Gupta Neha, Miller Austin, Gandhi Shipra, Ford Laurie A, Vigil Carlos E, Griffiths Elizabeth A, Thompson James E, Wetzler Meir, Wang Eunice S
Department of Medicine, SUNY-UB School of Medicine, Buffalo, New York.
Department of Biostatistics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York.
Am J Hematol. 2015 Jul;90(7):639-46. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24016.
Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have poor outcomes with standard induction chemotherapy. We retrospectively reviewed our institute's experience with epigenetic (Epi) versus cytarabine- and anthracycline-based intensive chemotherapy (IC) as induction in newly diagnosed AML patients aged 60 years and older. One hundred sixty-seven patients (n = 84, IC; n = 83, Epi) were assessed; 69 patients received decitabine and 14 azacitidine. Baseline characteristics between the IC and Epi patient cohorts were not statistically different except for age, initial white blood cell count, and comorbidity index. Overall response rate (ORR, 50% vs. 28%, respectively, P < 0.01) and complete response rate (CRR, 43% vs. 20%, respectively, P < 0.01) were superior following IC vs. Epi. Although univariate analysis demonstrated longer overall survival after IC (10.7 vs. 9.1 months, P = 0.012), multivariate analysis showed no independent impact of induction treatment. Treatment-related mortality was not statistically different in the two groups. Outcomes of patients with secondary, poor cytogenetic risk, FLT-3 mutated AML, or relapsed/refractory disease after IC or Epi were not significantly different. Outcomes of patients receiving IC versus a 10-day decitabine regimen (n = 63) also were not significantly different. Our results suggest that IC and Epi therapy are clinically equivalent approaches for upfront treatment of older patients with AML and that other factors (feasibility, toxicity, cost, etc.) should drive treatment decisions. Prospective randomized trials to determine the optimal induction approach for specific patient subsets are needed.
老年急性髓系白血病(AML)患者接受标准诱导化疗的预后较差。我们回顾性分析了我院对60岁及以上新诊断AML患者采用表观遗传学(Epi)诱导治疗与基于阿糖胞苷和蒽环类药物的强化化疗(IC)的经验。评估了167例患者(n = 84,IC组;n = 83,Epi组);69例患者接受了地西他滨治疗,14例接受了阿扎胞苷治疗。除年龄、初始白细胞计数和合并症指数外,IC组和Epi组患者的基线特征无统计学差异。与Epi组相比,IC组的总缓解率(ORR,分别为50%和28%,P < 0.01)和完全缓解率(CRR,分别为43%和20%,P < 0.01)更高。虽然单因素分析显示IC组的总生存期更长(10.7个月对9.1个月,P = 0.012),但多因素分析显示诱导治疗无独立影响。两组的治疗相关死亡率无统计学差异。IC组或Epi组后出现继发性、细胞遗传学风险差、FLT-3突变AML或复发/难治性疾病患者的预后无显著差异。接受IC治疗与接受10天地西他滨方案(n = 63)患者的预后也无显著差异。我们的结果表明,IC治疗和Epi治疗是老年AML患者初始治疗的临床等效方法,其他因素(可行性、毒性、成本等)应驱动治疗决策。需要进行前瞻性随机试验以确定特定患者亚组的最佳诱导治疗方法。