The Treatment of Elderly Patients with Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas: Feasibility and Efficacy of an Intensive Multidrug Regimen

Abstract

The results of a prospective trial of an 8 week treatment for elderly patients with advanced intermadiate -high grade NHL are reported. Our aim was to reduce general toxicity without losing an antilymphoma effect. For this reason the use of growth factor was studied. We also analysed the behaviour of different histological groups (E + F vs G + H). From November 1991 to November 1993 100 patients older than 65 years with combination intermediate-high grade advanced stage NHL were treated with the P-VEBEC regimen, an original including epirubicin 50 mg/sqm, cyclophosphamide 300 mg/sqm and etoposide 100 mg/sqm on weeks 1, 3, 5, 7; vinblastine 5 mg/sqm and bleomycin 5 mg/sqm on weeks 2, 4, 6, 8; prednisone 50 mg/sqm/day per os in the first two weeks and thereafter every other day. 46 pts received rG-CSF 5 μg/Kg/day throughout the treatment starting on day 2 of every week for 4 consecutive days. Twenty eight pts had B symptoms, 41 had bulky disease, 37 LDH levels above normal, 50 stage IV patients and 30 had bone marrow involvement. Sixty two percent achieved a complete remission (CR). Adverse prognostic factors for CR were E and F histology, stage IV disease, bone marrow infiltration, serum LDH levels above normal, international Prognostic Index (I.I.) intermediate-high and high risk categories and relative dose intensity (RDI) less than 0.80. Severe toxicity was rarely recorded and only one toxic death was observed. With a median follow-up of 33 months OS, DFS and EFS were 44%, 60% and 30% respectively. EFS was influenced by stage, BM involvement, level of LDH and I.I. intermediate-high and high risks. The 52 patients with DLCL (diffuse large cell lymphomas—G + H according to WF) did better with a higher CR, OS, DFS and EFS rates, than the other WF subtypes. In conclusion P-VEBEC is a feasible combination to use in elderly patients, mainly in DLCL. The use of rG-CSF improves the RDI. A RDI >0.80 could play a role in improving the outcome, expecially in patients with adverse prognostic factors. For other subgroups another schedule is probably justified.