom all data were missing, as described above.

Hematological toxicities are shown in Table 3. Grade 4 neutropenia was the major toxicity and occurred more frequently in the dose-escalated arm than in the biweekly arm. Similarly, grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was observed more frequently in the dose-escalated arm than in the biweekly arm. In the dose-escalated arm, two patients went off-treatment because of prolonged hematological toxicity after cycles 2 and 3, respectively.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Hematological toxicity
 
Non-hematological toxicities, including nausea and vomiting, were mild. One patient died suddenly as a first event on the day after completion of the first cycle of the dose-escalated CHOP due to fatal arrhythmia. Autopsy revealed cardiac infiltration of lymphoma cells in this patient. There were no other patients who died without evidence of disease progression. In the biweekly arm, three patients went off-treatment, one after cycle 5 and two after cycle 7, because of pneumonitis. In addition, one patient in the dose-escalated arm went off-treatment because of pneumonitis after two cycles. One patient refused the treatment after three cycles of biweekly CHOP because of diarrhea induced by the chemotherapy. Transient grade 3 hepatic injury was observed in three patients in the biweekly arm and in two patients in the dose-escalated arm. Non-hematological toxicities were mild in two patients who were positive for HCV. One patient who was positive for HBs experienced grade 3 elevated liver enzymes during chemotherapy.

Protocol violation was observed in three patients in the biweekly arm and in seven patients in the dose-escalated arm. Chemotherapy was repeated in one patient in the biweekly arm, although the criteria for the next cycle of chemotherapy were not fulfilled. Doxorubicin was not reduced in one patient in the biweekly arm with slight hyperbilirubinemia. CHOP was repeated in one patient who received extended chemotherapy for >4 weeks, biweekly. Doses of drugs were not reduced in four patients in the dose-escalated arm with grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia. Among these patients, slight hyperbilirubinemia was also observed in two patients and vincristine was not reduced in one patient regardless of grade 2 neurotoxicity. On the contrary, drug doses were excessively reduced in two patients in the dose-escalated arm. One patient in the dose-escalated arm received 150 mg prednisolone for 5 days. Thus, all patients received >90% of the planned dose, except for two in the dose-escalated arm and one in the biweekly arm.

Responses in all randomized and eligible patients are shown in Table 4. The CR rate, including CRu among all randomized patients in the biweekly CHOP group (60%), was higher than in the dose-escalated CHOP group (51%), and similar results were observed in eligible patients. Progression-free survival and OS rates of all randomized patients are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Progression-free survival and OS rates of eligible patients were similar to those of all randomized patients. Progression-free survival at 3 years was 43% [95% confidence interval (CI) 27% to 59%] and 41% (95% CI 24% to 58%) respectively, in all randomized and eligible patients on biweekly CHOP, and 31% (95% CI 16% to 47%) and 36% (95% CI 19% to 52%), respectively, in the dose-escalated CHOP group. Overall survival at 4 years was 42% (95% CI 25% to 59%) and 39% (95% CI 22% to 57%), respectively, in all randomized and eligible patients on biweekly CHOP, and 42% (95% CI 26% to 59%) and 44% (95% CI 27% to 62%), respectively, in the dose-escalated CHOP.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4. Patients responses
 


View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Progression-free survival in all randomized patients.

 


View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Overall survival in all randomized patients.

 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
CHOP is currently accepted as the best available standard treatment for first-line chemotherapy in aggressive NHL based on the results of randomized trials [37]. However, the therapeutic efficacy of CHOP remains unsatisfactory, particularly in high-intermediate and high risk patients [12], and a new strategy is thus warranted in this patient population. The aim of the present study was to explore a suitable therapeutic-intensified regimen by comparing dose-escalation and interval shortening of CHOP in previously untreated patients with high risk aggressive NHL. The results indicated that biweekly CHOP was more suitable for further investigation because toxicities were less frequent and CR rate and PFS were better than the dose-escalated CHOP. In other words, from the viewpoint of the therapeutic intensification of CHOP, the present study also suggested that dose density might be more beneficial than dose intensity.

Comparing the therapeutic efficacy of different regimens is difficult, since the anticancer drugs are administered at different doses and in various combinations. Although several retrospective studies have suggested that response and survival might be related to the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy [8, 2527], the significance of dose intensity in the treatment of aggressive NHL remains controversial. A prospective randomized trial by Meyer et al. [28] failed to demonstrate the superiority of dose intensification on the outcome of patients with NHL. In that study, however, the received dose intensity of doxorubicin in the escalated BACOP arm (bleomycin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone) was 30% greater than in the standard BACOP arm, and the dose of cyclophosphamide was not escalated. In the present study, the projected therapeutic intensities of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide were ~1.5 times and 1.5–2 times greater, respectively, than those in standard CHOP. Considering the therapeutic-intensity of CHOP, it was of interest that PFS and OS in weekly CHOP given at one-third of the standard dose was probably not superior to standard CHOP in elderly patients with aggressive NHL [29]. In summary, as compared with the study of Meyer et al. [28], the present study employed a greater degree of dose intensification and the patient population was not confined to the elderly. Given these differences, it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons between the two studies regarding the efficacy of therapeutic-intensification regimens.

