PURPOSE: This study attempted to determine the efficacy of cyclophosphamide (C), doxorubicin (D), and etoposide (E) administered as a continuous intravenous (IV) infusion (infusional CDE) over 4 days in patients with relapsed or resistant non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (rNHL) and in patients with previously untreated (uNHL) who had poor prognostic features. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with rNHL and 10 patients with uNHL received infusional CDE every 28 or more days; all but one had intermediate- to high-grade histology. The cumulative doses of C, D, and E administered per treatment cycle were 750 mg/m2, 50 mg/m2, and 240 mg/m2, respectively. In the rNHL group, all patients had previously received C, most (81%) had received D, and a minority (16%) had received E. RESULTS: Objective response occurred in 30 patients with rNHL (52%; 95% confidence interval, 39% to 65%); 10 patients had a complete response (CR) (17%; 95% confidence interval, 7% to 27%). Eleven patients (19%) remain progression-free (median follow-up, 22 months; range, 10+ to 38+), and six patients (10%) are disease-free (median follow-up, 25 months; range, 10+ to 38+). Among 10 patients with uNHL, eight (80%) had a CR, and none have relapsed (median follow-up, 11 months; range, 9+ to 24+). Toxicity was primarily hematologic. Two treatment-related deaths (3%) occurred, both attributable to infection in the relapsed or resistant group. CONCLUSION: Infusional CDE produced a CR in substantial proportion of patients who had previously been exposed to at least two of the agents administered as an IV bolus, suggesting a schedule-dependent effect in favor of the infusional administration of certain cytotoxic agents in patients with lymphoid neoplasms. In addition, infusional CDE was effective and tolerable in patients with poor-prognosis NHL when used as initial therapy, and merits further study in that setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sparano et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: