Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chisesi, T.
Right arrow Articles by Brugiatelli, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chisesi, T.
Right arrow Articles by Brugiatelli, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Oncology 13:102-106, 2002
© 2002 European Society for Medical Oncology

ABVD versus Stanford V versus MEC in unfavourable Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of a randomised trial

T. Chisesi1, M. Federico2, A. Levis3, G. Lambertenghi Deliliers4, P. G. Gobbi5, G. Santini6, S. Luminari2 and M. Brugiatelli On behalf of the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi7

1 Ematologia Venice, Italy 2 Oncologia Medica, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy 3 Ematologia, Alessandria, Italy 4 Ematologia, IRCCS, Milano, Italy 5 Clinica Medica, Pavia, Italy 6 Ematologia, Genova, Italy 7 Ematologia, Reggio Calabria, Italy

Abstract

Background: Between January 1996 and April 2000, 355 patients with advanced Hodgkin's disease (HD) (stage II bulky disease, III and IV) were enrolled in a prospective, multicentre, randomised trial aimed at comparing the efficacy of two new promising regimens: Stanford V and MEC hybrid. ABVD was chosen as the control arm. Radiotherapy was planned at the end of induction therapy on residual masses or on sites of previous bulky lesions. One hundred and seventeen, 123 and 115 patients were treated with Stanford V, MEC and ABVD, respectively. The records of 275 enrolled patients (89 Stanford V, 88 MEC, 98 ABVD) have been reviewed and are the subject of this report.

Results: After induction therapy a complete response (CR) was observed in 93, 89 and 74% of patients treated with MEC, ABVD and Stanford V, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.013) between the arms. After a median follow-up of 24 months, 16 relapses have been recorded among 196 patients who achieved a CR. Relapse rates are 16, 6 and 4% for Stanford V, ABVD and MEC, respectively (P = 0.042). The 3-year survival was 93%, without any significant difference among the arms. However, a significant difference emerged in terms of failure free survival (FFS). Patients treated with Stanford V did the worst compared with those treated with ABVD or MEC (P = 0.001). Toxicity was comparable in the three treatment arms.

Conclusion: For this randomised study, both ABVD and MEC gave superior results to Stanford V in terms of response and FFS; MEC seems to be the best regimen in terms of relapse-free survival, even if a significant difference has not yet been achieved. Notwithstanding the short follow-up, these results seem to be very impressive in defining the best standard treatment for HD for this subset of patients.

ABVD versus Stanford V versus MEC; chemotherapy; clinical trials; Hodgkin's lymphoma


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 BloodHome page
D. Re, R. K. Thomas, K. Behringer, and V. Diehl
From Hodgkin disease to Hodgkin lymphoma: biologic insights and therapeutic potential
Blood, June 15, 2005; 105(12): 4553 - 4560.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
V. Diehl
Advanced Hodgkin's Disease: ABVD Is Better, Yet Is Not Good Enough!
J. Clin. Oncol., February 15, 2003; 21(4): 583 - 585.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.