The role of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support in the initial treatment of NHL is still uncertain. Some reports suggest the superiority of high-dose chemotherapy over conventional-dose chemotherapy in patients with high-intermediate and high risk NHL in the front line setting [10, 11, 30, 31]; however, other reports have failed to confirm these findings [3236]. Although high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support might be beneficial for high risk young patients who responded to induction chemotherapy, not all patients with high risk NHL would be able to receive high-dose chemotherapy because of older age, lack of chemosensitivity, inadequate organ function or concomitant conditions. Accordingly, it is still important to search for a new effective conventional-dose strategy.

In patients with chemosensitive relapsed lymphoma, high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support has been established as an optimal therapy [9]. In terms of stem cell harvest, biweekly CHOP was suggested to be a better option in the case of repeated and/or late harvest of circulating CD34+ cells [22].

The CR and PFS rates of dose-intensified CHOP in the present study were comparable to those of standard CHOP, and second- or third-generation regimens in large, randomized, phase III trials [26]. However, the issue of whether biweekly CHOP is more beneficial than standard CHOP will be resolved by the phase III trial currently being conducted by the JCOG-LSG. Recently, Coiffier et al. [37, 38] reported that CHOP plus rituximab, a chimeric IgG monoclonal antibody against the CD20 B-cell antigen, might be more beneficial than CHOP alone for elderly patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, including those with low-risk IPI. Moreover, it was reported that the effect of chimeric IgG against the CD20 B-cell antigen was enhanced in vitro by addition of G-CSF or granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor [39]. Therefore, it might be worthwhile investigating the clinical efficacy of a dose-intensified CHOP regimen in combination with rituximab and the prophylactic use of G-CSF.

Finally, it is noteworthy that interstitial pneumonitis occurred in three patients and was suspected to have been related to G-CSF administration. Similar observations have been reported by Niitsu et al. [40], who observed that most of the patients who developed interstitial pneumonitis had NHL and were those treated with G-CSF following anticancer chemotherapy. Accordingly, careful monitoring for the development of interstitial pneumonitis during G-CSF administration is needed.

In conclusion, biweekly CHOP was no less effective and resulted in less toxicity than dose-escalated CHOP, and is therefore a more suitable regimen for comparison with standard CHOP therapy. Based on these findings, JCOG-LSG is now conducting a prospective randomized phase III study comparing the clinical benefits of biweekly CHOP with those of standard CHOP in previously untreated patients with aggressive NHL.


    Acknowledgements
 
We are grateful to Drs Masahiro Kikuchi (Fukuoka University, Fukuoka) and Kiyoshi Mukai (Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo) for the consultation on the pathological diagnosis, and to the members of the JCOG committees for the critical advice to conduct the study. We thank the doctors, nurses and patients who participated in this multicenter trial for their excellent cooperation. This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Cancer Research (5S-1, 8S-1, 11S-1, 11S-4) and for Second Term Comprehensive 10-year Strategy for Cancer Control (H10-Gan-027, H12-Gan-012) from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. This work was presented in part at the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology, San Francisco, CA, May 15, 2001.

Study participants: Kensei Tobinai (study chairman), Kuniaki Itoh, Tomoko Ohtsu, Yasutsuna Sasaki, Tadahiko Igarashi, Hirofumi Fujii (National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa); Michinori Ogura, Yasuo Morishima, Yoshitoyo Kagami (Aichi Cancer Center, Nagoya); Takeaki Takenaka, Yukio Kobayashi, Kensei Tobinai (National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo); Kouki Yoshida, Masanobu Nakata, Keiko Aikawa (Sapporo National Hospital, Sapporo); Yoshio Kiyama, Masaharu Kasai (Sapporo Hokuyu Hospital, Sapporo); Toshiaki Sai (Iwaki Kyoritsu General Hospital, Iwaki); Shin Matsuda (Ohta Nishinouchi Hospital, Kouriyama); Takaaki Chou (Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata); Yoshiharu Maeda, Tsuneo Sasaki (Tokyo Metropolitan Komagome Hospital, Tokyo); Fumi Mizorogi (The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo); Akira Masumoto, Tomomitsu Hotta (Tokai University, Isehara); Fumiaki Sano, Haruhisa Nagoshi (St Marianna University, Kawasaki); Yasufumi Masaki, Susumu Sugai (Kanazawa Medical University, Kanazawa); Hiroshi Tsutani, Takanori Ueda (Fukui Medical School, Fukui); Kazunori Ohnishi (Hamamatsu University, Hamamatsu); Keitaro Tsushita (Nagoya National Hospital, Nagoya); Hirokazu Nagai, Tomohiro Kinoshita (Nagoya University, Nagoya); Masanobu Kasai (Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital, Nagoya); Atsushi Wakita, Ryuzo Ueda (Medical School, Nagoya City University, Nagoya); Tatsuharu Ohno (Ohtsu Red Cross Hospital, Ohtsu); Masafumi Taniwaki (Kyoto Prefectural University School of Medicine, Kyoto); Yuji Yufu, Naokuni Uike (National Kyusyu Cancer Center, Fukuoka); Masahiro Yamamoto (National Kyusyu Medical Center Hospital, Fukuoka); Takuya Fukushima, Shuichi Ikeda (Sasebo City General Hospital, Sasebo); Isao Sanada, Fumio Kawano (Kumamoto National Hospital, Kumamoto); Masao Tomonaga (Nagasaki University, Nagasaki). Pathology panel: Koichi Ohshima (Fukuoka University, Fukuoka); Shigeo Nakamura (Aichi Cancer Center, Nagoya); Tadashi Yoshino (Okayama University, Okayama); Yoshihiro Matsuno (National Cancer Center, Tokyo).


    Footnotes
 
+ Correspondence to: Dr K. Itoh, Division of Hematology and Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8577, Japan. Tel: +81-471-33-1111; Fax: +81-471-34-6922; E-mail: kaito{at}east.ncc.go.jp Back

§ Members of the Lymphoma Study Group of the JCOG are listed in the Acknowledgements. Back


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
1. Armitage J. Treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1023–1030.[Free Full Text]

2. Gordon LI, Harrington D, Andersen J et al. Comparison of a second-generation combination chemotherapeutic regimen (m-BACOD) with a standard regimen (CHOP) for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 1342–1349.[Abstract]

3. Fisher RI, Gaynor ER, Dahlberg S et al. Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1002–1006.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Cooper IA, Wolf MM, Robertson TI et al. Randomized comparison of MACOP-B with CHOP in patients with intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 769–778.[Abstract]

5. Montserrat E, García-Conde J, Viñolas N et al. CHOP vs ProMACE-CytaBOM in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: long-term results of a multicenter randomized trial. (PETHEMA: Spanish cooperative group for the study of hematological malignancies treatment, Spanish Society of Hematology). Eur J Haematol 1996; 57: 377–383.[ISI][Medline]

6. Jerkeman M, Anderson H, Cavallin-Ståhl E et al. CHOP versus MACOP-B in aggressive lymphoma—a Nordic Lymphoma Group randomised trial. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 1079–1086.[Abstract]

7. Messori A, Vaiani M, Trippoli S et al. Survival in patients with intermediate or high grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing third generation regimens with CHOP. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 303–307.[ISI][Medline]

8. Kwak LW, Halpern J, Olshen RA, Horning SJ. Prognostic significance of actual dose intensity in diffuse large-cell lymphoma: results of a tree-structured survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8: 963–977.[Abstract]

9. Philip T, Guglielmi C, Hagenbeek A et al. Autologous bone marrow transplantation as compared with salvage chemotherapy in relapses of chemotherapy-sensitive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1540–1545.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Shipp MA, Abeloff MD, Antman KH et al. International Consensus Conference on high-dose therapy with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: report of the jury. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 423–429.[Free Full Text]

11. Haioun C, Lepage E, Gisselbrecht C et al. Survival benefit of high-dose therapy in poor-risk aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Final analysis of the prospective LNH 87-2 protocol-A Groupe d‘Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte study. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3025–3030.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

12. The international non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma prognostic factors project: A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 987–994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13. Shipp MA, Neuberg D, Janicek M et al. High-dose CHOP as initial therapy for patients with poor prognosis aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: A dose-finding pilot study. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2916–2923.[Abstract]

14. Santoro A, Balzarotti M, Tondini C et al. Dose-escalation of CHOP in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 519–525.[Abstract]

15. Itoh K, Ohtsu T, Wakita H et al. Dose-escalation study of CHOP with or without prophylactic G-CSF in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 1241–1247.[Abstract]

16. Tanosaki R, Okamoto S, Akatsuka N et al. Dose escalation of biweekly cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone using recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer 1994; 74: 1939–1944.[ISI][Medline]

17. Pronzato P, Lionetto R, Botto F et al. High-dose intensity cyclophosphamide, epidoxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone by shortened intervals and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a phase II study. Br J Cancer 1998; 78: 777–780.[ISI][Medline]

18. Truemper L, Schmits R, Kloess M et al. High CHOEP: Primary treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) in patients <60 years with time and dose escalated chemotherapy and growth factor support: A phase I/II study of the German high grade NHL study group. Blood 1999; 94 (Suppl 1): 99a (Abstr 433).

19. The non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma pathologic classification project: National Cancer Institute sponsored study of classification of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Summary and description of a Working Formulation for clinical usage. Cancer 1982; 42: 2112–2135.

20. Tobinai K, Kohno A, Shimada Y et al. Toxicity grading criteria of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1993; 23: 250–257.[ISI][Medline]

21. Grading of toxicity. In Wittes RE (ed): Manual of Oncologic Therapeutics 1991/1992. Philadelphia, PA: Lippencott 1991; 445–448.

22. Itoh K, Ohtsu T, Sasaki Y et al. Randomized comparison of mobilization kinetics of circulating CD34+ cells between biweekly CHOP and dose-escalated CHOP with the prophylactic use of lenograstim (glycosylated rHuG-CSF) in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2000; 38: 521–532.[ISI][Medline]

23. Simon R, Thall PF, Ellenberg SS. New designs for the selection of treatments to be tested in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1994; 13: 417–429.[ISI][Medline]

24. Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Diebold J et al. World Health Organization classification of neoplastic diseases of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues: Report of the clinical advisory committee meeting—Airlie House, Virginia, November 1997. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 3835–3849.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

25. Epelbaum R, Faraggi D, Ben-Arie Y et al. Survival of diffuse large cell lymphoma. A multivariate analysis including dose intensity variables. Cancer 1990; 66: 1124–1129.[ISI][Medline]

26. Meyer RM, Hryniuk WM, Goodyear MDE. The role of dose intensity in determining outcome in intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 339–347.[Abstract]

27. Lepage E, Gisselbrecht C, Haioun C et al. Prognostic significance of received relative dose intensity in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients: Application to LNH-87 protocol. Ann Oncol 1993; 4: 651–656.[Abstract]

28. Meyer RM, Quirt IC, Skillings JR et al. Escalated as compared with standard doses of doxorubicin in BACOP therapy for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1770–1776.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

29. Meyer RM, Browman GP, Samosh ML et al. Randomized phase II comparison of standard CHOP with weekly CHOP in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2386–2393.[Abstract]

30. Gianni AM, Bregni M, Siena S et al. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation compared with MACOP-B in aggressive B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1290–1297.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

31. Santini G, Salvagno L, Leoni P et al. VACOP-B versus VACOP-B plus autologous bone marrow transplantation for advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Results of a prospective randomized trial by the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cooperative study group. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2796–2802.[Abstract]

32. Verdonck LF, van Putten WLJ, Hagenbeek A et al. Comparison of CHOP chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation for slowly responding patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1045–1051.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

33. Kaiser U, Uebelacker I, Havemann K. High dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation in aggressive NHL: analysis of a randomized multicenter study. Ann Oncol 1999; 10 (Suppl 3): 76 (Abstr 262).

34. Milpied N, Deconninck E, Foussard CC et al. Frontline high dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation is not superior to CHOP regimen for adult patients with non IPI high risk intermediate or high grade NHL: results of a randomized trial by the GOELAMS. Ann Oncol 1999; 10 (Suppl 3): 77 (Abstr 266).

35. Martelli M, Gherlinzoni F, Zinzani PL et al. Early autologous stem cell transplantation as first-line therapy in poor prognosis non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL): an Italian randomized trial. Ann Oncol 1999; 10 (Suppl 3): 78 (Abstr 271).

36. Kluin-Nelemans HC, Zagonel V, Anastasopoulou A et al. Standard chemotherapy with or without high-dose chemotherapy for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: randomized phase III EORTC study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 22–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

37. Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J et al. CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 235–242.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

38. Coiffier B, Lepage E, Gaulard P et al. Prognostic factors affecting the efficacy of rituximab plus CHOP (R-CHOP) therapy in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLCL): results of a randomized GELA trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 283a (Abstr 1131).

39. Stockmeyer B, Dechant M, van Egmond M et al. Triggering FC {alpha}-receptor I (CD89) recruits neutrophils as effector cells for CD20-directed antibody therapy. J Immunol 2000; 165: 5954–5961.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

40. Niitsu N, Iki S, Muroi K et al. Interstitial pneumonia in patients receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during chemotherapy: survey in Japan 1991–96. Br J Cancer 1997; 76: 1661–1666.[ISI][Medline]