Borlenghi Erika, Pagani Chiara, Zappasodi Patrizia, Bernardi Massimo, Basilico Claudia, Cairoli Roberto, Fracchiolla Nicola, Todisco Elisabetta, Turrini Mauro, Cattaneo Chiara, Da Vià Matteo, Ciceri Fabio, Passamonti Francesco, Mancini Valentina, Sciumè Mariarita, Cerqui Elisa, Sciumè Margherita, Rossi Giuseppe
Department of Hematology, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Department of Hematology, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
J Geriatr Oncol. 2021 May;12(4):550-556. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2020.10.004. Epub 2020 Oct 20.
Treatment of older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is still controversial. To facilitate treatment decisions, the "fitness criteria" proposed by Ferrara et al. (Leukemia, 2013), including age > 75 years, performance status and comorbidities, were verified retrospectively in 699 patients with AML (419 de-novo, 280 secondary AML), diagnosed at 8 Hematological Centers (REL).
Patients were categorized in FIT to intensive chemotherapy (i-T) (292, 42.5%), UNFIT to i-T (289, 42.1%), or unfit even to non-intensive therapy (non i-T) (FRAIL) (105, 15.3%). Biological characteristics and treatment actually received by patients [i-T, 274 patients (39.2%); non i-T, 134 (19.2%), best-supportive care (BSC), 291 (41.6%)] were recorded.
"Fitness criteria" were easily applicable in 98.1% of patients. Overall concordance between "fitness criteria" and treatment actually received by patients was high (79.4%), 76% in FIT, 82.7% in UNFIT and 80% in FRAIL patients. Fitness independently predicted survival (median survival: 10.9, 4.2 and 1.8 months in FIT, UNFIT and FRAIL patients, respectively; p = 0.000), as confirmed also by multivariate analysis. In FRAIL patients, survival with any treatment was no better than with BSC, in UNFIT non i-T was as effective as i-T and better than BSC, and in FIT patients i-T was better than non i-T or BSC. In addition, a non-adverse risk AML, an ECOG PS <2, and receiving any treatment other than BSC had a favorable effect on survival (p < 0.001).
These simple "fitness criteria" applied at the time of diagnosis could facilitate, together with AML biologic risk evaluation, the choice of the most appropriate treatment intensity in older AML patients.
老年急性髓系白血病(AML)患者的治疗仍存在争议。为便于做出治疗决策,我们对费拉拉等人(《白血病》,2013年)提出的“健康标准”进行了回顾性验证,该标准包括年龄>75岁、体能状态和合并症,研究对象为在8家血液学中心确诊的699例AML患者(419例初发,280例继发性AML)。
将患者分为适合强化化疗(i-T)组(292例,42.5%)、不适合i-T组(289例,42.1%)或甚至不适合非强化治疗(非i-T)组(虚弱组,105例,15.3%)。记录患者的生物学特征以及实际接受的治疗 [i-T,274例患者(39.2%);非i-T,134例(19.2%),最佳支持治疗(BSC),291例(41.6%)]。
“健康标准”在98.1%的患者中易于应用。“健康标准”与患者实际接受的治疗之间的总体一致性较高(79.4%),适合组为76%,不适合组为82.7%,虚弱组为80%。健康状况可独立预测生存情况(中位生存期:适合组、不适合组和虚弱组患者分别为10.9、4.2和1.8个月;p = 0.000),多因素分析也证实了这一点。在虚弱组患者中,任何治疗的生存情况均不比最佳支持治疗更好;在不适合组中,非i-T与i-T效果相同且优于最佳支持治疗;在适合组患者中,i-T优于非i-T或最佳支持治疗。此外,非不良风险AML、东部肿瘤协作组体能状态评分<2以及接受除最佳支持治疗以外的任何治疗对生存有有利影响(p < 0.001)。
这些在诊断时应用的简单“健康标准”,连同AML生物学风险评估,可有助于为老年AML患者选择最合适的治疗强度。