Division of Hematology, Tor Vergata Foundation Polyclinic, Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Hematology, Department of Biomedicine e Prevention, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy.
Ann Hematol. 2018 Oct;97(10):1767-1774. doi: 10.1007/s00277-018-3374-x. Epub 2018 Jun 10.
The present observational study aimed to compare the efficacy of azacitidine (AZA) and intensive chemotherapy (IC) in elderly patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), diagnosed according to WHO criteria. In the two groups, we evaluated complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). The AZA group included 89 patients; median age was 73 years (range 61-80) and median white blood cell count (WBCc) 2.5 × 10/L (range 0.27-83), 45% of the patients had BM blasts ≥ 30%, and 44 (49%) had a secondary AML (sAML). Karyotype was evaluable in 69 patients: 51 (74%) had intermediate-risk abnormalities and 18 (26%) an unfavorable risk karyotype. IC group consisted of 110 patients who received an induction course with mitoxantrone, cytarabine, and etoposide, followed by two consolidation cycles including idarubicin, cytarabine, and etoposide. Median age was 67 years (range 61-78) and median WBCc 8.0 × 10/L (range 0.69-258); 44 (40%) had a sAML. Karyotype was evaluable in 88 patients, 71 (81%) had intermediate risk, and 17 (19%) unfavorable risk karyotype. To minimize the effects of treatment selection bias, adjustments were made using the propensity-score matching method, which yielded 74 patient pairs. CR rate was significantly higher in IC vs AZA group (73 vs 25%, respectively) (p < 0.0001), but the 3-year OS rates and median OS were not significantly different (21.6 vs 11% and 15.8 vs 13 months, respectively). Our analysis suggests similar outcomes with AZA compared to IC. Controlled, randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm this conclusion.
本观察性研究旨在比较去甲基化药物阿扎胞苷(AZA)和强化化疗(IC)在未经治疗的老年急性髓系白血病(AML)患者中的疗效,这些患者根据世界卫生组织(WHO)标准诊断。在两组患者中,我们评估了完全缓解(CR)、总生存期(OS)和无疾病生存期(DFS)。AZA 组纳入 89 例患者,中位年龄为 73 岁(范围 61-80 岁),中位白细胞计数(WBCc)为 2.5×10/L(范围 0.27-83),45%的患者骨髓原始细胞比例≥30%,44 例(49%)为继发性 AML(sAML)。可评估核型的 69 例患者中,51 例(74%)存在中危异常核型,18 例(26%)存在不良核型。IC 组纳入 110 例患者,接受米托蒽醌、阿糖胞苷和依托泊苷诱导治疗,随后进行两个巩固周期,包括伊达比星、阿糖胞苷和依托泊苷。中位年龄为 67 岁(范围 61-78 岁),中位 WBCc 为 8.0×10/L(范围 0.69-258),44 例(40%)为 sAML。可评估核型的 88 例患者中,71 例(81%)为中危核型,17 例(19%)为不良核型。为了最大限度地减少治疗选择偏倚的影响,我们使用倾向评分匹配方法进行了调整,共得到 74 对患者。IC 组的 CR 率明显高于 AZA 组(分别为 73%和 25%)(p<0.0001),但 3 年 OS 率和中位 OS 无显著差异(分别为 21.6%和 11%,15.8 个月和 13 个月)。我们的分析表明,AZA 与 IC 相比具有相似的疗效。需要进行对照、随机临床试验来证实这一结论。