Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The purpose of this study was to determine the complete response (CR) rate, failure-free survival (FFS), and overall survival (OS) of patients with poor-prognosis intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) after treatment with cyclophosphamide, idarubicin, and etoposide given as a continuous intravenous infusion (CIVI) over 96 hours (infusional CIE), including patients with relapsed/refractory disease and patients with no prior therapy but at least two poor-risk features by the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index. Forty-two patients with previously untreated NHL (N = 24) or relapsed/refractory (N = 18) NHL received cyclophosphamide (200 mg/m2/d), idarubicin (2.5-3.0 mg/m2/d) and etoposide (60 mg/m2/d) given by a 96-hour CIVI every 3 weeks for a maximum of 8 cycles. All patients also received granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor. CR occurred in 10 of 24 patients (42%; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 22%, 62%) treated with CIE as first-line therapy, and in 3 of 18 patients (17%; 95% CI 20%, 32%) treated with CIE as second-line or greater therapy. One-year FFS and OS were 42% and 64%, respectively, in patients with no prior therapy, and 17% and 56% in patients with prior therapy. Severe (grade III) or life-threatening (grade IV) toxicity included leukopenia (59%), anemia (61%), thrombocytopenia (31%), and infection (10%). Two patients (4%) died due to treatment related infectious complications. It is unlikely that infusional CIE produces a CR rate more than about 60% in poor-risk patients with intermediate-grade NHL when used as first-line therapy, or more than about 30% in patients receiving the regimen as second-line therapy. Substitution of idarubicin for doxorubicin in this setting, therefore, is not associated with an improved response rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salman et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: