High-Dose Methotrexate in Children and Young Adults With ALL and Lymphoblastic Lymphoma: Results of the Randomized Phase III Study UKALL 2011

A Amy A. Kirkwood (CR UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom) N Nicholas Goulden (Great Ormond Street Hospital, London) J John Moppett (Bristol Children's Hospital, Bristol) S Sujith Samarasinghe (Great Ormond Street Hospital, London) R Rachael Hough (University College Hospital, London) C Clare Rowntree (20University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom) S Sarah Lawson (12Birmingham Children's Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom) P Pam Kearns A Anna Lawson (4University of Birmingham, Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Birmingham, United Kingdom) A Ajay Vora (Department of Haematology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom)

Abstract

PURPOSE UKALL 2011 randomly assigned children and young adults (younger than 25 years) with ALL or lymphoblastic lymphoma. The aims were to reduce induction toxicity (randomization 1 [R1]), CNS relapse risk (randomization 2 [R2]–interim maintenance [R2IM]), and maintenance morbidity (R2pulses). METHODS R1 compared induction dexamethasone (dex) for 28 days (6 mg/m 2 ; standard) with 14 days (10 mg/m 2 ; short). R2 was a factorial randomization resulting in four arms: high-dose methotrexate (HDM) with pulses, HDM without pulses, standard interim maintenance (SIM) with pulses (standard of care), and SIM without pulses. The primary end points were reduction in steroid-related toxicity (R1), CNS relapse rate (CNSR, R2IM), and bone marrow relapse rate (BMR, R2pulses; ALL only, noninferiority margin 5%). Event-free survival (EFS) was an additional primary end point for both randomizations. RESULTS Of 2,750 eligible patients registered between April 2012 and December 2018, 1,902 were randomly assigned to R1 and 1,570 to R2. Median follow-up is 99 (R1) and 87 months (R2). There were no differences in steroid-related toxicity between short and standard dex (23.8% v 25.5%; P = .41) and CNSR between SIM and HDM (0.98 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.49]; P = .94; 5-year rates: SIM 5.3% and HDM 5.5%). EFS was no different between R1 and R2IM arms. BMR in the no pulses arm was noninferior (+1.7% increase at 5 years [95% CI, –1.5 to 4.1]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.19 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.62]; P = .27). Although the EFS in the no pulses arm was inferior (1.34 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.73]; P = .021), this was not significant for relapse (HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.62]; P = .10). CONCLUSION Shorter duration of induction dex does not reduce steroid-related toxicity and HDM does not improve CNSR within a UKALL treatment backbone. Omission of pulses is noninferior for BMR.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 15
Published May 20, 2025
Pages 1810-1823
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (10)

A

Amy A. Kirkwood

CR UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom

N

Nicholas Goulden

Great Ormond Street Hospital, London

J

John Moppett

Bristol Children's Hospital, Bristol

S

Sujith Samarasinghe

Great Ormond Street Hospital, London

R

Rachael Hough

University College Hospital, London

C

Clare Rowntree

20University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom

S

Sarah Lawson

12Birmingham Children's Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

P

Pam Kearns

A

Anna Lawson

4University of Birmingham, Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Birmingham, United Kingdom

A

Ajay Vora

Department of Haematology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom