[Efficacy and Safety of Decitabine Combined with CAG (Cytarabine, Aclarubicin, G-CSF) for Patients with Intermediate or High Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome and Acute Myeloid Leukemia: a Meta-Analysis].

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCAG regimen for treating the intermediate or high risk MDS and AML.

METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of decitabine combined with CAG regimen for intermediate or high risk MDS and AML from inception to March, 2018. The quality of each RCT was evaluated by the Cochrane collaboration´s tool for assessing the risk of bias.Then, the data were analyzed by using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, containing 1 557 patients with intermediate or high-risk MDS and AML, of whom 594 were AML patients and 590 were MDS patients. The patients treated with the DCAG regimen were enrolled in DCAG group, and the patients treated with single-agent decitabine or CAG regimen were enrolled in control group.

RESULTS

The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with other therapies, the complete remission rate of DCAG regimen in patients with intermediate or high-risk MDS and AML was high (RR=1.63，95% CI=1.43-1.85，P＜0.000 01), and the overall response rate was also high (RR=1. 35，95% CI=1.24-1.46，P＜0.000 01); Subgroup analysis results showed that DCAG regimen was better than CAG regimen in the complete remission rate (RR=1.71，95% CI=1.49-1.97，P＜0.000 01), and slightly better than single-agent decitabine group (RR=1.43，95% CI=1.08-1.91，P=0.01). In terms of adverse reactions, there was no statistically significant difference in the rates of myelosuppression, pulmonary infection, gastrointestinal reactions, and bleeding events between the 2 groups (P＞0.05).

CONCLUSION

DCAG regimen has significant efficacy in the treatment of intermediate or high-risk MDS and AML, and is superior to CAG regimen and single-agent dicitabine regimen. As compared with control group, there was no significant difference in adverse events. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify above mentioned conclusion.