In English | En español
Questions About Cancer? 1-800-4-CANCER

Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treatment (PDQ®)

  • Last Modified: 10/29/2014

Page Options

  • Print This Page
  • Print This Document
  • View Entire Document
  • Email This Document

Postinduction Treatment for Specific ALL Subgroups

T-Cell ALL
        Treatment options
        Treatment options under clinical evaluation for T-cell ALL
        Current Clinical Trials
Infants With ALL
        Treatment options for infants with MLL translocations
        Treatment options for infants without MLL translocations
        Treatment options under clinical evaluation for infants with ALL
Adolescents and Young Adults With ALL
        Treatment options
        Treatment options under clinical evaluation for adolescent and young adult patients with ALL
Philadelphia Chromosome–positive ALL
        Treatment options
        Current Clinical Trials



T-Cell ALL

Historically, patients with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (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 10-year overall survival (OS) for children with T-cell ALL treated on the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) DFCI-95001 (NCT00004034) trial was 90.1% compared with 88.7% for patients with B-cell disease.[1] However, in a review of a large number of patients treated on COG trials over a 15-year period, T-cell immunophenotype still proved to be a negative prognostic factor on multivariate analysis.[2]

Treatment options
  1. 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.[3]
    • Results of the POG-9404 study indicated that the addition of high-dose methotrexate to the DFCI-based chemotherapy regimen resulted in significantly improved event-free survival (EFS) in patients with T-cell ALL (10-year EFS, 78% for those randomly assigned to high-dose methotrexate versus 68% for those randomly assigned to therapy without high-dose methotrexate, P = .05).

    • High-dose methotrexate was associated with a lower incidence of relapses involving the central nervous system (CNS).[4] 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, doxorubicin, and prophylactic cranial irradiation were also important components of this regimen.[1,4]

  2. 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 for high-risk ALL including T-cell ALL showed that an augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (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%).[5,6] Almost 60% of events in this group, however, were isolated CNS relapses.

    • Overall results from POG-9404 and CCG-1961 were similar, although POG-9404 used cranial radiation for every patient, while CCG-1961 used cranial radiation only for patients with slow morphologic response.[6,4]

    • Among children with NCI standard-risk T-cell ALL, the EFS for those treated on CCG-1952 and COG-1991 studies was inferior to the EFS for those treated on the POG-9404 study.[7]

  3. In the Children's Oncology Group (COG), children with T-cell ALL are not 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) [8,9] in the context of a BFM regimen for patients with newly diagnosed T-cell ALL. The pilot study showed a 5-year EFS rate of 73% for all patients receiving nelarabine and 69% for those patients with a slow early response.[10]

  4. 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 for T-cell ALL

Treatment options under clinical evaluation for T-cell ALL include the following:

  1. NCI-2014-00712/AALL1231 (NCT02112916) (Combination Chemotherapy With or Without Bortezomib in Treating Younger Patients With Newly Diagnosed T-Cell ALL or Stage II–IV T-Cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma): This phase III trial is utilizing a modified augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM) regimen for patients aged 1 to 30 years with T-cell ALL. Patients are classified into one of three risk groups (standard, intermediate, or very high) based on morphologic response at day 29, MRD status at day 29 and end of consolidation, and CNS status at diagnosis. Age and presenting leukocyte count are not used to stratify patients. The objectives of the trial include the following:
    • To compare EFS in patients who are randomly assigned to receive or not to receive bortezomib on a modified augmented BFM backbone. For those randomly assigned to receive bortezomib, it is given during the induction phase (four doses) and again during the delayed intensification phase (four doses).

    • To determine the safety and feasibility of modifying standard COG therapy for T-cell ALL by using dexamethasone instead of prednisone during the induction and maintenance phases and additional doses of PEG-asparaginase during the induction and delayed intensification phases.

    • To determine whether prophylactic cranial radiation can be omitted in 85% to 90% of T-cell ALL patients (non–very high risk, non-CNS3) without an increase in relapse risk, compared with historic controls.

    • To determine the proportion of patients with end consolidation MRD >0.1% who become MRD-negative after intensification therapy using three high-risk BFM blocks that include high-dose cytarabine, high-dose methotrexate, ifosfamide, and etoposide.

  2. DFCI-11-001 (NCT01574274) (SC-PEG Asparaginase versus Oncaspar in Pediatric ALL and Lymphoblastic Lymphoma):

    Patients with T-cell ALL are eligible to enroll on a DFCI ALL Consortium protocol that is comparing the pharmacokinetics and toxicity of two forms of intravenous PEG-L-asparaginase (pegaspargase [Oncaspar] and calaspargase pegol [SC-PEG]). Patients will be randomly assigned to receive a single dose of one of these preparations during multiagent induction, and then either pegaspargase every 2 weeks (15 doses total) or calaspargase pegol every 3 weeks (10 doses total) during the 30-week consolidation phase.

    This protocol is also testing whether antibiotic prophylaxis (with fluoroquinolones) reduces rates of bacteremia and other serious bacterial infections during the remission induction phase. All T-cell patients are treated on the high-risk arm of this trial, regardless of other presenting characteristics.

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.[11] Because of their distinctive biological characteristics and their high risk of 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.[12-14] Despite intensification of therapy, long-term EFS rates remain below 50%. Infants with congenital leukemia (diagnosed within 1 month of birth) have a particularly poor outcome (17% OS).[15][Level of evidence: 2A]

For infants with MLL gene rearrangement, the EFS rates continue to be in the 17% to 40% range.[12,13,15-17][Level of evidence: 2A] Factors predicting poor outcome for infants with MLL translocations include the following:[13]; [18][Level of evidence: 3iDii]

  • A very young age (<6 months).

  • Extremely high presenting leukocyte count (≥200,000–300,000/μL).

  • High levels of MRD at the end of induction and consolidation phases of treatment.

Treatment options for infants with MLL translocations

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.

Evidence (intensified chemotherapy regimens for infants with MLL translocations):

  1. 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.[13]

  2. The COG tested intensification of therapy with a regimen including multiple doses of high-dose methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide, resulting in a 5-year EFS of 34%.[12]

The role of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) during first remission in infants with MLL gene translocations remains controversial.

Evidence (allogeneic HSCT in first remission for infants with MLL translocations):

  1. On a Japanese clinical trial conducted between 1998 and 2002, all infants with MLL-rearrangement were intended to proceed to allogeneic HSCT from the best available donor (related, unrelated, or umbilical cord) 3 to 5 months after diagnosis.[19]
    • The 3-year EFS for all enrolled infants was 44%. This result was due, in part, to the high frequency of early relapses, even with intensive chemotherapy; of the 41 infants with MLL-rearrangement on that study who achieved complete remission (CR), 11 infants (27%) relapsed before proceeding to transplant.

  2. 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 underwent HSCT in first CR and those who received chemotherapy alone.[20]

  3. 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 HSCT in first CR or chemotherapy alone.[13]
    • In a subset analysis from the same trial, allogeneic HSCT 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 leukocyte counts of at least 300,000/µL.[21] In this subset, HSCT in first remission was associated with a 64% reduction in the risk of failure resulting from relapse or death compared with chemotherapy alone.

Treatment options for infants without MLL translocations

The optimal treatment for infants without MLL translocations also remains unclear.

  1. On the Interfant-99 trial, patients without MLL translocations achieved a relatively favorable outcome with the cytarabine-intensive treatment regimen (4-year EFS was 74%).[13]

  2. 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;[16] however, that study was limited by small numbers (n = 22) and a highly unusual gender distribution (91% males).

Treatment options under clinical evaluation for infants with ALL

Treatment options under clinical evaluation include the following:

  1. 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 HSCT in first remission regardless of other presenting features.

Adolescents and Young Adults With ALL

Adolescents and young adults with ALL have been recognized as high risk for decades. Outcomes in almost all studies of treatment are inferior in this age group compared with children younger than 10 years.[22-24] The reasons for this difference include more frequent presentation of adverse prognostic factors at diagnosis, including the following:

  • T-cell immunophenotype.
  • Philadelphia chromosome–positivity (Ph+).
  • Lower incidence of favorable cytogenetic abnormalities.

In addition to more frequent adverse prognostic factors, patients in this age group have higher rates of treatment-related mortality [23-26] and non-adherence to therapy.[25,27]

Treatment options

Studies from the United States and France were among the first to identify the difference in outcome based on treatment regimens.[28] Other studies have confirmed that older adolescent and young adult patients fare better on pediatric rather than adult regimens.[28-32]; [33][Level of evidence: 2A] These study results are summarized in Table 3.

Given the relatively favorable outcome that can be obtained in these patients with chemotherapy regimens used for high-risk pediatric ALL, there is no role for the routine use of allogeneic HSCT for adolescents and young adults with ALL in first remission.[24]

Evidence (pediatric treatment regimen):

  1. Investigators reported on 197 patients aged 16 to 21 years treated on the CCG study (a pediatric ALL regimen) who showed a 7-year EFS of 63% compared with 124 adolescents and young adults treated on the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) study (an adult ALL regimen) with a 7-year EFS of 34%.[28]

  2. 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).[34]

  3. In the COG high-risk study (CCG-1961), the 5-year EFS rate for 262 patients aged 16 to 21 years was 71.5%.[24][Level of evidence: 1iiDi] For rapid responders randomly assigned to early intensive postinduction therapy on the augmented intensity arms of this study, the 5-year EFS rate was 82% (n = 88).

  4. The DFCI ALL Consortium reported that a study of 51 adolescents aged 15 to 18 years in a pediatric trial had a 5-year EFS of 78%.[30]

  5. In an SJCRH study, 44 adolescents aged 15 to 18 years had an EFS of approximately 85% ± 5%.[23]

  6. In a Spanish study, 35 adolescents (aged 15–18 years) and 46 young adults (aged 19–30 years) with standard-risk ALL were treated with a pediatric-based regimen.[33][Level of evidence: 2A]
    • EFS rate was 61%.

    • The OS rate was 69%.

    • There were no differences in outcome between adolescents and young adults.

Other studies have confirmed that older adolescent patients and young adults fare better on pediatric rather than adult regimens (see Table 3).[29,31]; [33][Level of evidence: 2A]

The reason that adolescents and young adults achieve superior outcomes with pediatric regimens is not known, although possible explanations include the following: [29]

  • Treatment setting (i.e., site experience in treating ALL).

  • Adherence to protocol therapy.

  • The components of protocol therapy.

Table 3. Outcome According to Treatment Protocol for Adolescents and Young Adults with ALL
Site and Study Group Adolescent and Young Adult Patients (No.) Median age (y) Survival (%) 
United States [28]
CCG (Pediatric)1971667, OS 7 y
CALGB (Adult)1241946
France [34]
FRALLE 93 (Pediatric)771667 EFS
LALA 941001841
Italy [35]
AEIOP (Pediatric)1501580, OS 2 y
GIMEMA (Adult)951671
Netherlands [36]
DCOG (Pediatric)471271 EFS
HOVON442038
Sweden [37]
NOPHO 92 (Pediatric)361674, OS 5 y
Adult ALL991839
United Kingdom [31]
MRC ALL (Pediatric)6115–1771, OS 5 y
UKALL XII (Adult)6715–1756

ALL = acute lymphoblastic leukemia; EFS = event-free survival; OS = overall survival.
AEIOP = Associazione Italiana Ematologia Oncologia Pediatrica; CALGB = Cancer and Leukemia Group B; CCG = Children's Cancer Group; DCOG = Dutch Childhood Oncology Group; FRALLE = French Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia; GIMEMA = Gruppo Italiano Malattie e Matologiche dell'Adulto; HOVON = Dutch-Belgian Hemato-Oncology Cooperative Group; LALA = France-Belgium Group for Lymphoblastic Acute Leukemia in Adults; MRC = Medical Research Council (United Kingdom); NOPHO = Nordic Society for Pediatric Hematology and Oncology; UKALL = United Kingdom Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia.

Osteonecrosis

Adolescents with ALL appear to be at higher risk than younger children for developing therapy-related complications, including osteonecrosis, deep venous thromboses, and pancreatitis.[30,38] Before the use of postinduction intensification for treatment of ALL, osteonecrosis was infrequent. The improvement in outcome for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older was accompanied by an increased incidence of osteonecrosis.

The weight-bearing joints are affected in 95% of patients who develop osteonecrosis and operative interventions are needed for management of symptoms and impaired mobility in more than 40% of cases. The majority of the cases are diagnosed within the first 2 years of therapy and often the symptoms are recognized during maintenance.

Evidence (osteonecrosis):

  1. In the CCG-1961 high-risk ALL study, alternate-week dosing of dexamethasone was compared with standard continuous dexamethasone during delayed intensification to see if the osteonecrosis risk could be reduced.[38]
    • The median age at symptom onset was 16 years.

    • The cumulative incidence was higher in adolescents and young adults aged 16 to 21 years (20% at 5 years) than in those aged 10 to 15 years (9.9%) or in patients aged 1 to 9 years (1%).

    • Operative interventions are needed for management of symptoms and impaired mobility in more than 40% of cases.

    • The use of alternate-week dosing of dexamethasone as compared with standard continuous dexamethasone during delayed intensification in CCG-1961 reduced the risk of osteonecrosis. The greatest impact was seen in females aged 16 to 21 years, who showed the highest incidence of osteonecrosis with standard therapy containing continuous dexamethasone; osteonecrosis was reduced with alternate-week dexamethasone postinduction (57.6% to 5.6%).

Treatment options under clinical evaluation for adolescent and young adult patients with ALL

Treatment options under clinical evaluation include the following:

  1. NCI-2014-00712/AALL1231 (NCT02112916) (Combination Chemotherapy With or Without Bortezomib in Treating Younger Patients With Newly Diagnosed T-Cell ALL or Stage II–IV T-Cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma): This phase III trial for patients aged 1 to 30 years with T-cell ALL is utilizing a modified augmented BFM regimen. Patients are classified into one of three risk groups (standard, intermediate, or very high) based on morphologic response at day 29, MRD status at day 29 and end of consolidation, and CNS status at diagnosis. Age and presenting leukocyte count are not used to stratify patients. The objectives of the trial include the following:
    • To compare EFS in patients who are randomly assigned to receive or not to receive bortezomib on a modified augmented BFM backbone.

    • To determine the safety and feasibility of modifying standard COG therapy for T-ALL by using dexamethasone instead of prednisone during the induction and maintenance phases and additional doses of PEG-asparaginase during the induction and delayed intensification phases.

    • To determine whether prophylactic cranial radiation can be omitted in 85% to 90% of T-ALL patients (non-very high risk, non-CNS3) without an increase in relapse risk, compared with historic controls.

    • To determine the proportion of patients with end consolidation MRD >0.1% who become MRD-negative after intensification therapy using three high-risk BFM blocks that include high-dose cytarabine, high-dose methotrexate, ifosfamide, and etoposide.

  2. COG-AALL1131 (Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Young Patients With Newly Diagnosed High-Risk ALL): The COG-AALL1131 protocol for patients with high-risk B-precursor ALL includes a randomized comparison of triple intrathecal chemotherapy (methotrexate, cytarabine, and hydrocortisone) with intrathecal methotrexate, with the objective of determining whether triple intrathecal chemotherapy reduces CNS-relapse rates and improves overall EFS. Patients with very high-risk disease include those who, at diagnosis:
    • Are aged 13 years or older.
    • Have 0.01% or more detectable MRD at end induction.
    • Have CNS3 disease.
    • Have iAMP21.
    • Have severe hypodiploidy, and/or
    • Have an M3 marrow on day 29 (induction failure).

    These patients are eligible for a three-arm study designed to assess the efficacy of either clofarabine/etoposide/cyclophosphamide versus cyclophosphamide/etoposide versus the standard cyclophosphamide/thioguanine/cytarabine combination during the consolidation and late intensification phases.

Philadelphia Chromosome–positive ALL

Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) ALL is seen in about 3% of pediatric ALL cases, increases in adolescence, and is seen in 15% to 25% of adults. In the past, this subtype of ALL has been recognized as extremely difficult to treat with poor outcome. In 2000, an international pediatric leukemia group reported a 7-year EFS of 25%, with an OS of 36%.[39] In 2010, the same group reported a 7-year EFS of 31% and an overall survival of 44% in Ph+ ALL patients treated without tyrosine kinase inhibitors.[40] Treatment of this subgroup has evolved from emphasis on aggressive chemotherapy, to bone marrow transplantation, and currently to combination therapy using chemotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Treatment options

Pre-tyrosine kinase inhibitor era

Before the use of imatinib mesylate, HSCT from a matched sibling donor was the treatment of choice for patients with Ph+ ALL.[41-43] 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 than standard (pre-imatinib mesylate) chemotherapy.[39] 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 mesylate era), transplantation with matched-related or matched-unrelated donors were equivalent. DFS at the 5-year time point showed an advantage for transplantation in first remission compared with chemotherapy that was borderline significant (P = .049), and OS was also higher for transplantation compared with chemotherapy, although the advantage at 5 years was not significant.[40]

Factors significantly associated with favorable prognosis in the pre-tyrosine kinase inhibitor era included the following:

  • Younger age at diagnosis.[40]
  • Lower leukocyte count at diagnosis.[40]
  • Early response measures.[40,44,45]
  • Ph+ ALL with a rapid morphologic response or rapid peripheral blood response to induction therapy.[40,44]

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.[46-48]

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor era

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.[49,50]

Clinical trials in adults and children with Ph+ ALL have demonstrated the feasibility of administering imatinib mesylate in combination with multiagent chemotherapy.[51-53] Preliminary outcome of results for Ph+ ALL demonstrated a better outcome after HSCT if imatinib was given before or after transplant.[54-57]

Evidence (imatinib mesylate):

  1. 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 HSCT after two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy with imatinib mesylate, while other patients received imatinib mesylate in combination with chemotherapy throughout all treatment phases.[53]
    • The 3-year EFS for the 25 patients who received intensive chemotherapy with continuous dosing of imatinib mesylate is 87.7% ± 10.9%. These patients fared better than historic controls treated with chemotherapy alone (without imatinib mesylate), and at least as well as the other patients on the trial who underwent allogeneic transplantation. Longer follow-up is necessary to determine whether this novel treatment improves cure rate or merely prolongs DFS.

  2. A nonrandomized study reported the outcome in 16 pediatric patients with Ph+ ALL who were treated with chemotherapy, imatinib, and allogeneic HSCT.[57]
    • With a median follow-up of 65 months, the 5-year EFS was 81% for patients who received imatinib compared with 30% (P = .01) for a historic control group treated similarly, but without imatinib.[58] Of note, only one of the 16 patients received prophylactic imatinib posttransplant.

  3. The EsPhALL trial tested whether imatinib (administered discontinuously) given in the context of intensive chemotherapy improves outcome for pediatric Ph+ ALL patients, most of whom (80%) received an allogeneic HSCT in first CR. Patients were classified as either good risk or poor risk based on early response measures and remission status at the end of induction. Good- risk patients (N = 90) were randomly assigned to receive imatinib or not; poor-risk patients (N = 70) were directly assigned to imatinib. Interpretation of this study is limited due to the high noncompliance rate with randomized assignment in good-risk patients and early closure before reaching goal accrual due to publication of the results of the COG AALL1131 trial on which imatinib had been given continuously with chemotherapy. The overall DFS of patients treated on this trial appeared to be better than historic controls, and when analyzed as-treated (and not by intent-to-treat), good-risk patients who received imatinib had a superior DFS. The EsPhALL trial has since been amended to test continuous dosing of imatinib; results are pending.[59]

Dasatinib, a second-generation inhibitor of tyrosine kinases, is currently being studied in the initial treatment of Ph+ ALL. Dasatinib has shown significant activity in the CNS, both in a mouse model and a series of patients with CNS-positive leukemia.[60] The results of a phase I trial of dasatinib in pediatric patients indicated that once-daily dosing was associated with an acceptable toxicity profile, with few nonhematologic grade 3 or 4 adverse events.[61]

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. Silverman LB, Stevenson KE, O'Brien JE, et al.: Long-term results of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute ALL Consortium protocols for children with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (1985-2000). Leukemia 24 (2): 320-34, 2010.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. Hunger SP, Lu X, Devidas M, et al.: Improved survival for children and adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia between 1990 and 2005: a report from the children's oncology group. J Clin Oncol 30 (14): 1663-9, 2012.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  3. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  4. Asselin BL, Devidas M, Wang C, et al.: Effectiveness of high-dose methotrexate in T-cell lymphoblastic leukemia and advanced-stage lymphoblastic lymphoma: a randomized study by the Children's Oncology Group (POG 9404). Blood 118 (4): 874-83, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  5. 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. 

  6. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  7. 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. 

  8. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  9. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  10. Dunsmore KP, Devidas M, Linda SB, et al.: Pilot study of nelarabine in combination with intensive chemotherapy in high-risk T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 30 (22): 2753-9, 2012.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  11. Silverman LB: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in infancy. Pediatr Blood Cancer 49 (7 Suppl): 1070-3, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  12. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  13. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  14. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  15. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  16. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  17. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  18. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  19. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  20. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  21. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  22. Nachman J: Clinical characteristics, biologic features and outcome for young adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Br J Haematol 130 (2): 166-73, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  23. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  24. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  25. Pichler H, Reismüller B, Steiner M, et al.: The inferior prognosis of adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is caused by a higher rate of treatment-related mortality and not an increased relapse rate--a population-based analysis of 25 years of the Austrian ALL-BFM (Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster) Study Group. Br J Haematol 161 (4): 556-65, 2013.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  26. Burke MJ, Gossai N, Wagner JE, et al.: Survival differences between adolescents/young adults and children with B precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 19 (1): 138-42, 2013.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  27. Bhatia S, Landier W, Shangguan M, et al.: Nonadherence to oral mercaptopurine and risk of relapse in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from the children's oncology group. J Clin Oncol 30 (17): 2094-101, 2012.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  28. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  30. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  31. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  32. Ram R, Wolach O, Vidal L, et al.: Adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia have a better outcome when treated with pediatric-inspired regimens: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hematol 87 (5): 472-8, 2012.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  33. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  34. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  35. Testi AM, Valsecchi MG, Conter V, et al.: Difference in outcome of adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) enrolled in pediatric (AIEOP) and adult (GIMEMA) protocols. [Abstract] Blood 104: A-1954, 2004. 

  36. de Bont JM, van der Holt B, Dekker AW, et al.: [Adolescents with acute lymphatic leukaemia achieve significantly better results when treated following Dutch paediatric oncology protocols than with adult protocols]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 149 (8): 400-6, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  37. Hallböök H, Gustafsson G, Smedmyr B, et al.: Treatment outcome in young adults and children >10 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Sweden: a comparison between a pediatric protocol and an adult protocol. Cancer 107 (7): 1551-61, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  38. Mattano LA Jr, Devidas M, Nachman JB, et al.: Effect of alternate-week versus continuous dexamethasone scheduling on the risk of osteonecrosis in paediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: results from the CCG-1961 randomised cohort trial. Lancet Oncol 13 (9): 906-15, 2012.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  39. Aricò 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  40. Aricò 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  41. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  42. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  43. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  44. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  45. Schrappe M, Aricò 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  46. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  47. Jones LK, Saha V: Philadelphia positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia of childhood. Br J Haematol 130 (4): 489-500, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  48. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  49. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  50. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  51. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  52. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  53. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  54. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  55. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  56. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  57. Rives S, Estella J, Gómez P, et al.: Intermediate dose of imatinib in combination with chemotherapy followed by allogeneic stem cell transplantation improves early outcome in paediatric Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL): results of the Spanish Cooperative Group SHOP studies ALL-94, ALL-99 and ALL-2005. Br J Haematol 154 (5): 600-11, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  58. Rives S, Camós M, Estella J, et al.: Longer follow-up confirms major improvement in outcome in children and adolescents with Philadelphia chromosome acute lymphoblastic leukaemia treated with continuous imatinib and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Results from the Spanish Cooperative Study SHOP/ALL-2005. Br J Haematol 162 (3): 419-21, 2013.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  59. Biondi A, Schrappe M, De Lorenzo P, et al.: Imatinib after induction for treatment of children and adolescents with Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (EsPhALL): a randomised, open-label, intergroup study. Lancet Oncol 13 (9): 936-45, 2012.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  60. 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.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  61. Zwaan CM, Rizzari C, Mechinaud F, et al.: Dasatinib in children and adolescents with relapsed or refractory leukemia: results of the CA180-018 phase I dose-escalation study of the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer Consortium. J Clin Oncol 31 (19): 2460-8, 2013.  [PUBMED Abstract]