Skip to main content
Free access
Hematologic Malignancies
October 15, 2004

Outcome of Treatment in Adults With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Analysis of the LALA-94 Trial

Publication: Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

We analyzed the benefits of a risk-adapted postremission strategy in adult lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and re-evaluated stem-cell transplantation (SCT) for high-risk ALL.

Patients and Methods

A total of 922 adult patients entered onto the trial according to risk groups: standard-risk ALL (group 1), high-risk ALL (group 2), Philadelphia chromosome-positive ALL (group 3), and CNS-positive ALL (group 4). All received a standard four-drug/4-week induction course. Patients from group 1 who achieved a complete remission (CR) after one course of induction therapy were randomly assigned between intensive and less intensive postremission chemotherapy, whereas those who achieved CR after salvage therapy were then included in group 2. Patients in groups 2, 3, and 4 with an HLA-identical sibling were assigned to allogeneic SCT. In groups 3 and 4, autologous SCT was offered to all other patients, whereas in group 2 they were randomly assigned between chemotherapy and autologous SCT.

Results

Overall, 771 patients achieved CR (84%). Median disease-free survival (DFS) was 17.5 months, with 3-year DFS at 37%. In group 1, the 3-year DFS rate was 41%, with no difference between arms of postremission randomization. In groups 2 and 4, the 3-year DFS rates were 38% and 44%, respectively. In group 2, autologous SCT and chemotherapy resulted in comparable median DFS. Patients with an HLA-matched sibling (groups 2 and 4) had improved DFS. Three-year DFS was 24% in group 3.

Conclusion

Allogeneic SCT improved DFS in high-risk ALL in the first CR. Autologous SCT did not confer a significant benefit over chemotherapy for high-risk ALL.

Introduction

During the last two decades, clinical trials have demonstrated an improved response rate in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) using intensive chemotherapy. However, the duration of remission has been disappointingly short.1 Similar to treatment in children, risk-adapted strategies are being applied to adults with ALL to improve survival. Both single institutions and multicenter studies have shown that aggressive induction plus more potent intensification programs with chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus stem-cell transplantation (SCT) may improve treatment results.2-7
In a previous prospective multicenter trial (Leucémie Aiguës Lymphoblastique de l’Adulte [LALA]-87 trial), the French LALA Group tested three different strategies for postinduction therapy with the first aim to evaluate randomly, after consolidation chemotherapy, the benefits of autologous SCT compared with standard maintenance chemotherapy, and second, to evaluate the role of allogeneic SCT in first remission.3 Analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, results showed an advantage of allogeneic SCT over chemotherapy.8 The difference between allogeneic SCT and the control arm was highly significant in high-risk ALL, with 10-year survival rates of 44% and 11%, respectively.9 Conversely, it seemed that allogeneic SCT was not superior to chemotherapy or autologous SCT in standard-risk ALL. When comparing autologous SCT with chemotherapy, there was only a trend for better results in the autologous SCT arm.
On the basis of these results, we designed a new multicenter regimen (LALA-94 trial) with the aims to assess the intensification of induction therapy to improve complete remission (CR) rates; to introduce a risk-adapted postremission strategy by stratifying patients according to initial features and to initial response to therapy; and to re-evaluate transplantation for high-risk ALL.

Patients and Methods

Study Eligibility

Eligibility criteria included age 15 to 55 years, untreated ALL (excluding mature B-cell ALL), without prior malignancy or psychiatric disease. All participants were registered at the time of entry onto the study through a randomization between idarubicin (IDA) and daunorubicin (DNR) for induction therapy. Subsequent randomizations occurred after the patients had achieved remission and were ready to start postremission therapy. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee (Lyon, France). All patients gave signed informed consent.

Diagnostic Procedure

Morphologic and cytochemical studies.

The morphologic diagnosis was based on May-Grünwald-Giemsa and cytochemical staining of bone marrow smears, and was classified according to the French-American-British classification.10

Immunologic studies.

Immunophenotyping was performed by indirect immunofluorescence using flow cytometry, focusing on the blast cell population, and employed a panel of monoclonal antibodies to B-cell (CD10, CD19, CD20, CD22, CD79a, sIg, cIg), T-cell (CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD5, CD7, CD8), myeloid (CD13, CD14, CD15, CD33, CD65, CD117, myeloperoxidase), and precursor cell (terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, CD34, HLA-DR) –associated antigens. Leukemic cells that expressed none of these markers were considered as undifferentiated. Myeloid-antigen–positive ALL was defined as coexpression of lymphoid markers and at least two myeloid-lineage–associated antigens. An arbitrary threshold of 20% of labeled blast cells was set as the positive cutoff for each marker.

Cytogenetics and molecular biology.

Cytogenetic examination was performed on bone marrow and/or blood samples. Chromosomal abnormalities were classified according to structural and numerical changes. The presence of t(4;11), t(9;22), or t(1;19) chromosomal translocations was assessed by conventional cytogenetics, and their respective gene rearrangements (MLL-AF4, BCR-ABL, or E2A-PBX1) were assessed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction.

Risk Groups

Group 1 (standard-risk ALL) comprised all T-cell lineage ALL patients achieving CR after one course of chemotherapy and B-cell lineage ALL patients defined by the absence of CNS-positive ALL; the absence of Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome, t(4;11), t(1;19), or other abnormalities involving 11q23 rearrangements; a WBC count less than 30 × 109/L; an immunophenotype characterized by CD10+/CD19+, or CD20+/CD19+ and the absence of myeloid markers; and achievement of CR after one course of chemotherapy. Group 2 (high-risk ALL) was defined as nonstandard-risk ALL without Ph-positive status or CNS involvement. Patients in whom any phenotypic and/or karyotypic analyses could not be performed because of marrow fibrosis were systematically included in group 2. Group 3 comprised Ph-positive and/or BCR-ABL–positive ALL. Group 4 included all patients with evidence of CNS leukemia at diagnosis based on cranial nerve palsies, leukemic blasts in the CSF, and/or mononuclear cell counts ≥ 5 × 106/L and leukemic blasts in stained centrifuged spinal fluid.

Treatment

Treatment schedule is indicated on Figure 1. The induction course was administered over a 4-week period and consisted of prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide (CPM), and DNR or IDA according to initial random assignment. Colony-stimulating factor could be administered according to each center’s policy. Marrow response status was determined by bone marrow aspirates at about day 28 of induction chemotherapy.
Standard-risk ALL patients (group 1) were randomly assigned on day 35 and received either an intensive consolidation chemotherapy combining mitoxantrone (MTZ) with intermediate-dose cytarabine (IDaraC), or a less intensive consolidation course combining CPM with cytarabine (araC), and mercaptopurine. Then, patients with standard-risk ALL followed a chemotherapy program for 2 years (Table 1) .
On day 35, high-risk ALL patients (groups 2, 3, and 4) were scheduled to receive a second course of intensive chemotherapy (consolidation or salvage), consisting of MTZ and IDaraC. Patients who did not reach a CR after that course were withdrawn from the protocol.
On the basis of an intention-to-treat principle, all patients with Ph-positive ALL or with CNS-positive ALL were distributed in one of the two following SCT groups: matched related allogeneic bone marrow SCT if they had a sibling donor, or autologous peripheral-blood SCT if they did not meet criteria for the first group. Transplantation was planned to be performed at day 90 after initial random assignment. Donors were matched at the A, B, C, and DR regions of the HLA loci (molecular typing at the HLA class II loci). Alternative donors were admitted for Ph-positive ALL with related or unrelated donors who were mismatched at one or more of these loci. In group 2, patients without a sibling donor were randomly assigned between the chemotherapy program and autologous SCT. Patients eligible for SCT received one or two additional cycles of chemotherapy consisting of methotrexate (MTX) and l-asparaginase. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor–mobilized autologous peripheral-blood stem cells were collected during the myeloid recovery following the consolidation course. The conditioning regimen, for both autologous and allogeneic SCT, consisted of CPM 60 mg/kg on days 1 and 2, and total-body irradiation, either 10 Gy as a single dose or 12 Gy in six fractions.11 Etoposide 50 mg/kg on day 1 was added to the conditioning regimen for patients with Ph-positive ALL. For allogeneic SCT, graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis mostly consisted of cyclosporine plus MTX or cyclosporine alone, but did not include T-cell depletion. In groups 2 and 4, a maintenance therapy combining mercaptopurine and MTX was planned for 2 years after autologous SCT. During the early study period, few patients (n = 6) with Ph-positive ALL have undergone transplantation with purged autologous bone marrow stem cells. In these patients, bone marrow purging was performed by complement-dependent lysis using anti-CD19 and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. A few patients (three patients in group 2, 10 patients in group 3, and one patient in group 4) received matched unrelated allogeneic SCT. In the statistical analysis, the four patients from groups 2 and 4 were analyzed in intention-to-treat according to their arm of randomization, whereas the 10 patients with Ph-positive ALL were analyzed in the allogeneic SCT arm.

CNS Prophylaxis and Therapy

CNS prophylaxis consisted of eight intrathecal injections (four during the first induction course and four during continuation therapy) combining araC 40 mg, MTX 15 mg, and methylprednisolone 40 mg. In addition, patients treated only with chemotherapy received a dose of 18 Gy cranial x-ray therapy (five 1.8-Gy sessions per week for 2 weeks).
In patients with CNS disease at diagnosis (group 4), therapy consisted of 18 triple intrathecal injections associated with a pretransplant 15-Gy cranial irradiation.

Criteria for Response and Relapse

Morphologic response was evaluated after induction therapy and eventually after the salvage therapy course. Response was classified as CR or failure, including resistant disease and early death. Patients were considered to be in CR when the neutrophil count was more than 1.5 × 109/L, the platelet count was more than 150 × 109/L, the bone marrow examination was normal, and all extramedullary disease had resolved.
In addition, patients had to be classified as early responders or nonresponders on a bone marrow aspiration and peripheral-blood examination performed at day 8 of induction course. Early response was defined as the absence of peripheral-blood blasts associated with fewer than 5% marrow blasts or a hypoplastic bone marrow.
Relapse was defined as the reappearance of leukemic cells in the bone marrow and/or clinical evidence of disease. Toxicity of induction therapy was evaluated according to WHO criteria.12

Statistical Analyses

Random assignment of patients was stratified by center for the first randomization, but also by initial induction arm for later randomizations. Reasons for discontinuing participation in the study were noncompliance of the patient, no CR after salvage regimen, excessive extramedullary drug toxicity, death, relapse, major protocol violation, or lost to follow-up. The planned accrual was 1,000 patients. An interim analysis was performed after 400 patients were enrolled. The primary study objective was disease-free survival (DFS) rates according to the different postremission therapeutic options. Secondary objectives included assessment of response rates to induction chemotherapy and overall survival (OS) rates according to the different postremission strategies.
Associations between pretreatment characteristics and response to induction and the assessment of comparability of characteristics for the two initial randomized groups were evaluated by the Pearson χ2 test. All tests were two sided with statistical significance set at .05. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Intent-to-treat groups were applied after initial CR achievement, rather than at baseline. Intent-to-treat in group 1 was based only on patients without high-risk features at diagnosis and who also achieved a CR after primary induction therapy, whereas in group 2 it was based on those with high-risk features at diagnosis who achieved a CR and those without high-risk features at diagnosis and who failed to respond after primary induction therapy, but achieved a CR after salvage therapy. Patients with CR who were randomly assigned but never received the allocated treatment were not excluded from the comparative analyses.
OS was defined as the time from study entry to death or last patient contact. DFS was defined from date of CR to date of relapse or death, or last contact with patient in continuous CR. DFS and OS distributions were estimated by the method of Kaplan and Meier. The analyses in CR patients included only those who were randomly assigned: in group 1 (early consolidation v no early consolidation), in groups 2 and 4 (donor v no donor), in group 2 (autologous SCT v chemotherapy), and in groups 3 and 4 (autologous SCT v allogeneic SCT). All treatment and subgroup comparisons were performed by the log-rank test. Simultaneous effects of multiple covariates were estimated with the maximum-likelihood logistic regression model for response and with the Cox model for DFS and OS, and tested by the likelihood-ratio test, which was also used in univariate analyses for continuous variables. Estimated hazard ratios are reported as relative risks with 95% CIs. Cumulative incidence of relapse and transplant-related mortality (TRM) were calculated as previously described.13 All computations were made using BMDP software (BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles, CA).

