Suppr超能文献

[IA与HAD诱导方案治疗新诊断急性髓系白血病患者的疗效比较:一项单中心研究]

[Comparison of the efficacy of IA and HAD induction regimens in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: a single-center study].

作者信息

Zhang C X, Qiu S W, Gong B F, Gong X Y, Li Y, Liu Y T, Fang Q Y, Zhang G J, Liu K Q, Zhou C L, Wei S N, Lin D, Liu B C, Wang Y, Mi Y C, Wei H, Wang J X

机构信息

State Key Laboratory of Experimental Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Blood Diseases, Haihe Laboratory of Cell Ecosystem, Institute of Hematology & Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Tianjin 300020, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2022 May 14;43(5):383-387. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2022.05.006.

Abstract

To compare the efficacy of two induction regimens, namely, idarubicin combined with cytarabine (IA) versus the combination of homoharringtonine, daunorubicin, and cytarabine (HAD) , in adult patients with newly diagnosed de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) . From May 2014 to November 2019, 199 patients diagnosed with AML receiving either the IA or HAD regimens were assessed for overall survival (OS) , relapse-free survival (RFS) , as well as the CR rate and the MRD negative rate after induction therapy. The differences in prognosis between the two induction therapy groups was assessed according to factors, including age, white blood cell (WBC) count, NPM1 mutation, FLT3-ITD mutation, 2017 ELN risk stratification, CR(1) transplantation, and the use of high-dose cytarabine during consolidation therapy, etc. Among the 199 patients, there were 104 males and 95 females, with a median age of 37 (15-61) years. Ninety patients received the IA regimen, and 109 received the HAD regimen. Comparing the efficacy of the IA and HAD regimens, the CR rates after the first induction therapy were 71.1% and 63.3%, respectively (=0.245) , and the MRD negative rates after the first induction therapy were 53.3% and 48.6%, respectively (=0.509) . One patient in the IA group and two in the HAD group died within 60 days after induction. The two-year OS was 61.5% and 70.6%, respectively (=0.835) , and the two-year RFS was 51.6% and 57.8%, respectively (=0.291) . There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis showed that the ELN risk stratification was an independent risk factor in both induction groups; CR(1) HSCT was an independent prognostic factor for OS and RFS in the IA patients and for RFS in the HAD patients but not for OS in the HAD patients. Age, WBC level, NPM1 mutation, and FLT3-ITD mutation had no independent prognostic significance. The IA and HAD regimens were both effective induction regimens for AML patients.

摘要

比较两种诱导方案,即伊达比星联合阿糖胞苷(IA)与高三尖杉酯碱、柔红霉素和阿糖胞苷联合方案(HAD),在初诊成人急性髓系白血病(AML)患者中的疗效。2014年5月至2019年11月,对199例接受IA或HAD方案治疗的AML患者评估总生存期(OS)、无复发生存期(RFS)以及诱导治疗后的完全缓解(CR)率和微小残留病(MRD)阴性率。根据年龄、白细胞(WBC)计数、NPM1突变、FLT3-ITD突变、2017年欧洲白血病网络(ELN)风险分层、CR(1)移植以及巩固治疗期间使用大剂量阿糖胞苷等因素评估两组诱导治疗的预后差异。199例患者中,男性104例,女性95例,中位年龄为37(范围15 - 61)岁。90例患者接受IA方案,109例接受HAD方案。比较IA和HAD方案的疗效,首次诱导治疗后的CR率分别为71.1%和63.3%(P = 0.245),首次诱导治疗后的MRD阴性率分别为53.3%和48.6%(P = 0.509)。IA组1例患者和HAD组2例患者在诱导后60天内死亡。两年OS分别为61.5%和70.6%(P = 0.835),两年RFS分别为51.6%和57.8%(P = 0.291)。两组之间无统计学显著差异。多因素分析显示,ELN风险分层在两个诱导组中均为独立危险因素;CR(1)造血干细胞移植(HSCT)是IA组患者OS和RFS以及HAD组患者RFS的独立预后因素,但不是HAD组患者OS的独立预后因素。年龄、WBC水平、NPM1突变和FLT3-ITD突变无独立预后意义。IA和HAD方案均为AML患者有效的诱导方案。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3483/9250960/84d943571fb0/cjh-43-05-383-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验