Font Size
A
A
A

Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treatment (Professional) (cont.)

Postinduction Treatment for Specific ALL Subgroups

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

T-cell ALL

Historically, patients with T-cell ALL have had a worse prognosis than children with precursor B-cell ALL. With current treatment regimens, outcomes for children with T-cell ALL are now approaching those achieved for children with precursor B-cell ALL. For example, the 5-year event-free survival (EFS) for children with T-cell ALL treated on the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) Consortium ALL protocols was 75% compared with 84% for children with precursor B-cell ALL.[1]

Treatment options

Protocols of the former Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) treated children with T-cell ALL differently from children with B-lineage ALL. The POG-9404 protocol for patients with T-cell ALL was designed to evaluate the role of high-dose methotrexate. The multiagent chemotherapy regimen for this protocol was based on the DFCI-87001 regimen.[2] Results of an interim analysis of the POG protocol led investigators to conclude that the addition of high-dose methotrexate to the DFCI-based chemotherapy regimen resulted in significantly improved EFS, due in large measure to a decrease in the rate of central nervous system (CNS) relapse (estimated 3-year EFS 80%).[3] This POG study was the first clinical trial to provide evidence that high-dose methotrexate can improve outcome for children with T-cell ALL. High-dose asparaginase and doxorubicin were also important components of this regimen.[1,3]

Protocols of the former Children's Cancer Group (CCG) treated children with T-cell ALL on the same treatment regimens as children with precursor B-cell ALL, basing protocol and treatment assignment on the patients' clinical characteristics (e.g., age and white blood cell [WBC] count) and the disease response to initial therapy. Most children with T-cell ALL meet National Cancer Institute (NCI) high-risk criteria. Results from CCG-1961 showed that an augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Muenster (BFM) regimen with a single delayed intensification course produced the best results for patients with morphologic rapid response to initial induction therapy (estimated 5-year EFS 83%).[4] Almost 60% of events in this group, however, were isolated CNS relapses. Overall results from POG-9404 and CCG-1961 were similar, though POG-9404 used cranial radiation for every patient while CCG-1961 used cranial radiation only for patients with slow morphologic response.[5,3] Among children with NCI standard-risk T-cell ALL, the EFS for children treated on CCG-1952 and COG-1991 studies was inferior to the EFS for children treated on the POG-9404 study.[6]

In the Children's Oncology Group (COG), children with T-cell ALL are no longer treated on the same protocols as children with precursor B-cell ALL. Pilot studies from the COG have demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating nelarabine (a nucleoside analog with demonstrated activity in patients with relapsed and refractory T-cell lymphoblastic disease) [7,8] in the context of a BFM regimen for patients with newly diagnosed T-cell ALL; efficacy is being evaluated in the current trial.[9]

The role of prophylactic cranial radiation in the treatment of T-cell ALL is controversial. Some groups, such as St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (SJCRH) and the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group (DCOG), do not use cranial radiation in first-line treatment of ALL, while other groups, such as DFCI, COG, and BFM, use radiation for the majority of patients with T-cell ALL.

Treatment options under clinical evaluation

The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI Web site.

  • COG-AALL0434(Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Young Patients With Newly Diagnosed T-Cell ALL or T-cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma): COG-AALL0434 is a phase III trial for patients aged 1 to 30 years with T-cell ALL utilizing a modified augmented BFM regimen. Patients are classified into one of three risk groups (low, intermediate, or high) based on NCI age/leukocyte criteria, CNS status at diagnosis, morphologic marrow response on days 15 and 29, and minimal residual disease (MRD) level at day 29. The objectives of the trial are (1) to determine the safety and efficacy of adding nelarabine to the modified augmented BFM regimen in high- and intermediate-risk patients, (2) to determine the relative safety and efficacy of high-dose (5 g/m2) versus Capizzi escalating lower dose methotrexate without rescue during interim maintenance, and (3) to test the efficacy of treating NCI standard-risk T-cell ALL patients who are rapid responders (about 15% of patients) without cranial radiation.

