Standard Consolidation/Maintenance Chemotherapy Is Consistently Superior to a Single Autologous Transplant for Adult Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Results of the International ALL Trial (MRC UKALL XII/ECOG E2993)
Authors: Rowe Jacob M. , Buck Georgina , Moorman Anthony V , Tallman Martin S , Richards Susan M , Fielding Adele K , Burnett Alan K. , Franklin Ian M , Wiernik Peter H. , Lazarus Hillard M , Paietta Elisabeth , Litzow Mark R. , Marks David I , Luger Selina , Dewald Gordon W. , Goldstone Anthony H. 
Published: October 2019

Abstract
The International ALL trial, conducted jointly by the MRC in the UK and ECOG in the US (UKALL XII/E2993), recruited 1929 patients between 1993 and 2006. All patients aged 16 to 64 years with newly diagnosed ALL, received the identical two phases of induction therapy. Patients with an HLA-identical sibling were assigned to a sibling allogeneic transplant and those who were Ph-positive could also get an unrelated-donor transplant. Patients who did not have a donor were to be randomized between a single autologous transplant, after conditioning with etoposide/total body irradiation, versus consolidation/maintenance therapy for 2.5 years. Following randomization, but prior to receiving the assigned or randomized therapy, all patients received intensification with 3 cycles of high-dose methotrexate. After excluding patients assigned to an allogeneic transplant, 1028 patients were eligible for randomization but, as in other major transplant studies, only 457 were randomized. The rationale underlying the randomization was based on the fact that protracted consolidation/maintenance therapy in adults, extrapolated from the pediatric experience, had never been prospectively evaluated in the era of intensive chemotherapy. Given that the mortality from autotransplant is not higher than chemotherapy (Goldstone et al. Blood. 2008), it was postulated that if a single autologous transplant is at least as good as standard protracted chemotherapy that may make it the preferable option, except possibly in females in whom fertility may be an issue. The overall survival and the event-free survival were significantly superior among the chemotherapy patients (p = .05) as previously reported (Goldstone et al. Blood. 2008). Because the literature contains reports suggesting a trend in favor of autologous transplantation in some patients with ALL (Dhédiu et al. Leukemia, 2006), an analysis was performed to see if any subgroup of patients could be identified in whom: 1. chemotherapy may not be superior to autologous transplant and 2. autologous transplant may be superior. The table lists a detailed analysis of overall survival looking at various age groups, B- versus T-lineage, the rapidity with which a complete remission was achieved –after phase I or only after phase II of induction. Detailed analysis was also performed by cytogenetics looking at those with standard risk versus those with high risk abnormalities [ t(9;22), t(4;11), t(8;14)] and low hypodiploidy/near triploidy or a complex karyotype (Moorman et al. Blood. 2007)]. In all groups, the chemotherapy group was at least as efficacious as the autograft group, and in some was even significantly superior to autologous transplantation. There is no evidence that other risk factors, such as relapse rate or treatment-related mortality, influenced these overall survival data. In addition, the tests for heterogeneity were not significant across any group. In conclusion, the overall survival was longer in patients randomized to chemotherapy, although the superiority was not statistically significant in most of the groups. There is no clinical indication for autologous transplantation at any age and particularly this should not be considered for patients over age 50, those with high-risk cytogenetics or T-lineage, and late remitters, for whom it might appear most attractive.
Overall Survival (OS) at 5 years in 457 Randomized Patients
Chemo Auto Subgroups n OS n OS P (log rank) Age (years) < 20 50 58% 43 46% > 0.1 20–29 61 52% 70 43% > 0.1 30–39 46 39% 46 32% > 0.1 40–49 38 31% 35 31% > 0.1 50 + 33 38% 35 31% > 0.1 B-lineage 169 46% 158 35% 0.03 T-lineage 45 54% 54 49% > 0.1 Time to CR phase I 193 48% 190 41% 0.1 phase II 26 36% 29 19% 0.08 Cytogenetics standard-risk 109 51% 122 44% > 0.1 high-risk 29 23% 27 7% 0.02