Objective: This multicenter phase III study compared the MEMID regimen (mitoxantrone, VP16, methylglyoxal, ifosfamide and dexamethasone) with CEOP, a CHOP-like regimen (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, vincristine and prednisone), in elderly patients (≧65 years) with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Methods: One hundred and forty-nine patients were eligible, 72 in the MEMID arm and 77 in the CEOP arm. The primary endpoint was to compare overall survival (OS) between groups, and secondary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS), response rate and toxicity. Results: Neutropenia (p < 10–5), anemia (p < 10–5) and thrombocytopenia (p = 0.0006) were significantly more frequent in patients who received MEMID. We observed an objective response rate of 55.5% in the MEMID arm and 64.9% in the CEOP arm (p = 0.24). The median OS and EFS were 15.4 and 8.5 months in the MEMID arm, and 20.3 and 10.5 months in the CEOP arm (p = 0.59 and 0.47), respectively. The median EFS was 15.4 months in the MEMID arm and 20.3 months in the CEOP arm (p = 0.59). Conclusion: The increased toxicity without survival benefit confirms the superiority of CHOP and CHOP-like regimens for elderly patient with aggressive NHL.

Keywords:
CEOP, Elderly, MEMID, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Phase III study, Toxicity
1.
The International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project: A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993;329:987–994.
2.
Vose JM, Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD, Bierman PJ, Sorensen S, Hutchins M, Moravec DF, Howe D, Dowling MD, Mailliard J, et al: The importance of age in survival of patients treated with chemotherapy for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1998;6:1838–1844.
3.
Tirelli U, Zagonel V, Errante D, Fratino L, Monfardini S: Treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the elderly: An update. Hematol Oncol 1998;16:1–13.
4.
The Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Classification Project: Effect of age on the characteristics and clinical behaviour of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients. Ann Oncol 1997;8:973–978.
5.
Balducci L, Repetto L: Increased risk of myelotoxicity in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer 2004;1:6–11.
6.
Jemal A, Clegg LX, Ward E, Ries LA, Wu X, Jamison PM, Wingo PA, Howe HL, Anderson RN, Edwards BK: Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2001, with a special feature regarding survival. Cancer 2004;101:3–27.
7.
Dixon DO, Neilan B, Jones SE, et al: Effect of age on therapeutic outcome in advanced diffuse histiocytic lymphoma: The Southwest Oncology Group experience. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:295–305.
8.
Fisher RI, Gaynor ER, Dahlberg S, Oken MM, Grogan TM, Mize EM, Glick JH, Coltman CA Jr, Miller TP: Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1002–1006.
9.
Tilly H, Lepage E, Coiffier B, Blanc M, Herbrecht R, Bosly A, Attal M, Fillet G, Guettier C, Molina TJ, Gisselbrecht C, Reyes F: Intensive conventional chemotherapy (ACVBP regimen) compared with standard CHOP for poor-prognosis aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Blood 2003;102:4284–4289.
10.
Sonneveld P, de Ridder M, van der Lelie H, Nieuwenhuis K, Schouten H, Mulder A, van Reijswoud I, Hop W, Lowenberg B: Comparison of doxorubicin and mitoxantrone in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced diffuse non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma using CHOP versus CNOP chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:2530–2539.
11.
Osby E, Hagberg H, Kvaloy S, Teerenhovi L, Anderson H, Cavallin-Stahl E, Holte H, Myhre J, Pertovaara H, Bjorkholm M: CHOP is superior to CNOP in elderly patients with aggressive lymphoma while outcome is unaffected by filgrastim treatment: Results of a Nordic Lymphoma Group randomized trial. Blood 2003;101:3840–3848.
12.
Tirelli U, Errante D, Van Glabbeke M, Teodorovic I, Kluin-Nelemans JC, Thomas J, Bron D, Rosti G, Somers R, Zagonel V, Noordijk EM: CHOP is the standard regimen in patients > or = 70 years of age with intermediate-grade and high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Results of a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lymphoma Cooperative Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:27–34.
13.
Meyer RM, Gyger M, Langley R, Lesperance B, Caplan SN: A phase one trial of standard and cyclophosphamide dose-escalated CHOP with granulocyte colony stimulating factor in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 1998;30:591–600.
14.
Doorduijn JK, Van Der Holt B, Van Imhoff GW, et al: CHOP compared with CHOP plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3041–3045.
15.
Lambertenghi Deliliers G, Butti C, Baldini L, Ceriani A, Lombardi F, Luoni M, Montalbetti L, Pavia G, Pinotti G, Pogliani E, et al: A cooperative study of epirubicin with cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone (CEOP) in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica 1995;80:318–324.
16.
Basaran M, Bavbek ES, Sakar B, Eralp Y, Alici S, Tas F, Yaman F, Dogan O, Camlica H, Onat H: Treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with dose-intensified epirubicin in combination of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CEOP-100): A phase II study. Am J Clin Oncol 2001;24:570–575.
17.
Rossi JF, Fabbro M, Gaspard MH, et al: Aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in elderly patients treated with MEMID protocol. Congress of the American Society of Hematology (abstract). Blood 1993;82:2288.
18.
Fabbro M, Peray P, Thyss A, Legouffe E, Rossi JF: Aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas in elderly: Dose intensity with MEMID chemotherapy and recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating-factor support in a phase II study. European Society of Medical Oncology Congress 1994, Lisbon, abstract 302.
19.
The Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Classification Project: National Cancer Institute sponsored study of classifications of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: Summary and description of a working formulation for clinical usage. Cancer 1982;49:2112–2135.
20.
Carbone PP, Kaplan HS, Musshoff K, Smithers DW, Tubiana M: Report of the Committee on Hodgkin’s Disease Staging Classification. Cancer Res 1971;31:1860–1861.
21.
World Health Organization: WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. WHO offset publication No. 48. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1979.
22.
Kaplan EL, Meier P: Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457–481.
23.
Ihaka R, Gentleman R: R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Statist 1996;5:299–314.
24.
Thyss A, Gressin R, Foussard C, Lepeu G, Fabbro M, Delwail V, Vilque JP, Haroussau JL, Rossi JF: Phase III study of CHOP-like regimen compared with MEMID in elderly patients with aggressive Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Preliminary results. Congress of the American Society of Hematology (abstract). Blood 1998;92:1099.
25.
Pfreundschuh M, Trümper L, Kloess M, Schmits R, Feller A, Rübe C, Rudolph C, Reiser M, Hossfeld D, Eimermacher H, Hasenclever D, Schmitz N, Loeffler M, and the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group: Two-weekly or 3-weekly CHOP chemotherapy with or without etoposide for the treatment of elderly patients with aggressive lymphomas: Results of the NHL-B2 trial of the DSHNHL. Blood 2004;104:634–641.
26.
Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, Herbrecht R, Tilly H, Bouabdallah R, Morel P, Van Den Neste E, Salles G, Gaulard P, Reyes F, Lederlin P, Gisselbrecht C: CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2002;346:235–242.
© 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel
2005
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.