Evidence Hub

Randomized comparison of rotational chemotherapy in high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukaemia of childhood--follow up after 9 years. Coall Study Group

Janka-Schaub GE, Harms D, Goebel U, Graubner U, Gutjahr P, Haas RJ, Juergens H, Spaar HJ et al.

European journal of pediatrics, 1996

101 participants

Abstract

UNLABELLED: A frequent change of drug combinations may circumvent drug resistance in the treatment of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). In study COALL 85/89 201 children with high-risk ALL were randomized to receive over a period of 8 months rotational chemotherapy with six drug combinations given either in slow rotation (SR) (each combination given twice in succession) or in rapid rotation (RR) (each combination given once with a repetition of the drug combinations). Treatment of central nervous system leukaemia consisted of cranial irradiation and intrathecal methotrexate. Both SR and RR treatment groups were then given continuation chemotherapy of oral 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate until 2 years after the date of diagnosis. The 9-year event-free survival (EFS) rate for the whole group is 69% +/- 3%, and the survival rate 75% +/- 3% at a median follow up of 5.8 years. Failure to achieve remission at day 28 was the most important prognostic factor (EFS 12% +/- 7% vs. 75% +/- 3% in the remission group). In the RR group, 11/100 patients were not in remission at day 28 opposed to 7/101 patients in the SR group. Children aged or = 10 years had a worse prognosis (EFS 64% +/- 5% vs. 77% +/- 4% in patients 1-10 years old). After 5 years EFS was inferior in the RR group attributable to a significantly higher relapse rate in children with a WBC > or = 100/nl. The EFS at 9 years for all patients, however, is similar in both groups (SR 72% +/- 5% vs. RR 67 +/-…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 101 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free