The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

CHOP versus GEM-P in previously untreated patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (CHEMO-T): a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, open-label trial

CHOP versus GEM-P in previously untreated patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (CHEMO-T): a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, open-label trial
CHOP versus GEM-P in previously untreated patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (CHEMO-T): a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, open-label trial

Background: Outcomes with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) or CHOP-like chemotherapy in peripheral T-cell lymphoma are poor. We investigated whether the regimen of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and methylprednisolone (GEM-P) was superior to CHOP as front-line therapy in previously untreated patients. 

Methods: We did a phase 2, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label randomised trial in 47 hospitals: 46 in the UK and one in Australia. Participants were patients aged 18 years and older with bulky (tumour mass diameter >10 cm) stage I to stage IV disease (WHO performance status 0–3), previously untreated peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma, enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, or hepatosplenic γδ T-cell lymphoma. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) stratified by subtype of peripheral T-cell lymphoma and international prognostic index to either CHOP (intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 [maximum 2 mg] on day 1, and oral prednisolone 100 mg on days 1–5) every 21 days for six cycles; or GEM-P (intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 15, and oral or intravenous methylprednisolone 1000 mg on days 1–5) every 28 days for four cycles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a CT-based complete response or unconfirmed complete response on completion of study chemotherapy, to detect a 20% superiority of GEM-P compared with CHOP, assessed in all patients who received at least one cycle of treatment and had an end-of-treatment CT scan or reported clinical progression as the reason for stopping trial treatment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01719835) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2011-004146-18). 

Findings: Between June 18, 2012, and Nov 16, 2016, we randomly assigned 87 patients to treatment, 43 to CHOP and 44 to GEM-P. A planned unmasked review of efficacy data by the independent data monitoring committee in November, 2016, showed that the number of patients with a confirmed or unconfirmed complete response with GEM-P was non-significantly inferior compared with CHOP and the trial was closed early. At a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 16·6–38·4), 23 patients (62%) of 37 assessable patients assigned to CHOP had achieved a complete response or unconfirmed complete response compared with 17 (46%) of 37 assigned to GEM-P (odds ratio 0·52, 95% CI 0·21–1·31; p=0·164). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse in both groups were neutropenia (17 [40%] with CHOP and nine [20%] with GEM-P), thrombocytopenia (4 [10%] with CHOP and 13 [30%] with GEM-P, and febrile neutropenia (12 [29%] with CHOP and 3 [7%] with GEM-P). Two patients (5%) died during the study, both in the GEM-P group, from lung infections. 

Interpretation: The number of patients with a complete response or unconfirmed complete response did not differ between the groups, indicating that GEM-P was not superior for this outcome. CHOP should therefore remain the reference regimen for previously untreated peripheral T-cell lymphoma. 

Funding: Bloodwise and the UK National Institute of Health Research.

