Pullen J, Boyett J, Shuster J, Crist W, Land V, Frankel L, Iyer R, Backstrom L, van Eys J, Harris M
University of Mississippi, Jackson.
J Clin Oncol. 1993 May;11(5):839-49. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.5.839.
The Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) acute leukemia in childhood (ALinC) 13 study tested two treatment regimens that used different CNS chemoprophylaxis for children older than 12 months with non-T, non-B acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and with no demonstrable CNS disease at diagnosis.
With the first regimen, standard (S), six injections of triple intrathecal chemotherapy (TIC), consisting of methotrexate (MTX), hydrocortisone (HC), and cytarabine (ara-C), were administered during intensification treatment and at every-8-week intervals throughout the maintenance phase for 17 additional doses. The second regimen, standard and MTX pulses (SAM), also specified six TICs during intensification, but substituted every-8-week pulses of intermediate-dose parenteral methotrexate (IDM; 1 g/m2) for the 17 maintenance TIC injections, with a low-dose intrathecal (IT) MTX boost administered with the first four maintenance IDM pulses. Otherwise, systemic therapy on regimen SAM was identical to regimen S. There were 1,152 patients randomized to the S and SAM regimens after stratification by risk group (age/leukocyte count) and immunophenotype.
The 5-year probabilities (+/- SE) of an isolated CNS relapse were regimen S: good risk (n = 381), 2.8% +/- 1.3%; poor risk (n = 196), 7.7% +/- 3.2%; good + poor risk (n = 577), 4.7% +/- 1.5%; regimen SAM: good risk (n = 388), 9.6% +/- 2.2%; poor risk (n = 187), 12.7% +/- 4.2%; good + poor risk (n = 575), 10.9% +/- 2.2%. In poor-risk patients, approximately one third of the isolated CNS relapses occurred before preventive CNS therapy was begun at week 9. Hence, regimen S has provided better CNS preventive therapy for both good- and poor-risk patients (P < .001 overall). The difference is statistically significant for good-risk patients (P < .001), but not for poor-risk patients (P = .20). Neither treatment has shown a significant advantage in terms of general outcome.
TIC injections extended throughout the intensification and maintenance periods are superior to IDM pulses for prevention of CNS leukemia. Our results with TIC seem comparable with those achieved with other contemporary methods of CNS preventative therapy. Thus, extended TIC affords a reasonable alternative to CNS irradiation plus upfront IT MTX for patients with B-progenitor ALL.
儿童肿瘤学组(POG)的儿童急性白血病(ALinC)13研究对两种治疗方案进行了测试,这两种方案针对12个月以上、非T非B急性淋巴细胞白血病(ALL)且诊断时无明显中枢神经系统疾病的儿童采用了不同的中枢神经系统化学预防措施。
第一种方案为标准方案(S),在强化治疗期间给予6次三联鞘内化疗(TIC)注射,药物包括甲氨蝶呤(MTX)、氢化可的松(HC)和阿糖胞苷(ara-C),并在维持阶段每隔8周注射1次,共额外注射17次。第二种方案为标准和MTX脉冲方案(SAM),强化治疗期间同样给予6次TIC注射,但用每隔8周的中剂量静脉注射甲氨蝶呤(IDM;1 g/m2)脉冲替代17次维持阶段的TIC注射,在前4次维持IDM脉冲时给予低剂量鞘内(IT)MTX加强注射。除此之外,方案SAM的全身治疗与方案S相同。按风险组(年龄/白细胞计数)和免疫表型分层后,有1152例患者被随机分配至S方案和SAM方案。
孤立性中枢神经系统复发的5年概率(±SE)为:方案S,低危组(n = 381),2.8%±1.3%;高危组(n = 196),7.7%±3.2%;低危+高危组(n = 577),4.7%±1.5%;方案SAM,低危组(n = 388),9.6%±2.2%;高危组(n = 187),12.7%±4.2%;低危+高危组(n = 575),10.9%±2.2%。在高危患者中,约三分之一的孤立性中枢神经系统复发发生在第9周开始预防性中枢神经系统治疗之前。因此,方案S为低危和高危患者均提供了更好的中枢神经系统预防性治疗(总体P <.001)。这种差异在低危患者中具有统计学意义(P <.001),但在高危患者中无统计学意义(P = 0.20)。两种治疗方法在总体疗效方面均未显示出显著优势。
在强化期和维持期全程进行TIC注射在预防中枢神经系统白血病方面优于IDM脉冲治疗。我们使用TIC的结果似乎与其他当代中枢神经系统预防性治疗方法所取得的结果相当。因此,对于B祖细胞ALL患者,延长TIC注射是中枢神经系统放疗加前期IT MTX的合理替代方案。