Canellos G P
Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ann Oncol. 1991 Jan;2 Suppl 1:1-7. doi: 10.1093/annonc/2.suppl_1.1.
The availability of increasing numbers of active agents has led to the development of a succession of regimens for use as alternative and second-line therapy following relapse from or refractoriness to MOPP (mechlorethamine/vincristine/procarbazine/prednisone) or its variants. ABVD (doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine) has been the most widely used and has been considered non-cross-resistant. Other programs containing the nitrosourea lomustine have been used with results similar to those with ABVD. A relatively small fraction of relapsed patients remain failure free at 5 years (about 20% to 30%) despite a 30% to 60% second-line complete response (CR) rate. The few randomized trials (Cancer and Leukemia Group B [CALGB], European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) evaluable to assess the efficacy of alternating MOPP/ABVD compared with MOPP alone have shown a small but significant advantage in freedom from progression and/or survival favoring the complex regimens over MOPP. The CALGB trial (8251) included a third arm of ABVD alone. The ABVD and MOPP/ABVD arms had a higher CR rate and superior failure-free survival (FFS) than did MOPP, but have thus far shown no difference between ABVD and alternating MOPP/ABVD, suggesting that full doses of a single regimen are equivalent to the more complex multidrug regimen. The next step in the CALGB program was to attempt to improve ABVD. The substitution of etoposide, an active single agent, for dacarbazine and bleomycin in ABVD resulted in a new regimen, EVA (etoposide/vinblastine/doxorubicin). This program has already demonstrated a 66% response rate in MOPP-resistant/relapsed patients (CALGB 8751).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
越来越多有效药物的出现,促使人们开发了一系列方案,用于在MOPP(氮芥/长春新碱/丙卡巴肼/泼尼松)或其变体治疗后复发或难治时作为替代和二线治疗。ABVD(阿霉素/博来霉素/长春花碱/达卡巴嗪)是使用最广泛的,且被认为无交叉耐药性。其他含有亚硝基脲洛莫司汀的方案也已使用,结果与ABVD相似。尽管二线完全缓解(CR)率为30%至60%,但相对较小比例的复发患者在5年后仍无疾病进展(约20%至30%)。少数可评估交替使用MOPP/ABVD与单独使用MOPP疗效的随机试验(癌症与白血病B组[CALGB]、欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织)表明,与MOPP相比,复杂方案在无进展生存期和/或总生存期方面有虽小但显著的优势。CALGB试验(8251)包括单独使用ABVD的第三组。ABVD组和MOPP/ABVD组的CR率更高,无进展生存期(FFS)优于MOPP组,但迄今为止ABVD组和交替使用MOPP/ABVD组之间没有差异,这表明单一方案的全剂量与更复杂的多药方案等效。CALGB方案的下一步是尝试改进ABVD。在ABVD中用活性单药依托泊苷替代达卡巴嗪和博来霉素,产生了新方案EVA(依托泊苷/长春花碱/阿霉素)。该方案已在MOPP耐药/复发患者中显示出66%的缓解率(CALGB 8751)。(摘要截选至250字)