2352-3026
e190-e200
Gleeson, Mary
7216a9b4-a43f-4efb-87a9-0db73d25e8c7
Peckitt, Clare
de63cc87-f38f-4b83-a60b-f1c73dbc30bb
To, Ye Mong
eee97458-65ec-4688-86fa-0adfc71b149e
Edwards, Laurice
c76a7c9d-ae27-412a-9ee4-01686ddfd6df
Oates, Jacqueline
95e92193-7150-4f4d-93fd-57918eebacbd
Wotherspoon, Andrew
e801e039-c7b8-4f2f-969c-2bd40347b871
Attygalle, Ayoma D.
b0864836-071e-4968-addd-b64bb6251e4c
Zerizer, Imene
e7e2f25c-de84-4164-8ae1-ec6a704913da
Sharma, Bhupinder
3a8d51fd-12f2-44a1-b49b-f30bc7ab1555
Chua, Sue
96c04460-d696-4bab-8b77-6912c2f50eff
Begum, Ruwaida
52368bb8-1cc3-4e39-96b3-c6081cdf0910
Chau, Ian
77e24001-6045-49ff-99c5-a49f708ba5da
Johnson, Peter
3f6068ce-171e-4c2c-aca9-dc9b6a37413f
Ardeshna, Kirit M.
98fccf22-81b5-41be-8776-cc428467e6f5
Hawkes, Eliza A.
57288a96-5497-4f55-b61d-2bc50176f542
Macheta, Marian P.
a07630c6-c693-4cc6-ad0e-82f8598f71d6
Collins, Graham P.
450338cb-2bb0-4cef-90a7-7bcd47a12e2f
Radford, John
10af63a2-6f8d-4305-b150-0e76925a64aa
Forbes, Adam
7822d171-e511-4860-9bfe-03376f7f4e44
Hart, Alistair
dae1eca1-aa10-48e0-a97a-ac16b6031ca2
Montoto, Silvia
890fe3f0-1910-49b4-97d4-993e2701052f
McKay, Pamela
aa139813-ec16-4255-ba75-043f685a52d2
Benstead, Kim
3cf310f4-8bc4-48fe-abe0-a5dcdfcc235e
Morley, Nicholas
def8aec4-c2a3-4143-bf8d-51650d4da536
Kalakonda, Nagesh
c3b15004-be3f-4fd8-afee-9f1c3a664a0b
Hasan, Yasmin
f7c5ca60-bb0b-446c-9296-7bfdbefbc8a5
Turner, Deborah
8a553843-7b10-4980-9b79-b039edc7f157
Cunningham, David
c40c8fe4-7eac-4b98-aaa5-b866da1e32ab
Gleeson, Mary
7216a9b4-a43f-4efb-87a9-0db73d25e8c7
Peckitt, Clare
de63cc87-f38f-4b83-a60b-f1c73dbc30bb
To, Ye Mong
eee97458-65ec-4688-86fa-0adfc71b149e
Edwards, Laurice
c76a7c9d-ae27-412a-9ee4-01686ddfd6df
Oates, Jacqueline
95e92193-7150-4f4d-93fd-57918eebacbd
Wotherspoon, Andrew
e801e039-c7b8-4f2f-969c-2bd40347b871
Attygalle, Ayoma D.
b0864836-071e-4968-addd-b64bb6251e4c
Zerizer, Imene
e7e2f25c-de84-4164-8ae1-ec6a704913da
Sharma, Bhupinder
3a8d51fd-12f2-44a1-b49b-f30bc7ab1555
Chua, Sue
96c04460-d696-4bab-8b77-6912c2f50eff
Begum, Ruwaida
52368bb8-1cc3-4e39-96b3-c6081cdf0910
Chau, Ian
77e24001-6045-49ff-99c5-a49f708ba5da
Johnson, Peter
3f6068ce-171e-4c2c-aca9-dc9b6a37413f
Ardeshna, Kirit M.
98fccf22-81b5-41be-8776-cc428467e6f5
Hawkes, Eliza A.
57288a96-5497-4f55-b61d-2bc50176f542
Macheta, Marian P.
a07630c6-c693-4cc6-ad0e-82f8598f71d6
Collins, Graham P.
450338cb-2bb0-4cef-90a7-7bcd47a12e2f
Radford, John
10af63a2-6f8d-4305-b150-0e76925a64aa
Forbes, Adam
7822d171-e511-4860-9bfe-03376f7f4e44
Hart, Alistair
dae1eca1-aa10-48e0-a97a-ac16b6031ca2
Montoto, Silvia
890fe3f0-1910-49b4-97d4-993e2701052f
McKay, Pamela
aa139813-ec16-4255-ba75-043f685a52d2
Benstead, Kim
3cf310f4-8bc4-48fe-abe0-a5dcdfcc235e
Morley, Nicholas
def8aec4-c2a3-4143-bf8d-51650d4da536
Kalakonda, Nagesh
c3b15004-be3f-4fd8-afee-9f1c3a664a0b
Hasan, Yasmin
f7c5ca60-bb0b-446c-9296-7bfdbefbc8a5
Turner, Deborah
8a553843-7b10-4980-9b79-b039edc7f157
Cunningham, David
c40c8fe4-7eac-4b98-aaa5-b866da1e32ab

Gleeson, Mary, Peckitt, Clare, To, Ye Mong, Edwards, Laurice, Oates, Jacqueline, Wotherspoon, Andrew, Attygalle, Ayoma D., Zerizer, Imene, Sharma, Bhupinder, Chua, Sue, Begum, Ruwaida, Chau, Ian, Johnson, Peter, Ardeshna, Kirit M., Hawkes, Eliza A., Macheta, Marian P., Collins, Graham P., Radford, John, Forbes, Adam, Hart, Alistair, Montoto, Silvia, McKay, Pamela, Benstead, Kim, Morley, Nicholas, Kalakonda, Nagesh, Hasan, Yasmin, Turner, Deborah and Cunningham, David (2018) CHOP versus GEM-P in previously untreated patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (CHEMO-T): a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, open-label trial. The Lancet Haematology, 5 (5), e190-e200. (doi:10.1016/S2352-3026(18)30039-5).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Outcomes with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) or CHOP-like chemotherapy in peripheral T-cell lymphoma are poor. We investigated whether the regimen of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and methylprednisolone (GEM-P) was superior to CHOP as front-line therapy in previously untreated patients. 

Methods: We did a phase 2, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label randomised trial in 47 hospitals: 46 in the UK and one in Australia. Participants were patients aged 18 years and older with bulky (tumour mass diameter >10 cm) stage I to stage IV disease (WHO performance status 0–3), previously untreated peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma, enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, or hepatosplenic γδ T-cell lymphoma. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) stratified by subtype of peripheral T-cell lymphoma and international prognostic index to either CHOP (intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 [maximum 2 mg] on day 1, and oral prednisolone 100 mg on days 1–5) every 21 days for six cycles; or GEM-P (intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 15, and oral or intravenous methylprednisolone 1000 mg on days 1–5) every 28 days for four cycles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a CT-based complete response or unconfirmed complete response on completion of study chemotherapy, to detect a 20% superiority of GEM-P compared with CHOP, assessed in all patients who received at least one cycle of treatment and had an end-of-treatment CT scan or reported clinical progression as the reason for stopping trial treatment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01719835) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2011-004146-18). 

Findings: Between June 18, 2012, and Nov 16, 2016, we randomly assigned 87 patients to treatment, 43 to CHOP and 44 to GEM-P. A planned unmasked review of efficacy data by the independent data monitoring committee in November, 2016, showed that the number of patients with a confirmed or unconfirmed complete response with GEM-P was non-significantly inferior compared with CHOP and the trial was closed early. At a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 16·6–38·4), 23 patients (62%) of 37 assessable patients assigned to CHOP had achieved a complete response or unconfirmed complete response compared with 17 (46%) of 37 assigned to GEM-P (odds ratio 0·52, 95% CI 0·21–1·31; p=0·164). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse in both groups were neutropenia (17 [40%] with CHOP and nine [20%] with GEM-P), thrombocytopenia (4 [10%] with CHOP and 13 [30%] with GEM-P, and febrile neutropenia (12 [29%] with CHOP and 3 [7%] with GEM-P). Two patients (5%) died during the study, both in the GEM-P group, from lung infections. 

Interpretation: The number of patients with a complete response or unconfirmed complete response did not differ between the groups, indicating that GEM-P was not superior for this outcome. CHOP should therefore remain the reference regimen for previously untreated peripheral T-cell lymphoma. 

Funding: Bloodwise and the UK National Institute of Health Research.

Text
1-s2.0-S2352302618300395-main - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (349kB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 24 April 2018
Published date: 1 May 2018

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 420538
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/420538
ISSN: 2352-3026
PURE UUID: 405c3d9f-122b-4db6-8000-e40e48b3ed3c
ORCID for Peter Johnson: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-2306-4974

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 May 2018 16:30
Last modified: 19 Jul 2019 01:08

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Mary Gleeson
Author: Clare Peckitt
Author: Ye Mong To
Author: Laurice Edwards
Author: Jacqueline Oates
Author: Andrew Wotherspoon
Author: Ayoma D. Attygalle
Author: Imene Zerizer
Author: Bhupinder Sharma
Author: Sue Chua
Author: Ruwaida Begum
Author: Ian Chau
Author: Peter Johnson ORCID iD
Author: Kirit M. Ardeshna
Author: Eliza A. Hawkes
Author: Marian P. Macheta
Author: Graham P. Collins
Author: John Radford
Author: Adam Forbes
Author: Alistair Hart
Author: Silvia Montoto
Author: Pamela McKay
Author: Kim Benstead
Author: Nicholas Morley
Author: Nagesh Kalakonda
Author: Yasmin Hasan
Author: Deborah Turner
Author: David Cunningham

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×