A randomized phase II trial of CHOP versus ICED and autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed T-cell lymphoma

초록

Purpose: Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and their prognoses are still poor because of frequent relapses and the absence of optimal standard therapy. Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) has been the backbone of frontline chemotherapy for PTCL for many years. However, it is not clear whether anthracycline-based chemotherapies such as CHOP could be standard induction therapy for PTCL. Thus, we conducted a randomized phase II study to compare the efficacy of CHOP with fractionated ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide, and dexamethasone (ICED). Patients and Methods: This study was a phase II, multicenter, open-label randomized trial at 21 hospitals that belonged to the Consortium for Improving Survival of Lymphoma (CISL) in Korea (CISL-1504/ROSE study). Eligible participants were patients aged 20–65 years with previously untreated histologically confirmed PTCLs based on the World Health Organization classification 2008 including PTCL-not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), ALK-negative anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), and hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTL). Patients with ALK-positive ALCL, extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, and mycosis fungoides/sezary syndrome were not included in the study. Patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either CHOP or ICED every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was done for patients achieving complete or partial response and the primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Between September 2015 and March 2021, 145 patients were screened, and 138 patients were enrolled. The characteristics were not different between CHOP (n = 69) and ICED (n = 66), and PTCL-NOS (n = 60) and AITL (n = 53) were dominant. The objective response rate was not different between CHOP (41/69, 59.4%) and ICED (37/66, 56.1%), and the 3-year PFS was not different between CHOP (36.7%) and ICED (33.1%, P = 0.709). Around 80% of patients who completed either CHOP or ICED followed by upfront ASCT showed 3-year overall survival (Figure 1). There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the CHOP and ICED arms for any subgroup analyzed except AITL. CHOP was favored over ICED in AITL patients, whereas ICED was favored over CHOP in EATL/HSTL patients. ICED was associated with more anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia of all grades and grade 3 or worse, and the frequency of febrile neutropenia was higher in the ICED arm. Conclusion: Our study showed no therapeutic difference between CHOP and ICED, and the role for upfront ASCT as a consolidation of complete response. In AITL, CHOP should remain the reference regimen based on its better outcome.