Dexamethasone vs prednisone in induction treatment of pediatric ALL: results of the randomized trial AIEOP-BFM ALL 2000

Anja Möricke(Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel), Martin Zimmermann(Medizinische Hochschule Hannover), Maria Grazia Valsecchi(University of Milano-Bicocca), Martin Stanulla(Medizinische Hochschule Hannover), Andrea Biondi(University of Milano-Bicocca), Georg Mann(St Anna Children's Hospital), Franco Locatelli(University of Pavia), Giovanni Cazzaniga(University of Milano-Bicocca), Felix Niggli(University Children's Hospital Zurich), Maurizio Aricò(Agenzia Regionale Sanitaria della Puglia), Claus R. Bartram(Heidelberg University), Andishe Attarbaschi(St Anna Children's Hospital), Daniela Silvestri(University of Milano-Bicocca), Rita Beier(Medizinische Hochschule Hannover), Giuseppe Basso(University of Padua), Richard Ratei(Helios Hospital Berlin-Buch), Andreas E. Kulozik(Heidelberg University), Luca Lo Nigro(Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico - Vittorio Emanuele), Bernhard Kremens(Essen University Hospital), Jeanette Greiner(Ostschweizer Kinderspital), Rosanna Parasole(Santobono Children's Hospital), Jochen Harbott(Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen), Roberta Caruso(University of Pavia), Arend von Stackelberg(Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin), Elena Barisone(Ospedale Regina Margherita), Claudia Rössig(University Hospital Münster), Valentino Conter(University of Milano-Bicocca), Martin Schrappe(Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel)
Blood
February 17, 2016
Cited by 284Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

Induction therapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) traditionally includes prednisone; yet, dexamethasone may have higher antileukemic potency, leading to fewer relapses and improved survival. After a 7-day prednisone prephase, 3720 patients enrolled on trial Associazione Italiana di Ematologia e Oncologia Pediatrica and Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (AIEOP-BFM) ALL 2000 were randomly selected to receive either dexamethasone (10 mg/m(2) per day) or prednisone (60 mg/m(2) per day) for 3 weeks plus tapering in induction. The 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (± standard error) was 10.8 ± 0.7% in the dexamethasone and 15.6 ± 0.8% in the prednisone group (P < .0001), showing the largest effect on extramedullary relapses. The benefit of dexamethasone was partially counterbalanced by a significantly higher induction-related death rate (2.5% vs 0.9%, P = .00013), resulting in 5-year event-free survival rates of 83.9 ± 0.9% for dexamethasone and 80.8 ± 0.9% for prednisone (P = .024). No difference was seen in 5-year overall survival (OS) in the total cohort (dexamethasone, 90.3 ± 0.7%; prednisone, 90.5 ± 0.7%). Retrospective analyses of predefined subgroups revealed a significant survival benefit from dexamethasone only for patients with T-cell ALL and good response to the prednisone prephase (prednisone good-response [PGR]) (dexamethasone, 91.4 ± 2.4%; prednisone, 82.6 ± 3.2%; P = .036). In patients with precursor B-cell ALL and PGR, survival after relapse was found to be significantly worse if patients were previously assigned to the dexamethasone arm. We conclude that, for patients with PGR in the large subgroup of precursor B-cell ALL, dexamethasone especially reduced the incidence of better salvageable relapses, resulting in inferior survival after relapse. This explains the lack of benefit from dexamethasone in overall survival that we observed in the total cohort except in the subset of T-cell ALL patients with PGR. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (BFM: NCT00430118, AIEOP: NCT00613457).


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis