Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.


Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

High-intensity regimen improves survival for B-cell lymphoma, but toxicity concerns raised

By Clinical Pharmacist

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma have better treatment success when given a new high-intensity anticancer regimen, compared with the current UK standard of care, suggests research published in The Lancet (2011;378:1858).   

However, Steve Williamson, consultant pharmacist for cancer services at the North of England Cancer Network, expects that UK haematologists will be cautious about using the new high-intensity combination because of the increased risk of haematological toxicity and the complexity of the protocol.

Researchers randomised 380 patients, aged 18–59 years, with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma to receive standard care with R-CHOP (rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone) or a high-intensity regimen, R-ACVBP (rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin and prednisone). Both groups were also given intrathecal methotrexate to prevent disease spreading to the central nervous system.

The primary outcome was event-free survival — a composite of death, disease progression, relapse and the need for treatment (eg, chemotherapy or radiotherapy) that was outside the protocol. Patients receiving R-ACVBP had longer event-free survival than those who were treated with R-CHOP (P=0.0035).

Mr Williamson commented: “This French trial is the first to show that the choice of the chemotherapy arm, when using rituximab plus chemotherapy, really can make a difference for patients with lymphoma.” In this study, he explained, patients’ survival and disease-free progression were better with R-ACVBP than with R-CHOP, the UK standard regimen.   

However, Mr Williamson drew attention to the intensity of the new regimen: “R-CHOP is given every three weeks compared with R-ACVBP, which is given every two weeks.”

He told Clinical Pharmacist that patients receiving R-ACVBP required prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor so that their bone marrow could cope with the reduced recovery time. Despite this measure, haematological toxicity was high in the R-ACVBP arm — 38% of patients experienced grade 3 (more serious) febrile neutropenia, compared with 9% of patients in the R-CHOP arm.   

“I would suggest that this makes R-ACVBP a difficult regimen to administer safely; indeed the regimen protocol is complex compared with R-CHOP. For these reasons I do not envisage this regimen being adopted widely in the UK until experience is gained in specialist haematological cancer centres,” Mr Williamson concluded.

Citation: Clinical Pharmacist URI: 11090923

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

  • Community Pharmacy Handbook

    Community Pharmacy Handbook

    Community Pharmacy Handbook is a survival guide for community pharmacists and students, answering your practical questions. Includes case studies.

    £33.00Buy now
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Supplementary images

  • Peter Gau/

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.