4.7 Article

Inclusion of chemotherapy in addition to anthracycline in the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukaemia does not improve outcomes: results of the MRC AML15 trial

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 843-851

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2012.360

关键词

acute promyelocytic leukaemia; clinical trial; cytarabine; anthracycline

资金

  1. Pfizer
  2. UK Medical Research Council
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/J006742/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two hundred eighty-five patients, median age 42, with PML-RARa-positive acute promyelocytic leukaemia were randomised to Ara-C-containing 'Medical Research Council (MRC) Chemotherapy'+ATRA (All-trans-retinoic acid) or anthracycline+ATRA (modified 'Spanish') therapy. MRC treatment comprised four courses with ATRA in courses 1-2. Spanish treatment comprised four anthracycline-based courses with ATRA in courses 1-3. In course 3 patients were randomised to gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) or not. The Spanish arm received 24-month maintenance. Patients were sequentially molecularly monitored. Quality of life was assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12, 24 months. Remission rates were similar in both arms (93%): cumulative incidence of haematological relapse (CIHR) was 6% at 5 years; 5 patients relapsed molecularly. Survival post relapse was 80%. There were more deaths in remission in the MRC arm (4% vs 10%: P = 0.2). The overall 5-year relapse-free and overall survival was similar between arms (81% vs 82% and 84% vs 83%, respectively). More supportive care and hospitalisation (81.8 vs 63 days, P<0.0001) was required in the MRC arm. GO did not provide benefit. High white blood cell count (>10 x 10(9)/l) was not prognostic overall, or within treatment arms. Both approaches deliver similar results with minor differences in quality of life. MRC treatment required more hospitalisation. This suggests that additional chemotherapy, Ara-C in particular, is not required. Leukemia (2013) 27, 843-851; doi:10.1038/leu.2012.360

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