Comparing the GDP and ICE regimens as salvage treatment for relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma

This study investigated the effectiveness and safety of GDP (gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin) and ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide) regimens as salvage therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma. The data showed that both the GDP and ICE regimens are suitable options for relapsed/refractory lymphoma.

A high number of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) experience relapse (worsening of the disease) or refractory (not responsive to the treatment) disease. These patients can benefit from salvage therapies. 

Chemotherapy combinations such as GDP and ICE can be used as salvage treatments. However, there are few studies comparing the effectiveness and toxicity profiles of the 2 regimens in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma.

This study looked at the medical records of 110 patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma. 88 patients had NHL and 22 had HL. 50 patients were treated with the GDP regimen and 60 patients were treated with the ICE regimen. 

The overall response rates (ORR; he partial or complete disappearance of the cancer) for the whole population were 60.0% in the GDP group and 56.6% in the ICE group. 20% of the GDP group and 13.3% of the ICE group achieved a complete response. 

Among the HL patients, the ORR was 72.8% in the GDP group and 54.6% in the ICE group. Of the NHL group, the ORR was 56.4% with GDP and 57.1% with ICE.

In all patients, 81.9% of the GDP group and 68.2% of the ICE group were alive after 1 year. After 3 years, 62.4% of the GDP group and 59.8% of the ICE group were alive. 

The main side effects were blood-related such as low blood cell counts. Overall, the toxicity profiles were similar between the 2 treatment regimens.

This study concluded that both the GDP and ICE regimens were suitable salvage treatments for relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma.

The study looked back in time for medical records. Information may have been incomplete. The small sample size and short follow-up time can affect the conclusions regarding treatment benefits.