Results

Patient Entry

Between June 1994 and January 2002, 1,000 patients entered onto the LALA-94 trial. Eleven patients were withdrawn (error in entry [three ALL patients were older than 55 years, one patient had lymphoblastic lymphoma, one patient had natural killer-cell lymphoma, four patients had late diagnosis of L3 subtype], patient refusal [one patient], and physician decision [one patient treated according to a pediatric schedule]). Seven additional patients were ineligible because of misdiagnosis (acute myeloid leukemia) and were not treated on this protocol. Data from 60 patients were not received or incomplete at the time of analysis. Thus we report on 922 eligible patients. The cutoff date was January 1, 2004. The median follow-up of this cohort was 5.2 years.

Pretreatment Characteristics

Pretreatment characteristics are summarized in Table 2. Median age was 33 years. Male-to-female ratio was 1.8. Immunophenotype was available for 902 patients: 72% of patients had B lineage, 26% had T lineage, and the remaining 2% had undifferentiated ALL. Five percent of patients displayed myeloid markers. Cytogenetic and/or molecular biology evaluation was performed in 863 patients. The Philadelphia chromosome and/or the BCR-ABL rearrangement were found in 198 patients (23%), t(4;11)/MLL-AF4 was found in 36 patients, and t(1;19)/E2A-PBX1 was found in 26 patients.
Main pretreatment characteristics did not differ when considering the two induction arms or the different postremission arms after the other randomizations.

Results of Induction

Results of induction therapy are summarized in Table 3. Six hundred sixty (72%) of all eligible patients achieved CR after one course of chemotherapy, 35 (4%) died during the induction phase before their remission status could be ascertained, and 227 failed to respond. CR proportions were 71% in the IDA arm and 72% in the DNR arm. Treatment failure was observed in 24% of patients in the IDA arm and in 26% in the DNR arm. However, significantly higher TRM was observed with IDA (5% v 2%; P = .01). There was no difference in terms of survival between the two arms, but an advantage was observed for the IDA arm in terms of DFS in patients receiving only chemotherapy (patients in group 1 and patients randomly assigned to the chemotherapy arm in group 2; median DFS, 31.1 months with IDA v 18.2 months with DNR; P = .05; Fig 2).
Among the 210 patients re-treated after treatment failure, CR to salvage chemotherapy was 53% (111 patients). Thirty-nine patients from group 1, who achieved CR in two courses, were then included and followed postremission treatment in group 2. Eighty-eight patients failed to respond to salvage therapy, whereas 11 (5%) died during this second course of induction therapy.
CR was achieved in 212 (89%) of 237 patients with T-lineage ALL (185 patients after one course and 27 patients after two courses), and in 390 (86%) of 454 patients with (non–Ph-positive) B-lineage ALL (349 patients after one course and 41 patients after two courses).
Overall, 771 patients achieved CR (84%), whereas resistant patients represented 11%. In logistic regression analysis, risk groups defined at diagnosis (P < .001) and response on day 8 (P < .001) were prognostic factors for achieving a CR after induction and/or salvage therapy.

Toxicity of Induction Therapy

Most patients (911 patients) were assessable for toxicity during the first course of induction chemotherapy. Neutrophils recovered to more than 0.5 × 109/L at a median of 21 days (range, 0 to 49 days) after initiation of therapy (23 days with IDA and 19 days with DNR). Platelets recovered to more than 50 × 109/L at a median of 18 days (range, 0 to 66 days; 22 days with IDA and 12 days with DNR). The most frequent extrahematologic severe (WHO grade ≥ 3) adverse effects were infection (19%), mucositis (15%), hepatotoxicity (15%), hemorrhage (12%), gastrointestinal side effects (7%), and neurotoxicity (7%). Severe cardiac toxicity was observed in 3% of patients. Severe extrahematologic toxicity was not significantly different between the two arms of first randomization, except for mucositis (22% with IDA v 8% with DNR; P < .0001) and infections (27% with IDA v 11% with DNR; P < .0001).
Severe adverse effects after salvage therapy (192 patients evaluated) were infection (31%), mucositis (15%), hemorrhage (9%), hepatotoxicity (5%), neurotoxicity (4%), cardiac toxicity (1%), and gastrointestinal adverse effects (1%).
The mortality rate after one or two courses of induction chemotherapy was 5%.

DFS and OS

Median OS was 23 months (Fig 3). Median DFS was 17.5 months, with 3-year DFS at 37% and 5-year DFS at 30%. The estimated 3-year DFS rate was 35% and 43% for T- and (non–Ph-positive) B-lineage ALL, respectively (Fig 4).
Outcome according to risk groups is summarized in Table 4. Only 706 patients were allocated to a risk group and received postremission therapy according to the protocol regimen. Sixty-five patients (8%) were excluded from additional randomizations. Reasons were medical decision (42%), severe toxicity during induction therapy resulting in poor physical condition (38%), patient refusal (13%), and organizational reasons (7%). The cumulative incidence of TRM and relapse is listed in Table 5.

Standard-risk ALL (group 1).

Median OS was 37.8 months, with 3-year OS at 50% and 5-year OS at 44%. There were 307 patients who were randomly assigned and received postinduction therapy: 153 were randomly assigned to early intensive chemotherapy (arm A) and were randomly assigned 154 to chemotherapy without early intensification (arm B). There were no differences in terms of DFS between the two arms (P = .78; Fig 5). Median OS was 32.6 months in arm A and 39.5 months in arm B, with 5-year OS rates of 45% and 43%, respectively (P = .73).

High-risk ALL (group 2).

Median OS was 29 months with 3-year OS at 46% and 5-year OS at 38%. Eighty-two patients with a sibling donor were scheduled for allogeneic SCT. In intention-to-treat analysis, autologous SCT (70 patients) and chemotherapy (59 patients) produced comparable median DFS (15.2 v 11 months, respectively; P = .1; Fig 6). However, late relapses were more frequent in the chemotherapy arm (3-year DFS rate, 39% v 24%; P = .08). Median OS was 28 months with 3-year OS at 44% and 5-year OS at 32% in the autologous SCT arm versus 26.1 months with 3-year OS at 35% and 5-year OS at 21% in the chemotherapy arm. Of 70 patients randomly assigned in the autologous SCT arm, 61 (87%) actually underwent transplantation. Seven patients did not receive autologous transplant but received chemotherapy because of insufficient cell harvest (five patients), patient refusal (one patient), or poor physical condition (one patient), and two patients underwent matched unrelated donor allogeneic SCT (medical decision). All patients, except one who received matched unrelated donor allogeneic SCT, allocated to the chemotherapy arm received their treatment. The median time between CR and autologous SCT was 2.9 months (range, 1.6 to 6.4 months). For patients who actually received autotransplantation, the median DFS was 13 months with a 5-year DFS rate of 21%, whereas the median OS was 19.8 months with a 5-year OS rate of 29%. Only 52% of patients who received autologous SCT were observed by maintenance therapy. In intention-to-treat, allogeneic SCT did better than the other therapeutic strategies in terms of DFS in patients from groups 2 and 4 when using the results of the HLA typing as a random allocation (P = .007; Fig 7). In the allogeneic SCT arm (82 patients in group 2 and 18 patients in group 4), 96 patients (96%) actually underwent transplantation. Four patients received chemotherapy because of patient refusal (two patients), poor physical condition with hepatitis (one patient), or donor poor physical condition (one patient). The median time between CR and transplantation was 2.3 months (range, 0.4 to 7.3 months). The median DFS was 20.8 months with a 5-year DFS rate of 44%, whereas the median OS was not reached with a 5-year OS rate of 51%. Among these patients, 39 patients (40%) died, of whom 17 (44%) died as a result of transplantation complications and the others as a result of leukemia.

Ph-positive and/or BCR-ABL–positive ALL (group 3).

A report on the first 154 patients with Ph-positive ALL has been detailed previously.14 The updated series confirmed a poor outcome with a median OS was 15.7 months with a 3-year OS rate of 28% and a 5-year OS rate of 24% (Fig 4). Median OS was 14.2 months for autografted patients and 21.5 months for allografted patients (including 10 matched unrelated donor SCT) with 3-year OS rates at 17% and 36%, respectively (P = .009). Median DFS values were 6.5 and 15.5 months with 3-year DFS rates at 15% and 34%, respectively (P = .001).

CNS-positive ALL (group 4).

Median OS was 20.9 months with a 5-year OS rate of 36%. Eighteen patients with a sibling donor were allocated to the allogeneic SCT arm, whereas 30 without any donor followed the autologous SCT arm. Median DFS values were 11.4 and 21.7 months with 3-year DFS rates at 40% and 47%, respectively (P = .65). Median OS values were 16 and 22.7 months with 3-year OS rates at 40% and 46%, respectively (P = .64). All patients allocated to the allogeneic SCT arm followed treatment for their arm, whereas two patients randomly assigned in the autologous SCT arm did not (one early relapse and one matched unrelated donor allogeneic SCT).

Prognostic factors for DFS.

In univariate analysis, WBC count less than 30 × 109/L (P < .0001), age younger than 35 years (P = .0001), and early response on day 8 (P = .02) favorably affected DFS in the entire population. These covariates remained of prognostic value in a multivariate model also including phenotype and arm of first randomization. The same analysis was performed in the different risk groups as defined at time of diagnosis (Table 6) .

Discussion

CR was achieved in 84% of patients, whereas the 5-year survival rate of the 922 patients was 33%. These results are in the range of those published by most large cooperative groups.2-7,15
Better results in terms of CR may be obtained by using more intensive induction chemotherapy and better supportive care to reduce early deaths.16 In the LALA-87 trial, overall CR was achieved in 76% of patients (69% after one course of induction chemotherapy) and toxic deaths occurred in 9% of patients.3 Results were significantly improved in the LALA-94 trial in which we did not find any period effect (data not shown). Better results in the LALA-94 trial could be explained by reduced toxicity with fewer infections related to lower doses of corticosteroids17 and the use of CSF in some centers, and by the introduction of the combination of MTZ with IDaraC, instead of a combination of amsacrine with lower doses of araC as salvage therapy. We confirm here previous reports about the efficacy of intensive- or high-dose araC combined with anthracyclines or other related drugs in salvage therapy.16,18-21 This type of therapy seems particularly important for the most aggressive ALL. Early intensified treatment may reduce the likelihood of the development of drug resistance, achieve sufficient drug levels in sanctuary sites, and thus increase the proportion of long-term, disease-free survivors.
There is evidence that anthracyclines increase CR when added to other classic components of ALL therapy.22 In our trial, a comparison of DNR and IDA did not show any significant difference, except for an advantage for IDA in terms of DFS in patients receiving only chemotherapy (predominantly patients in the standard-risk group and therefore patients with T-lineage ALL, of whom approximately 75% followed group 1 after CR achievement). A potential weakness is the uncertainty of anthracycline dose equivalence; that is, whether IDA 9 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, 3, and 8 is equivalent to DNR 30 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, 3, 15, and 16. A potential benefit is further obscured by different postremission strategies. In the chemotherapy-only arm, subgroup analysis suggested a benefit for standard-risk patients. The higher infection rate with IDA may indicate non–dose equivalence of the anthracyclines. Our results tend to confirm that CR is obtained earlier with the use of high-dose anthracyclines and that the optimal timing for anthracycline administration is probably the early phase of the disease.23,24
The optimal consolidation therapy for adults with ALL in first CR remains unclear. The data for allogeneic SCT are sparse, and few comparative trials exist. Results from retrospective studies suggest a benefit for allogeneic SCT compared with standard chemotherapy. The lack of randomized studies limits our ability to infer a benefit of allogeneic SCT. Trials evaluating allogeneic SCT have uniformly shown higher treatment-related mortality and decreased disease relapse. In some studies, these effects offset one another and neutralize any benefit from allogeneic SCT, resulting in centers favoring a conservative approach and recommending transplantation only for patients younger than 30 years old with high-risk ALL.25,26 In the LALA-87 trial, we did not find any statistical difference between allogeneic SCT and chemotherapy in the overall analysis. However, when the analysis was retrospectively restricted to high-risk patients,27 survival rates were significantly higher in patients receiving allogeneic SCT.8,9 This was confirmed prospectively by our present study, although Ph-positive ALL patients were considered apart. To date, no traditionally randomized controlled study has been performed to test the efficacy of allogeneic SCT in ALL. In the absence of true randomization, we must rely on genetic randomization.
Whether or not a sibling is HLA matched depends on the random assortment of genes at fertilization. The intention-to-treat analysis eliminates the time-to-treatment bias. However, there might be confounding factors due to the limitations of genetic randomization. The probability of having an HLA-identical sibling donor depends of the size of the sibship. Consequently, it is not equal for all patients. The physician and/or the patient may influence whether a donor is identified and/or accepted. Trial enrollment or withdrawal may also be influenced by a protocol with genetic randomization. Unfortunately, reports that include a donor analysis do not actually totally comply with the intention-to-treat principle. The allogeneic SCT group generally includes appropriately all patients with a donor, whereas the other two groups only include patients randomly assigned between autologous SCT and chemotherapy, thereby introducing potential biases. It is possible that the inclusion of all no-donor patients would strengthen the evidence in favor of allogeneic SCT. However, the apparent advantage for SCT in some subgroups was diminished by the poor results of chemotherapy, resulting in a disappointingly low DFS overall despite to the risk-adapted strategy employed. Allogeneic SCT appeared definitively of benefit to Ph-positive ALL14 and t(4;11) ALL.28 This suggests the feasibility of using matched unrelated donor SCT in future clinical trials for those patients without a sibling donor.
Many single-institution studies have evaluated autologous SCT in adults ALL. The best results report a DFS rate of 65%, but follow-up was only 16 months.29 However, the use of autologous SCT in first CR remains controversial and is still an investigational treatment. A major objective of our study was to test the advantage of autologous SCT compared with standard chemotherapy. Autologous SCT did not show superiority over chemotherapy in high-risk ALL patients. However, in the chemotherapy arm, a continuous pattern of relapse beyond the third year was observed. A different pattern of relapse was observed in the autologous SCT arm, with fewer late relapses. These results confirm those reported by our previous trial in the global analysis3 and in a subset analysis including only patients with poor prognostic factors.9 However, there were some flaws in both LALA-87 and LALA-94 studies: the number of patients in each arm was small, and some patients allocated to the transplantation group actually did not undergo transplantation. Maintenance chemotherapy for 2 years was theoretically scheduled after transplantation, given that this was postulated to be the reason for less relapses and improved DFS reported in a previous study,30 but was often not given or stopped early because of cytopenia or infections. To evaluate the effect of consolidation by autologous SCT in a larger population of adult ALL patients, we recently performed a study reporting all patients included in one of the last three successive trials from our group.31 The results confirmed the absence of superiority of autologous SCT over chemotherapy alone, and the use of autologous SCT in first CR was not advocated because chemotherapy employed may not be optimal with regard to a standard therapy.
Few studies have evaluated comparatively more intensive versus standard therapy over short periods of maintenance. Previous studies, comparing consolidation courses versus regular maintenance, did not find any difference in terms of DFS.32,33 In our trial, the second randomization for standard-risk patients, comparing an early intensive consolidation with no early intensification, showed no difference between the two arms of randomization. Previous studies also demonstrated the absence of benefit of early intensification, but reported that the early block of intensive treatment reduced the risk of relapse.2,27
Results in standard-risk ALL (and therefore T-lineage ALL) were disappointing in comparison with the LALA-87 trial,3 suggesting a need for more intensive therapy. Indeed, T-cell phenotype is generally a favorable prognostic factor.15,27,34,35 Improvements in outcome for T-lineage ALL have been attributed to the introduction of araC, CPM, and/or teniposide in consolidation regimens. In the LALA-87 trial, results in standard-risk ALL were similar for allogeneic SCT and for chemotherapy or autologous SCT. We concluded that allogeneic SCT should only be recommended for high-risk patients in first CR, and we therefore abandoned transplantation for this group of ALL patients in the LALA-94 trial.8,9 A recent retrospective study showed particularly encouraging results of T-cell lineage ALL after allografting in first CR, with 74% DFS at 3 years.36 The poor outcomes, even among T-cell lineage ALL in LALA-94 with chemotherapy alone, suggest studies examining allografts compared with more intensive chemotherapy regimens, even for favorable subsets, are warranted.
Surprisingly, patients with CNS involvement showed a favorable outcome, with a median DFS of 19.2 months and more than 44% survivors at more than 3 years. Although the presence of blasts in the CSF has been associated with factors of poor outcome,37 and confers a high risk of CNS relapse if not treated intensively,38 large previous series failed to show a significant impact of CNS involvement when treated intensively.3,27 This appears to be confirmed by our study and brings some justification for intensifying the treatment of this leukemia subtype.
On the basis of the results from the LALA-94 study, we are currently testing a pilot trial in which indications for allogeneic SCT are increased in both non–Ph-positive B-lineage ALL and T-lineage ALL depending on initial prognostic factors and initial response to a prephase of corticosteroids and to initial chemotherapy evaluated on day 8; induction chemotherapy is intensified after day 15 for nonresponding patients; continuation therapy is intensified in nonallografted patients with application of pediatric-like treatment with blocks of intensive chemotherapy and late consolidation; autologous transplantation is withdrawn; and the therapeutic strategy is adapted to the evaluation of minimal residual disease.

Appendix

The following hospitals participated in the LALA-94 trial: Groupe d’Etude et de Traitement de la Leucémie Aiguë Lymphoblastique de l’Adulte (GET-LALA Group) - Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Hôpital Cochin, Paris; Hôpital de Hautepierre, Strasbourg; Hôpital de l’Archet, Nice; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Hôpital Jean Bernard, Poitiers; Hôpital Michallon, Grenoble; Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; Hôpital du Bocage, Dijon; Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; Hôpital Pontchaillou, Rennes; Centre Hospitalier de la Côte Basque, Bayonne; Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Pierre Bénite; HIA Percy, Clamart; Centre Hospitalier, Chambéry; Hôpital Dupuytren, Limoges; Centre Hospitalier, Avignon; Hôpital Louis Pasteur, Colmar; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Hôtel Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Hôpital André Mignot, Versailles; Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy; Centre Hospitalier, Annecy; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Aix en Provence; Hôpital Jean Monod, Le Havre; Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris; Hôpital Victor Dupouy, Argenteuil; Centre Hospitalier Dr Schaffner, Lens; Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice; Centre Hospitalier, Meaux; Centre Hospitalier, Perpignan; Clinique St Vincent, Lille; Centre Hospitalier, Nîmes; Centre Hospitalier, Roubaix, France. Cliniques St Luc, Bruxelles; Centre Hospitalier Notre Dame et Reine Fabiola, Charleroi; Cliniques de Mont Godinne, Yvoir; ASBL, Loverval; Hôpital Saint Joseph, Gilly; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul; Hôpital St Joseph, Mons; Hôpital de la Citadelle, Liège; Laboratoire de Cytogénétique, Leuven, Belgium. Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) –Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne; Kantonsspital, St Gallen; Universitätsspital, Zürich; Hôpital Cantonal Universitaire, Genève; Kantonsspital, Basel; Inselspital, Bern; Kantonsspital, Winterthur; Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland. Australasian Leukemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG)–Westmead Hospital, Westmead; Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide; Mater Misericordae Hospital, Newcastle; Alfred Hospital, Melbourne; Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide; Peter Mac Callum Cancer Centre Institute, Melbourne; Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne; Liverpool Hospital, Sydney; St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

Authors’ Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
Fig 1. Schema of LALA-94 trial. IDA, idarubicin; DNR, daunorubicin; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; CR, complete remission; MTZ, mitoxantrone; IDaraC, intermediate-dose cytarabine; Ph+, presence of Philadelphia chromosome; CPM, cyclophosphamide; araC, cytarabine; MP, mercaptopurine; Allo, allogeneic; SCT, stem-cell transplantation; Auto, autologous; MTX, methotrexate.
Fig 2. Disease-free survival (DFS) according to first randomization for patients receiving only chemotherapy (307 patients in group 1 and 59 patients randomly assigned in the chemotherapy arm in group 2). CR, complete remission.
Fig 3. Overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort (922 patients). DFS, disease-free survival.
Fig 4. Disease-free survival (DFS) according to immunophenotype (390 patients with non–Philadelphia[Ph] -positive B-linage acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL] and 212 patients with T-lineage ALL) as compared with Ph-positive ALL (140 patients). CR, complete remission.
Fig 5. Disease-free survival (DFS) according to second randomization for patients in group 1 (154 patients in the not intensive arm and 153 patients in the intensive arm). MTZ, mitoxantrone; IDaraC, intermediate-dose cytarabine; NS, not significant.
Fig 6. Disease-free survival (DFS) according to second randomization for patients in group 2 (70 patients in the autologous stem-cell transplantation [SCT] arm and 59 patients in the chemotherapy arm). CR, complete remission.
Fig 7. Disease-free survival (DFS) according to genetic randomization. For this analysis, patients from group 2 (211 patients) and those from group 4 (48 patients) were pooled. The group with a sibling donor comprised 100 patients, whereas that with no sibling donor included 159 patients. CR, complete remission.
Table 1. Chemotherapy Regimen for ALL Patients
ChemotherapyDoseDay NumberAdministration Route
Induction chemotherapy   
    Idarubicin9 mg/m21, 2, 3, 8IV
    or   
    Daunorubicin30 mg/m21-3, 15, 16IV
    Vincristine2 mg TD1, 8, 15, 22IV
    Cyclophosphamide750 mg/m21, 8IV
    Prednisone60 mg/m21-7, 15-21IV or PO
Postinduction chemotherapy   
    Arm A (between days 28 and 35; MTZ/IDaraC)   
        Cytarabine1 g/m2 bid1, 2, 3, 4IV
        Mitoxantrone10 mg/m23, 4, 5IV
    or   
    Arm B (between days 28 and 35; CPM/araC/MP)   
        Cyclophosphamide1 g/m21, 15, 29IV
        Cytarabine75 mg/m23-6, 10-13, 17-20IV
        Mercaptopurine60 mg/m21-28PO
Maintenance chemotherapy   
    MTX/Aspa (on days 75, 90, 220, 304, 388, and months 16, 20, 24, 28)   
        Methotrexate*1,500 mg/m21IV
        l-asparaginase10,000 U/m22IV
    CPM/araC (on days 105, 262, 346, and months 14, 18, 22, 26, 30)   
        Cyclophosphamide1 g/m21IV
        Cytarabine500 mg/m21IV
    RT/MP (from day 130 to 145)   
        Cranial irradiation18 Gy  
        Mercaptopurine60 mg/m2/d1-15PO
    VAD (on days 160 and 190)   
        Vincristine0.4 mg1, 2, 3, 4IV
        Doxorubicin12 mg/m21, 2, 3, 4IV
        Dexamethasone40 mg1, 2, 3, 4IV
    MP/MTX (between maintenance courses from day 220 to month 30)   
        Mercaptopurine60 mg/m2/d PO
        Methotrexate15 mg/m2/wk IM
Abbreviations: ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; IV, intravenously; TD, total dose; PO, orally; MTZ, mitoxantrone; IDaraC, intermediate-dose cytarabine; CMP, cyclophosphamide; MP, mercaptopurine; araC, cytarabine; RT, radiation therapy; MTX, methotrexate; Aspa, l-asparaginase; VAD, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone; IM, intramuscularly.
*
Administered over 30 minutes.
Table 2. Clinical and Biologic Characteristics of the 922 Patients at Diagnosis
CharacteristicNo. of Patients%
Age, years  
    Median33 
    Range15-55 
Sex  
    Male596 
    Female326 
Mediastinal mass  
    Yes16518
    No740 
Organomegaly  
    Yes61367
    No307 
CNS involvement  
    Yes627
    No860 
Bleeding  
    Yes23125
    No680 
Fever ≥ 38.5°C  
    Yes26930
    No639 
WHO performance status  
    0264 
    1456 
    2136 
    336 
    48 
    ND22 
Hemoglobin, g/L (n = 909)  
    Median97 
    Range30-174 
    < 10047152
    100-12019922
    ≥ 12023926
WBC count, × 109/L (n = 922)  
    Median14.4 
    Range0.2-920 
    < 420322
    4-1018520
    10-3018820
    ≥ 3034638
Platelet count, × 109/L (n = 919)  
    Median55 
    Range2-621 
    < 5042246
    50-10022524
    100-20016017
    ≥ 20011213
Peripheral-blood blast cells, %  
    Median57 
    Range0-100 
Bone marrow blast cells, %  
    Median91 
    Range20-100 
FAB classification*  
    L1346 
    L2301 
    L30 
    Unclassifiable59 
Immunophenotype  
    B lineage64772
    T lineage23926
    Undifferentiated162
Karyotype and/or molecular biology  
    t(4;11)/MLL-AF4364
    Ph+/BCR-ABL19823
    t(1;19)/E2A-PBX1263
Abbreviations: ND, not determined; FAB, French-American-British classification; Ph+, presence of Philadelphia chromosome.
*
Determined in 706 patients.
Determined in 902 patients.
Determined in 863 patients.
Table 3. Results of Induction Chemotherapy According to Risk Groups
OutcomeGroup 1 (standard risk)Group 2 (high risk)Group 3 (Ph-positive)Group 4 (CNS-positive)All Patients
First induction     
    No. of patients430*23819856922
    CR rate, %8366537372
    Failure, %1528451625
    Death, %262113
Salvage therapy     
    No. of patients58*61829210
    CR rate, %6748447853
    Failure, %2844522242
    Death, %58405
Abbreviations: Ph+, presence of Philadelphia chromosome; CR, complete remission; SCT, stem-cell transplantation.
*
Patients allocated in the standard-risk group based on criteria defined at time of diagnosis. Patients in CR after salvage therapy will enter the high-risk group and follow first the genetic randomization and, in absence of sibling donor, the randomization between autologous SCT and chemotherapy.
Table 4. DFS According to Risk Groups
Risk GroupNo. of PatientsMedian DFS (months)3-Year DFS (%)5-Year DFS (%)
Group 1 (standard-risk ALL)30723.84135
Group 2 (high-risk ALL)21115.63830
Group 3 (Ph-positive ALL)1408.72420
Group 4 (CNS-positive ALL)4819.24441
All patients771*17.53730
Abbreviations: DFS, disease-free survival; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; Ph, Philadelphia; CR, complete remission.
*
Among the 771 patients who achieved CR, 65 (8%) were not allocated to a postremission group of treatment.
Table 5. Cumulative Incidence of TRM and Relapse According to Treatment Modality
Treatment Modality*No. of Patients3-Year Cumulative Incidence of TRM (%)5-Year Cumulative Incidence of TRM (%)P3-Year Cumulative Incidence of Relapse (%)5-Year Cumulative Incidence of Relapse (%)P
Group 1       
    Intensive arm15335NS4953NS
    Not-intensive arm15449 4653 
Group 2       
    Chemotherapy59028NS6770NS
    Autologous SCT70717 5460 
Groups 2 + 4       
    Sibling donor1001818.013436.001
    No sibling donor159718 5862 
Group 3       
    Allogeneic SCT752222NS5358.003
    Autologous SCT652626 7790 
Abbreviations: TRM, treatment-related mortality; NS, not significant; SCT, stem-cell transplantation.
*
Allocation on an intention-to-treat basis.
Table 6. Prognostic Factors for Disease-Free Survival
GroupUnivariate AnalysisMultivariate Analysis  
 PPRR95% CI
All patients    
    WBC count< .0001.051.321.01 to 1.73
    Age.0001.011.551.18 to 2.03
    Response on day 8.02.021.431.06 to 1.92
Standard-risk ALL (group 1)    
    WBC count.003.011.461.09 to 1.95
    Arm of first     randomization.04.0031.481.13 to 1.92
    Response on day 8.01.031.521.01 to 2.28
    Time to CR achievement.01 
High-risk ALL (group 2)    
    WBC count.03.0012.061.30 to 3.25
    Age.02.0031.861.24 to 2.79
Ph-positive ALL (group 3)    
    WBC count.02.0021.971.29 to 3.01
    Time to CR achievement.01 
    Age.011.801.09 to 2.99
CNS-positive ALL (group 4)    
    Response on day 8.04 
    Time to CR achievement< .0001 
NOTE. Favorable prognostic factors are WBC count < 30 × 109/L, age < 35 years, early response, one course of induction therapy for CR achievement, and idarubicin arm during the first induction therapy.
Abbreviations: RR, relative risk; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; CR, complete remission; Ph-positive, presence of Philadelphia chromosome.
Supported in part by PHRC No. 94-95-97.02, Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, France.
Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.

References

1.
Hoelzer D: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Progress in children, less in adults. N Engl J Med 329:: 1343,1993-1344,
2.
Durrant IJ, Prentice HG, Richards SM: Intensification of treatment for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: Results of U.K. Medical Research Council randomized trial UKALL XA: Medical Research Council Working Party on Leukaemia in Adults. Br J Haematol 99:: 84,1997-92,
3.
Fiere D, Lepage E, Sebban C, et al: Adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A multicentric randomized trial testing bone marrow transplantation as postremission therapy. J Clin Oncol 11:: 1990,1993-2001,
4.
Hoelzer D, Thiel E, Ludwig WD, et al: Follow-up of the first two successive German multicentre trials for adult ALL (01/81 and 02/84). German Adult ALL Study Group. Leukemia 7:: S130,1993-S134, (suppl 2)
5.
Larson RA, Dodge RK, Burns CP, et al: A five-drug remission induction regimen with intensive consolidation for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Cancer and Leukemia Group B study 8811. Blood 85:: 2025,1995-2037,
6.
Mandelli F, Annino L, Rotoli B: The GIMEMA ALL 0183 trial: Analysis of 10-year follow-up. GIMEME Cooperative Group, Italy. Br J Haematol 92:: 663,1996-672,
7.
Kantarjian HM, O’Brien S, Smith TL, et al: Results of treatment with Hyper-CVAD, a dose-intensive regimen, in adult acute lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 18:: 547,2000-561,
8.
Sebban C, Lepage E, Vernant JP, et al: Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first complete remission: A comparative study. J Clin Oncol 12:: 2580,1994-2587,
9.
Thiebaut A, Vernant JP, Degos L, et al: Adult acute lymphocytic leukemia study testing chemotherapy and autologous and allogeneic transplantation: A follow-up report of the French protocol LALA 87. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 14:: 1353,2000-1365,
10.
Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al: Proposals for the classification of the acute leukaemias: French-American-British (FAB) Co-operative Group. Br J Haematol 33:: 451,1976-458,
11.
Thomas ED, Sanders JE, Flournoy N, et al: Marrow transplantation for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in remission. Blood 54:: 468,1979-476,
12.
World Health Organization: Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. WHO Offset Publication no. 48 . Geneva, Switzerland, WHO, 1979
13.
Klein JP, Rizzo JD, Zhang MJ, et al: Statistical methods for the analysis and presentation of the results of bone marrow transplants. Part I: Unadjusted analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant 28:: 909,2001-915,
14.
Dombret H, Gabert J, Boiron JM, et al: Outcome of treatment in adults with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Results of the prospective multicenter LALA-94 trial. Blood 100:: 2357,2002-2366,
15.
Gaynor J, Chapman D, Little C, et al: A cause-specific hazard rate analysis of prognostic factors among 199 adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: The Memorial Hospital experience since 1969. J Clin Oncol 6:: 1014,1988-1030,
16.
Weiss M, Maslak P, Felman E, et al: Cytarabine with high dose mitoxantrone induces rapid complete remission in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia without the use of vincristine or prednisone. J Clin Oncol 14:: 2480,1996-2485,
17.
Thomas X, Danaïla C, Bach QK, et al: Sequential induction chemotherapy with vincristine, daunorubicin, cyclophosphamide and prednisone in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Ann Hematol 70:: 65,1995-69,
18.
Kantarjian HM, Walters RS, Keating MJ, et al: Results of the vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone regimen in adults with standard and high-risk acute lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 8:: 994,1990-1004,
19.
Rohatiner AZ, Bassan R, Battista R, et al: High dose cytosine arabinoside in the initial treatment of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Br J Cancer 62:: 454,1990-458,
20.
Cassileth PA, Andersen JW, Bennett JM, et al: Adult acute lymphocytic leukemia: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group experience. Leukemia 6:: 178,1992-181, (suppl 2)
21.
Hoelzer D, Thiel E, Ludwig WD, et al: The German multicentre trials for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults. Leukemia 6:: 175,1992-177, (suppl 2)
22.
Gottlieb AJ, Weinberg V, Ellison RR, et al: Efficacy of daunorubicin in the therapy of adult acute lymphocytic leukemia: A prospective randomized trial by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Blood 64:: 267,1984-274,
23.
Todeschini G, Meneghini V, Pizzolo G, et al: Relationship between daunorubicin dosage delivered during induction therapy and outcome in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 8:: 376,1994-381,
24.
Todeschini G, Tecchio C, Meneghini V, et al: Estimated 6-year event-free survival of 55% in 60 consecutive adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients treated with an intensive phase II protocol based on high induction dose of daunorubicin. Leukemia 12:: 144,1998-149,
25.
Oh H, Gale RP, Zhang MJ, et al: Chemotherapy vs HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplants for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first remission. Bone Marrow Transplant 22:: 253,1998-257,
26.
Zhang MJ, Hoelzer D, Horowitz MM, et al: Long-term follow-up of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first remission treated with chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation. Ann Intern Med 123:: 428,1995-431,
27.
Hoelzer D, Thiel E, Löffler H, et al: Prognostic factors in a multicenter study for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults. Blood 71:: 123,1988-131,
28.
Charrin C, Dastugue N, Bilhou-Nabera B, et al: Prospective karyotype analysis in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A LALA Group (French-Belgium-Switzerland) report of 730 cases. Blood 100:: 153a,2002, (abstr 575)
29.
Simonsson B, Burnett AK, Prentice HG, et al: Autologous bone marrow transplantation with monoclonal antibody purged marrow for high risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 3:: 631,1989-636,
30.
Powles R, Mehta J, Singhal S, et al: Autologous bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation followed by maintenance chemotherapy for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first remission: 50 cases from a single center. Bone Marrow Transplant 16:: 241,1995-247,
31.
Dhedin N, Thomas X, Huguet F, et al: No superiority of autologous stem cell transplantation over chemotherapy alone in adult Ph-negative ALL in first complete remission: A long follow-up report combining results of LALA 85, 87 and 94 trials. Blood 100:: 217a,2002, (abstr 815)
32.
Stryckmans P, de Witte T, Marie JP, et al: Therapy of adult ALL: Overview of 2 successive EORTC studies: (ALL-2 & ALL-3)—The EORTC Leukemia Cooperative Study Group. Leukemia 6:: 199,1992-203, (suppl 2)
33.
Ellison RR, Mick R, Cuttner J, et al: The effects of postinduction intensification treatment with cytarabine and daunorubicin in adult acute lymphocytic leukemia: A prospective randomized clinical trial by Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Clin Oncol 9:: 2002,1991-2015,
34.
Linker CA, Levitt LJ, O’Donnell M, et al: Treatment of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia with intensive cyclical chemotherapy: A follow-up report. Blood 78:: 2814,1991-2822,
35.
Boucheix C, David B, Sebban C, et al: Immunophenotype of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia, clinical parameters and outcome: An analysis of a prospective trial including 562 tested patients (LALA-87). Blood 84:: 1603,1994-1612,
36.
Thomas X, Danaïla C, Le QH, et al: Long-term follow-up of patients with newly diagnosed adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A single institution experience of 378 consecutive patients over a 21-year period. Leukemia 15:: 1811,2001-1822,
37.
Kantarjian HM, Walters RS, Smith TL, et al: Identification of risk groups for development of central nervous system leukemia in adults with acute lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 72:: 1784,1988-1789,
38.
Mahmoud HH, Rivera GK, Hancock ML, et al: Low leukocyte counts with blast cells in cerebrospinal fluid of children with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 329:: 314,1993-319,

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Journal of Clinical Oncology
Pages: 4075 - 4086
PubMed: 15353542

History

Published in print: October 15, 2004
Published online: September 21, 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Xavier Thomas
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Jean-Michel Boiron
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Françoise Huguet
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Hervé Dombret
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Ken Bradstock
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Norbert Vey
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Tibor Kovacsovics
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
André Delannoy
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Nathalie Fegueux
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Pierre Fenaux
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Aspasia Stamatoullas
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Jean-Paul Vernant
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Olivier Tournilhac
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Agnès Buzyn
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Oumedaly Reman
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Christiane Charrin
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Claude Boucheix
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Jean Gabert
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Véronique Lhéritier
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Denis Fiere
From the Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Hôpital du Haut Levêque, Pessac; Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse; Hôpital Saint-Louis; Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière; Hôpital Necker, Paris; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille; Centre Hospitalier Lapeyronie, Montpellier; Centre Hospitalier, Lille; Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hôtel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier, Caen; L’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U268, Villejuif, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland; Hôpital de Jolimont, Haine St Paul, Belgium; and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia

Notes

Address reprint requests to Xavier Thomas, MD, PhD, Service d’Hématologie, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, 69437, Lyon Cedex 03, France; e-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Altmetric

Citations

Article Citation

Download Citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format





Download article citation data for:
Xavier Thomas, Jean-Michel Boiron, Françoise Huguet, Hervé Dombret, Ken Bradstock, Norbert Vey, Tibor Kovacsovics, André Delannoy, Nathalie Fegueux, Pierre Fenaux, Aspasia Stamatoullas, Jean-Paul Vernant, Olivier Tournilhac, Agnès Buzyn, Oumedaly Reman, Christiane Charrin, Claude Boucheix, Jean Gabert, Véronique Lhéritier, Denis Fiere
Journal of Clinical Oncology 2004 22:20, 4075-4086

View Options

View options

PDF

View PDF

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Personal login Institutional Login

Purchase Options

Purchase this article to get full access to it.

Purchase this Article

Subscribe

Subscribe to this Journal
Renew Your Subscription
Become a Member

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share