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's list of cancer clinical trials that are now accepting patients with T-cell childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

Infants With ALL

Infant ALL is uncommon, representing approximately 2% to 4% of cases of childhood ALL.[10] Because of their distinctive biological characteristics and their high risk for leukemia recurrence, infants with ALL are treated on protocols specifically designed for this patient population. Common therapeutic themes of the intensive chemotherapy regimens used to treat infants with ALL are the inclusion of postinduction intensification courses with high doses of cytarabine and methotrexate.[11,12,13] Despite intensification of therapy, long-term EFS rates remain below 50%, and for those infants with MLL gene rearrangement, the EFS rates continue to be in the 17% to 40% range.[11,12,14,15,16][Level of evidence: 2A] Factors predicting poor outcome for infants with MLL translocations include a very young age (<6 months), extremely high presenting leukocyte count (=200,000–300,000/µL), and high levels of MRD at the end of induction and consolidation phases of treatment.[12]; [17][Level of evidence: 3iDii] Infants with congenital leukemia (diagnosed within 1 month of birth) have a particularly poor outcome (17% overall survival).[16][Level of evidence: 2A]

Treatment options

Infants with MLL gene translocations are generally treated on intensified chemotherapy regimens using agents not typically incorporated into frontline therapy for older children with ALL. However, despite these intensified approaches, EFS rates remain poor for these patients. The international Interfant clinical trials consortium utilized a cytarabine-intensive chemotherapy regimen, with increased exposure to both low- and high-dose cytarabine during the first few months of therapy, resulting in a 5-year EFS of 37% for infants with MLL translocations.[12] The COG tested intensification of therapy with a regimen including multiple doses of high-dose methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide, with a 5-year EFS of 34%.[11]

The role of allogeneic stem cell transplant during first remission in infants with MLL gene translocations remains controversial. Case series have suggested that allogeneic transplants in first remission may be effective.[18,19,20]; [21][Level of evidence: 3iA] In a COG report that included 189 infants treated on CCG or POG infant ALL protocols between 1996 and 2000, there was no difference in EFS between patients who received stem cell transplant (SCT) in first complete remission (CR) and those who received chemotherapy alone.[22] The Interfant clinical trials group, after adjusting for waiting time to transplantation, also did not observe any difference in disease-free survival (DFS) in high-risk infants (defined by prednisone response) with MLL translocations treated on the Interfant-99 trial with either allogeneic SCT in first CR or chemotherapy alone.[12] However, in a subset analysis from the same trial, allogeneic SCT in first remission was associated with a significantly better DFS for infants with MLL translocations who were younger than 6 months at diagnosis and had either a poor response to steroids at day 8 or leukocytes =300 g/L.[23] In this subset, SCT in first remission was associated with a 64% reduction in the risk of failure resulting from relapse or death compared with chemotherapy alone.

The optimal treatment for infants without MLL translocations also remains unclear. On the Interfant-99 trial, such patients achieved a relatively favorable outcome with the cytarabine-intensive treatment regimen (4-year EFS was 74%).[12] A favorable outcome for this subset of patients was obtained in a Japanese study using therapy comparable to that used to treat older children with ALL;[14] however, that study was limited by small numbers.

Treatment options under clinical evaluation

The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI Web site.

  • Interfant-06 Study Group trial (DCOG-INTERFANT-06) (Different Therapies in Treating Infants With Newly Diagnosed Acute Leukemia): The Interfant-06 Study Group is conducting an international collaborative randomized trial (including sites in the United States) to test whether an ALL/acute myeloid leukemia hybrid regimen might improve outcomes for infants with MLL-rearranged ALL. The role of allogeneic transplantation in first remission is also being assessed in high-risk patients (defined as infants with MLL-rearranged ALL, younger than 6 months, and WBC >300,000 /µL) or poor peripheral blood response to steroid prophase. Infants with MLL-rearranged ALL with high MRD at end of consolidation phase are also eligible for allogeneic SCT in first remission regardless of other presenting features.
  • COG-AALL0631(Combination Chemotherapy With or Without Lestaurtinib in Treating Infants With Newly Diagnosed ALL): In this COG study of infant ALL, an FLT3 inhibitor, lestaurtinib, is being studied in infants with MLL rearrangement. Infants with MLL rearrangement are known to have a high level of FLT3 mRNA expression and lestaurtinib has been shown to selectively kill MLL-rearranged ALL cells in vitro and in vivo.[24] This study combines lestaurtinib with intensive chemotherapy previously utilized in POG-P9407. There is an initial safety/activity phase followed by an efficacy phase in which children will be randomly assigned to chemotherapy with or without lestaurtinib. Infants with germline MLL will be nonrandomly assigned to less-intensive chemotherapy without lestaurtinib.

Adolescent Patients with ALL

Treatment options

Older children and adolescents (>10 years) with ALL more frequently present with adverse prognostic factors at diagnosis, including T-cell immunophenotype and Philadelphia chromosome–positivity, and have a lower incidence of favorable cytogenetic abnormalities.[25,26] These patients have a less favorable outcome than children aged 1 to 9 years at diagnosis, and more aggressive treatments are generally employed.[27] A study from France of patients aged 15 to 20 years and diagnosed between 1993 and 1999, demonstrated superior outcome for patients treated on a pediatric trial (67%; 5-year EFS) compared with patients treated on an adult trial (41%; 5-year EFS).[28]

Other studies have confirmed that older adolescent patients and young adults fare better on pediatric rather than adult regimens.[26,29,30,31]; [32][Level of evidence: 2A] For instance, the DFCI ALL Consortium reported a 5-year EFS of 78% in adolescents aged 15 to 18 years in a pediatric trial.[26] In the COG high-risk study (CCG-1961), the 5-year EFS rate for patients aged 16 to 21 years was 71.5%.[33][Level of evidence: 1iiDi] For rapid responders randomized to early intensive postinduction therapy on the augmented intensity arms of this study, the 5-year EFS rate was 82%. In a SJCRH study, 44 adolescents aged 15 to 18 years had an EFS of approximately 85% ± 5%.[34] Also, in a Spanish study, adolescents (aged 15–18 years) and young adults (aged 19–30 years) with standard risk ALL were treated with a pediatric-based regimen.[32][Level of evidence: 2A] The complete remission rate was 98%, EFS rate was 61%, and overall survival rate was 69%, with no differences in outcome between adolescents and young adults. Given the relatively favorable outcome that can be obtained in these patients with chemotherapy regimens used for pediatric ALL, there is no role for the routine use of allogeneic SCT in first remission for adolescents and young adults with ALL.[33]

The reason that adolescents and young adults achieve superior outcomes with pediatric regimens is not known, although possible explanations include treatment setting (i.e., site experience in treating ALL), adherence to protocol therapy, and the components of protocol therapy.[29] Adolescents with ALL appear to be at higher risk than younger children for developing therapy-related complications, including osteonecrosis, deep venous thromboses, and pancreatitis.[26,35,36,37] High body mass index is also a risk factor for osteonecrosis,[38] and may be associated with a higher relapse rate in older patients.[39]

Treatment options under clinical evaluation

The following are examples of national and/or institutional clinical trials that are currently being conducted. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI Web site.

  • COG-AALL0434 (Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Young Patients With Newly Diagnosed T-Cell ALL or T-cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma): This is a phase III trial for patients aged 1 to 30 years with T-cell ALL utilizing a modified augmented BFM regimen. Patients are classified into one of three risk groups (low, intermediate, or high) based on NCI age/leukocyte criteria, CNS status at diagnosis, morphologic marrow response on days 15 and 29, and MRD level at day 29. The objectives of the trial are (1) to determine the safety and efficacy of adding nelarabine to the modified augmented BFM regimen in high- and intermediate-risk patients, (2) to determine the relative safety and efficacy of high-dose versus Capizzi methotrexate during interim maintenance, and (3) to test the efficacy of treating low-risk T-cell ALL patients without cranial radiation.
  • CALGB-10403 (Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Young Patients With Newly Diagnosed ALL): This is a phase II trial for adolescent and young adults aged 15 to 40 years with newly diagnosed ALL (B-cell or T-cell) treated with a regimen that is nearly identical to the Capizzi methotrexate arm of the COG-AALL0232 trial and treated by adult hematologists/oncologists at multiple sites.
  • OSU-08066 (Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Adult Patients With Newly Diagnosed ALL): DFCI protocol 06-254 (OSU-08066) is a phase II trial conducted by the DFCI ALL Consortium for patients aged 18 to 50 years with newly diagnosed ALL. The treatment regimen is identical to the very high-risk arm on the pediatric DFCI protocol, DFCI-05001, and includes 30 weeks of postinduction consolidation with intravenous PEG-asparaginase (given every 2 weeks). Older adolescents (aged 15–18 years) are treated on pediatric protocol DFCI-05001 as high-risk patients.

Philadelphia Chromosome–Positive ALL

Treatment options

Prior to use of imatinib mesylate (see below), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) from a matched sibling donor was the treatment of choice for patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) ALL.[40,41,42] Data to support this include a retrospective multigroup analysis of children and young adults with Ph+ ALL, in which HSCT from a matched sibling donor was associated with a better outcome compared with standard (pre-imatinib) chemotherapy.[43] In this retrospective analysis, Ph+ ALL patients undergoing HSCT from an unrelated donor had a very poor outcome. However, in a follow-up study by the same group evaluating outcomes in the subsequent decade (pre-imatinib era), transplantation with matched-related or matched-unrelated donors were equivalent. Disease-free survival at the 5-year time point showed an advantage for transplantation in first remission compared with chemotherapy that was borderline significant (P = .049), and overall survival was also higher for transplantation compared with chemotherapy, although the advantage at 5 years was not significant.[44]

Factors significantly associated with favorable prognosis in the pre-imatinib era included younger age and lower leukocyte count at diagnosis.[44] Early response measures were also shown to be prognostically significant in patients with Ph+ ALL in the pre-imatinib era.[44,45,46] Patients with Ph+ ALL who showed a rapid morphologic response or peripheral blood response to induction therapy had an improved outcome compared with patients who showed a slow response.[44,45] Following MRD by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for the BCR-ABL fusion transcript may also be useful to help predict outcome for Ph+ patients.[47,48,49]

Imatinib mesylate is a selective inhibitor of the BCR-ABL protein kinase. Phase I and II studies of single-agent imatinib in children and adults with relapsed or refractory Ph+ ALL have demonstrated relatively high response rates, although these responses tended to be of short duration.[50,51] Clinical trials in adults and children with Ph+ ALL have demonstrated the feasibility of administering imatinib mesylate in combination with multiagent chemotherapy.[52,53,54] Preliminary outcome for results for adults with Ph+ ALL demonstrated a better outcome after HSCT if imatinib was given before or after transplant.[55,56,57]

The COG-AALL0031 study evaluated whether imatinib mesylate could be incorporated into an intensive chemotherapy regimen for children with Ph+ ALL. Patients received imatinib mesylate in conjunction with chemotherapy during postinduction therapy. Some children proceeded to allogeneic SCT after two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy with imatinib mesylate, while other patients received imatinib mesylate in combination with chemotherapy throughout all treatment phases. The 3-year EFS for the 25 patients who received intensive chemotherapy with continuous dosing of imatinib was 87.7% ± 10.9%. These patients fared better than historic controls treated with chemotherapy alone (without imatinib), and at least as well as the other patients on the trial who underwent allogeneic transplantation.[54] Longer follow-up is necessary to determine if this novel treatment improves cure rate or merely prolongs DFS.

As opposed to imatinib, dasatinib, a second-generation inhibitor of tyrosine kinases, is currently being studied in the initial treatment of Ph+ ALL. Of note, dasatinib has shown significant activity in the CNS, both in a mouse model and a series of patients with CNS-positive leukemia.[58]

Treatment options under clinical evaluation

The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI Web site.

  • COG-AALL0622(Dasatinib and Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Young Patients With Newly Diagnosed ALL): In this COG study, patients receive a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor, dasatinib, with increased affinity for BCR/ABL1, in conjunction with the same chemotherapy regimen used in the COG-AALL0031 trial. The goals of this study are to determine the safety and feasibility of substituting dasatinib for imatinib and to measure the 3-year EFS.

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's list of cancer clinical trials that are now accepting patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive childhood precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References:

  1. Goldberg JM, Silverman LB, Levy DE, et al.: Childhood T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute acute lymphoblastic leukemia consortium experience. J Clin Oncol 21 (19): 3616-22, 2003.
  2. LeClerc JM, Billett AL, Gelber RD, et al.: Treatment of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of Dana-Farber ALL Consortium Protocol 87-01. J Clin Oncol 20 (1): 237-46, 2002.
  3. Asselin B, Shuster J, Amylon M, et al.: Improved event-free survival (EFS) with high dose methotrexate (HDM) in T-cell lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) and advanced lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-NHL): a Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) study. [Abstract] Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology A-1464, 2001.
  4. Seibel NL, Asselin BL, Nachman JB, et al.: Treatment of high risk T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL): comparison of recent experience of the Children's Cancer Group (CCG) and Pediatric Oncology Group (POG). [Abstract] Blood 104 (11): A-681, 2004.
  5. Seibel NL, Steinherz PG, Sather HN, et al.: Early postinduction intensification therapy improves survival for children and adolescents with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Blood 111 (5): 2548-55, 2008.
  6. Matloub Y, Asselin BL, Stork LC, et al.: Outcome of children with T-Cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) and standard risk (SR) features: results of CCG-1952, CCG-1991 and POG 9404. [Abstract] Blood 104 (11): A-680, 195a, 2004.
  7. Berg SL, Blaney SM, Devidas M, et al.: Phase II study of nelarabine (compound 506U78) in children and young adults with refractory T-cell malignancies: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 23 (15): 3376-82, 2005.
  8. Kurtzberg J, Ernst TJ, Keating MJ, et al.: Phase I study of 506U78 administered on a consecutive 5-day schedule in children and adults with refractory hematologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol 23 (15): 3396-403, 2005.
  9. Dunsmore K, Devidas M, Borowitz MJ, et al.: Nelarabine can be safely incorporated into an intensive, multiagent chemotherapy regimen for the treatment of T-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) in children: a report of the Children's Oncology Group (COG) AALL00P2 protocol for T-cell leukemia. [Abstract] Blood 108 (11): A-1864, 2006.
  10. Silverman LB: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in infancy. Pediatr Blood Cancer 49 (7 Suppl): 1070-3, 2007.
  11. Hilden JM, Dinndorf PA, Meerbaum SO, et al.: Analysis of prognostic factors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in infants: report on CCG 1953 from the Children's Oncology Group. Blood 108 (2): 441-51, 2006.
  12. Pieters R, Schrappe M, De Lorenzo P, et al.: A treatment protocol for infants younger than 1 year with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Interfant-99): an observational study and a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 370 (9583): 240-50, 2007.
  13. Silverman LB, McLean TW, Gelber RD, et al.: Intensified therapy for infants with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Consortium. Cancer 80 (12): 2285-95, 1997.
  14. Tomizawa D, Koh K, Sato T, et al.: Outcome of risk-based therapy for infant acute lymphoblastic leukemia with or without an MLL gene rearrangement, with emphasis on late effects: a final report of two consecutive studies, MLL96 and MLL98, of the Japan Infant Leukemia Study Group. Leukemia 21 (11): 2258-63, 2007.
  15. Biondi A, Rizzari C, Valsecchi MG, et al.: Role of treatment intensification in infants with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of two consecutive AIEOP studies. Haematologica 91 (4): 534-7, 2006.
  16. van der Linden MH, Valsecchi MG, De Lorenzo P, et al.: Outcome of congenital acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated on the Interfant-99 protocol. Blood 114 (18): 3764-8, 2009.
  17. Van der Velden VH, Corral L, Valsecchi MG, et al.: Prognostic significance of minimal residual disease in infants with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated within the Interfant-99 protocol. Leukemia 23 (6): 1073-9, 2009.
  18. Sanders JE, Im HJ, Hoffmeister PA, et al.: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for infants with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 105 (9): 3749-56, 2005.
  19. Eapen M, Rubinstein P, Zhang MJ, et al.: Comparable long-term survival after unrelated and HLA-matched sibling donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantations for acute leukemia in children younger than 18 months. J Clin Oncol 24 (1): 145-51, 2006.
  20. Jacobsohn DA, Hewlett B, Morgan E, et al.: Favorable outcome for infant acute lymphoblastic leukemia after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 11 (12): 999-1005, 2005.
  21. Kosaka Y, Koh K, Kinukawa N, et al.: Infant acute lymphoblastic leukemia with MLL gene rearrangements: outcome following intensive chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood 104 (12): 3527-34, 2004.
  22. Dreyer ZE, Dinndorf PA, Camitta B, et al.: Analysis of the role of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in infants with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first remission and MLL gene rearrangements: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 29 (2): 214-22, 2011.
  23. Mann G, Attarbaschi A, Schrappe M, et al.: Improved outcome with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in a poor prognostic subgroup of infants with mixed-lineage-leukemia (MLL)-rearranged acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results from the Interfant-99 Study. Blood 116 (15): 2644-50, 2010.
  24. Brown P, Levis M, McIntyre E, et al.: Combinations of the FLT3 inhibitor CEP-701 and chemotherapy synergistically kill infant and childhood MLL-rearranged ALL cells in a sequence-dependent manner. Leukemia 20 (8): 1368-76, 2006.
  25. Möricke A, Zimmermann M, Reiter A, et al.: Prognostic impact of age in children and adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: data from the trials ALL-BFM 86, 90, and 95. Klin Padiatr 217 (6): 310-20, 2005 Nov-Dec.
  26. Barry E, DeAngelo DJ, Neuberg D, et al.: Favorable outcome for adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated on Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Consortium Protocols. J Clin Oncol 25 (7): 813-9, 2007.
  27. Nachman J: Clinical characteristics, biologic features and outcome for young adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Br J Haematol 130 (2): 166-73, 2005.
  28. Boissel N, Auclerc MF, Lhéritier V, et al.: Should adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia be treated as old children or young adults? Comparison of the French FRALLE-93 and LALA-94 trials. J Clin Oncol 21 (5): 774-80, 2003.
  29. Ramanujachar R, Richards S, Hann I, et al.: Adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: emerging from the shadow of paediatric and adult treatment protocols. Pediatr Blood Cancer 47 (6): 748-56, 2006.
  30. Ramanujachar R, Richards S, Hann I, et al.: Adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: outcome on UK national paediatric (ALL97) and adult (UKALLXII/E2993) trials. Pediatr Blood Cancer 48 (3): 254-61, 2007.
  31. Stock W, La M, Sanford B, et al.: What determines the outcomes for adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated on cooperative group protocols? A comparison of Children's Cancer Group and Cancer and Leukemia Group B studies. Blood 112 (5): 1646-54, 2008.
  32. Ribera JM, Oriol A, Sanz MA, et al.: Comparison of the results of the treatment of adolescents and young adults with standard-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia with the Programa Español de Tratamiento en Hematología pediatric-based protocol ALL-96. J Clin Oncol 26 (11): 1843-9, 2008.
  33. Nachman JB, La MK, Hunger SP, et al.: Young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia have an excellent outcome with chemotherapy alone and benefit from intensive postinduction treatment: a report from the children's oncology group. J Clin Oncol 27 (31): 5189-94, 2009.
  34. Pui CH, Pei D, Campana D, et al.: Improved prognosis for older adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 29 (4): 386-91, 2011.
  35. Mattano LA Jr, Sather HN, Trigg ME, et al.: Osteonecrosis as a complication of treating acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children: a report from the Children's Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 18 (18): 3262-72, 2000.
  36. Strauss AJ, Su JT, Dalton VM, et al.: Bony morbidity in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 19 (12): 3066-72, 2001.
  37. Bürger B, Beier R, Zimmermann M, et al.: Osteonecrosis: a treatment related toxicity in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)--experiences from trial ALL-BFM 95. Pediatr Blood Cancer 44 (3): 220-5, 2005.
  38. Niinimäki RA, Harila-Saari AH, Jartti AE, et al.: High body mass index increases the risk for osteonecrosis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 25 (12): 1498-504, 2007.
  39. Butturini AM, Dorey FJ, Lange BJ, et al.: Obesity and outcome in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 25 (15): 2063-9, 2007.
  40. Mori T, Manabe A, Tsuchida M, et al.: Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in first remission rescues children with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Tokyo Children's Cancer Study Group (TCCSG) studies L89-12 and L92-13. Med Pediatr Oncol 37 (5): 426-31, 2001.
  41. 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 (7): 2357-66, 2002.
  42. Hahn T, Wall D, Camitta B, et al.: The role of cytotoxic therapy with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the therapy of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children: an evidence-based review. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 11 (11): 823-61, 2005.
  43. Aricň M, Valsecchi MG, Camitta B, et al.: Outcome of treatment in children with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 342 (14): 998-1006, 2000.
  44. Aricň M, Schrappe M, Hunger SP, et al.: Clinical outcome of children with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated between 1995 and 2005. J Clin Oncol 28 (31): 4755-61, 2010.
  45. Roy A, Bradburn M, Moorman AV, et al.: Early response to induction is predictive of survival in childhood Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: results of the Medical Research Council ALL 97 trial. Br J Haematol 129 (1): 35-44, 2005.
  46. Schrappe M, Aricň M, Harbott J, et al.: Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: good initial steroid response allows early prediction of a favorable treatment outcome. Blood 92 (8): 2730-41, 1998.
  47. Cazzaniga G, Lanciotti M, Rossi V, et al.: Prospective molecular monitoring of BCR/ABL transcript in children with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukaemia unravels differences in treatment response. Br J Haematol 119 (2): 445-53, 2002.
  48. Jones LK, Saha V: Philadelphia positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia of childhood. Br J Haematol 130 (4): 489-500, 2005.
  49. Lee S, Kim YJ, Chung NG, et al.: The extent of minimal residual disease reduction after the first 4-week imatinib therapy determines outcome of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in adults with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer 115 (3): 561-70, 2009.
  50. Champagne MA, Capdeville R, Krailo M, et al.: Imatinib mesylate (STI571) for treatment of children with Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemia: results from a Children's Oncology Group phase 1 study. Blood 104 (9): 2655-60, 2004.
  51. Ottmann OG, Druker BJ, Sawyers CL, et al.: A phase 2 study of imatinib in patients with relapsed or refractory Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoid leukemias. Blood 100 (6): 1965-71, 2002.
  52. Thomas DA, Faderl S, Cortes J, et al.: Treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia with hyper-CVAD and imatinib mesylate. Blood 103 (12): 4396-407, 2004.
  53. Yanada M, Takeuchi J, Sugiura I, et al.: High complete remission rate and promising outcome by combination of imatinib and chemotherapy for newly diagnosed BCR-ABL-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a phase II study by the Japan Adult Leukemia Study Group. J Clin Oncol 24 (3): 460-6, 2006.
  54. Schultz KR, Bowman WP, Aledo A, et al.: Improved early event-free survival with imatinib in Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a children's oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 27 (31): 5175-81, 2009.
  55. Burke MJ, Trotz B, Luo X, et al.: Allo-hematopoietic cell transplantation for Ph chromosome-positive ALL: impact of imatinib on relapse and survival. Bone Marrow Transplant 43 (2): 107-13, 2009.
  56. Lee S, Kim YJ, Min CK, et al.: The effect of first-line imatinib interim therapy on the outcome of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in adults with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 105 (9): 3449-57, 2005.
  57. de Labarthe A, Rousselot P, Huguet-Rigal F, et al.: Imatinib combined with induction or consolidation chemotherapy in patients with de novo Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of the GRAAPH-2003 study. Blood 109 (4): 1408-13, 2007.
  58. Porkka K, Koskenvesa P, Lundán T, et al.: Dasatinib crosses the blood-brain barrier and is an efficient therapy for central nervous system Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemia. Blood 112 (4): 1005-12, 2008.
eMedicineHealth Public Information from the National Cancer Institute

This information is produced and provided by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The information in this topic may have changed since it was written. For the most current information, contact the National Cancer Institute via the Internet web site at http://cancer.gov or call 1-800-4-CANCER

This information is not intended to replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise disclaims any liability for the decisions you make based on this information.

Some material in CancerNet™ is from copyrighted publications of the respective copyright claimants. Users of CancerNet™ are referred to the publication data appearing in the bibliographic citations, as well as to the copyright notices appearing in the original publication, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference.





Medical Dictionary