Retrospective study compares safety and cost-effectiveness of leucovorin and levoleucovorin in CNS lymphoma, indicating levoleucovorin offers similar efficacy and lower costs.
Background/Aim: Leucovorin is the standard folinic acid rescue agent after high-dose methotrexate, whereas levoleucovorin is the pharmacologically active L-isomer of leucovorin. During a leucovorin supply interruption in Japan, levoleucovorin was used as an alternative; however, comparative data in patients with primary or secondary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL/SCNSL) are limited. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively studied adult patients with PCNSL or SCNSL who received high-dose methotrexate with or without rituximab between April 2019 and March 2026 at a single center. Patients were categorized into the leucovorin and levoleucovorin groups according to the rescue agent used. The analysis between the two groups was based on the first high-dose methotrexate course. Outcomes included delayed methotrexate elimination, hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events, rescue utilization, and direct rescue drug cost. Results: Fifty-three patients were included (leucovorin, n=33; levoleucovorin, n=20). No significant differences between groups were observed in delayed methotrexate elimination, nonhematologic adverse events, or hematologic adverse events other than grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, which was less frequent in the levoleucovorin group than in the leucovorin group (0.0% vs. 24.2%, p=0.019). However, total rescue vial/ampule use per course was lower in the levoleucovorin group (14 vs. 75, p<0.001), as was direct rescue drug cost per course (5,516 vs. 19,200 JPY, p<0.001). Conclusion: In this study of patients with PCNSL or SCNSL receiving high-dose methotrexate, the use of levoleucovorin in place of leucovorin during a supply interruption was not associated with worse short-term safety outcomes and was associated with lower rescue utilization and direct rescue drug cost in our setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakashima et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: