4.7 Article

Cladribine, But Not Fludarabine, Added to Daunorubicin and Cytarabine During Induction Prolongs Survival of Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 30, 期 20, 页码 2441-2448

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.1286

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Komitet Badan Naukowych, Warsaw, Poland [PBZ-KBN-121/P05/2004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the addition of a purine analog, cladribine or fludarabine, to the standard induction regimen affects the outcome of adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients and Methods A cohort of 652 untreated AML patients with median age 47 years (range, 17 to 60 years) were randomly assigned to receive one of three induction regimens: DA (daunorubicin plus cytarabine), DAC (DA plus cladribine), or DAF (DA plus fludarabine). Postremission treatment was the same for all arms. Results Complete remission rate in the DAC arm was higher compared with the DA arm (67.5% v 56%; P = .01) as a consequence of reduced incidence of resistant disease (21% v 34%; P = .004). There was no significant difference in early outcome between the DAF and DA arms. The probability of overall survival was improved for the DAC arm (45% +/- 4% at 3 years) compared with the DA arm (33% +/- 4%; P = .02), and leukemia-free survival was comparable. Long-term outcome did not differ significantly for the comparison of the DAF and DA arms. A survival advantage of the DAC arm over the DA arm was observed among patients age 50 years or older (P = .005), those with initial leukocyte count above 50 x 10(9)/L (P = .03), and those with unfavorable karyotype (P = .03). DAF revealed a significant advantage over DA in patients with adverse karyotype (P = .02). Conclusion The addition of cladribine to the standard induction regimen is associated with increased rate of complete remission and improved survival of adult patients with AML.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据