Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To compare in a phase III study the safety and efficacy of fludarabine to that of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) in recurrent, low-grade, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after previous response to systemic treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to fludarabine (25 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 to 5, every 28 days) or CVP (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2) and vincristine 1.2 mg/m(2) both intravenously on day 1 and prednisone 40 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 to 5, every 21 days). The primary outcome assessed was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes included treatment-free survival (TFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related toxicity, and quality of life (QoL) according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30 version 1.0 instrument. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were randomized, 47 to fludarabine and 44 to CVP. There was no difference in response rates, with 64% (complete response [CR], 9%) for fludarabine versus 52% (CR, 7%) for CVP (P =.72). With a median follow-up of 42 months, median PFS (11 months v 9.1 months; P =.03) and TFS (15 months v 11 months; P =.02) were superior in patients receiving fludarabine. No difference in median overall survival was detected (57 months for fludarabine v 44 months for CVP; P =.95). Three patients receiving fludarabine died of treatment-related toxicity compared with none of the patients receiving CVP. Peripheral neuropathy and alopecia were more common with CVP. Patients receiving fludarabine had higher scores for social function (P =.008); no other differences in QoL were detected. CONCLUSION: In recurrent low-grade lymphoma, fludarabine improves PFS, TFS, and social function scores in comparison with CVP but does not improve OS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klasa et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: