4.7 Article

A phase 2 study of lenalidomide monotherapy in patients with deletion 5q acute myeloid leukemia: Southwest Oncology Group Study S0605

期刊

BLOOD
卷 118, 期 3, 页码 523-528

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-02-337303

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Health Service, National Cancer Institute, Department of Health Human Services [CA32102, CA38926, CA073590, CA04919, CA20319, CA11083, CA42777, CA46441, CA45807, CA67575, CA76429, CA27057, CA35119]
  2. Celgene Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Older acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with a chromosome 5q deletion have poor outcomes with conventional chemotherapy. This phase 2 study explored the safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in previously untreated older AML patients with del(5q) who declined standard chemotherapy. Patients were treated with lenalidomide 50 mg daily for 28 days as induction therapy and 10 mg daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle as maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Among 37 evaluable patients, the median age was 74 years (range, 60-94), 21 (57%) were female, 19 (51%) had prior myelodysplastic syndrome, and 30 (81%) had pretreatment cytogenetic studies evaluated centrally. Six had isolated del(5q), 1 had del(5q) and +8, 23 had complex cytogenetics, and 7 others had del(5q) identified locally. Fourteen patients (38%) completed induction therapy: 7 patients died during induction therapy, 8 had disease progression, 7 had nonfatal adverse events, and 1 entered hospice. Eight patients started maintenance therapy. Five patients (14%) achieved a partial or complete response, 2 with isolated del(5q) and 3 with complex cytogenetics. Relapse-free survival was 5 months (range, 0-19). Median overall survival was 2 months for the entire population. In conclusion, lenalidomide as a single agent has modest activity in older del(5q) AML patients. Southwest Oncology Group Study S0605 is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352365. (Blood. 2011;118(3):523-528)

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