Dexa-BEAM versus MIFAP as salvage regimen for recurrent lymphoma: a prospective randomized multicenter phase II trial with a median follow-up of 14.4 years.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the MIFAP protocol, which had been shown to be effective in patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) or aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), to an established regimen like Dexa-BEAM. METHODS: Seventy-three adult patients with HL (N = 25) or aggressive NHL (N = 48) suffering from relapse or refractory disease were randomly allocated to receive two cycles of Dexa-BEAM (dexamethasone, carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan; N = 37) or MIFAP (mitoxantrone, fludarabine, cytarabine, cisplatin; N = 36) prior to a consolidating high-dose therapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) [complete response (CR) and partial response (PR)] after two courses of salvage chemotherapy. RESULTS: The ORR was 51% (CR 38%) and 53% (CR 36%) in the Dexa-BEAM arm and in the MIFAP arm (both not significant), respectively. There was a significantly higher grade 3-4 toxicity after MIFAP compared to Dexa-BEAM. Thirty-five patients were consolidated by autologous (N = 29), allogeneic (N = 1) or sequential autologous/allogeneic (N = 5) HCT. No significant differences were found in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the Dexa-BEAM and the MIFAP arms. CONCLUSION: Compared to Dexa-BEAM, MIFAP is associated with a higher toxicity and does not improve the outcome of patients with recurrent HL or aggressive NHL. For those patients, innovative treatment concepts like recently developed immunotherapies are necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT number 2021-001937-38. DATE OF REGISTRATION: 7 April 2021, retrospectively registered.

Intermediate-dose cytarabine treatment delivered at moderate infusion rates for de novo acute myeloid leukemia-results of a phase I-II study.

Published randomized trials on different cytarabine doses for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) provide evidence of a dose-response effect. However, high-dose cytarabine (HIDAC) regimens correlate with increased morbidity and toxicity related mortality. Typical HIDAC regimens deliver 6 g/m2/d in infusion rates of 500-3000 mg/m2/h. However, pharmacokinetic measurements indicate that intracellular Ara-CTP formation is saturated at lower infusion rates than used in HIDAC schedules, probably causing cytarabine accumulation in the plasma and increased toxicity. It was our objective to investigate in a prospective non-randomized phase I-II study feasibility and efficacy of intermediate doses of cytarabine delivered at the presumptive saturating moderate infusion rate (mir-IDAC), as induction therapy in order to optimize intensified treatment for acute myeloid leukemia. Forty previously untreated patients younger than 60 years of age with de novo AML received intermediate doses of cytarabine (2-4 g/m2/d) at moderate infusion rates (250-667 mg/m2/h) over 6 or 8 h. Cytarabine was applied on alternate days (day 1, 3, 5, 7) in combination with an anthracycline as induction and consolidation therapy. Thirty-two of the 40 patients (80%, 95%CI:64-91%) achieved CR after induction treatment. Treatment-related mortality during induction chemotherapy was 2.5%. No cerebellar toxicity was observed. After two to four mir-IDAC courses stem cell harvesting was successful in 71% of the patients eligible for high-dose chemotherapy. After three years 56% (95%CI:40-72%) of all patients are alive and 59% (95%CI:42-76%) of the patients who entered CR are free of leukemia. In conclusion, favorable long-term outcomes and moderate acute toxicities were observed in patients with de novo AML treated with IDAC schedules delivered at moderate infusion rates (mir-IDAC) starting as induction treatment. The data suggest that a randomized trial should now be undertaken to examine whether mir-IDAC has clinical advantages over HIDAC.