Suppr超能文献

地西他滨联合改良EIAG方案治疗复发/难治性急性髓系白血病及高危骨髓增生异常综合征的疗效与安全性

[Efficacy and Safety of Decitabine Combined with Modified EIAG Regimen in the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia and High-risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome].

作者信息

Mao Jian-Ping, Xue Lian-Guo, Zhu Yuan-Xin, Jia Tao, Wang Ying, Miao Lei, Wei Ji-Feng, Zhao Li-Dong

机构信息

Department of Hematology, The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, Xuzhou Medical University Affiliated Hospital of Lianyungang, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kangda College of Nanjing Medical University, Lianyungang Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University, Lianyungang 222002, Jiangsu Province, China .E-mail:

Department of Hematology, The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, Xuzhou Medical University Affiliated Hospital of Lianyungang, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kangda College of Nanjing Medical University, Lianyungang Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University, Lianyungang 222002, Jiangsu Province, China.

出版信息

Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2023 Apr;31(2):338-343. doi: 10.19746/j.cnki.issn.1009-2137.2023.02.005.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy, prognosis and safety of decitabine combined with modified EIAG regimen in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

METHODS

The clinical data of 44 patients with relapsed/refractory AML and high-risk MDS admitted to our hospital from January 2017 to December 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were equally divided into D-EIAG group (decitabine combined with EIAG regimen) and D-CAG group (decitabine combined with CAG regimen) according to clinical treatment regimen. The complete response (CR), CR with incomplete hematologic recover (CRi), morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS), partial response (PR), overall response rate (ORR), modified composite complete response (mCRc), overall survival (OS) time, 1-year OS rate, myelosuppression and adverse reactions between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

In D-EIAG group, 16 patients (72.7%) achieved mCRc (CR+CRi+MLFS), 3 patients (13.6%) achieved PR, and ORR (mCRc+PR) was 86.4%. In D-CAG group, 9 patients (40.9%) achieved mCRc, 6 patients (27.3%) achieved PR, and ORR was 68.2%. Difference was observed in mCRc rate between the two groups (P=0.035), but not in ORR (P>0.05). The median OS time of D-EIAG group and D-CAG group was 20 (2-38) months and 16 (3-32) months, and 1-year OS rate was 72.7% and 59.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in 1-year OS rate between the two groups (P>0.05). After induction chemotherapy, the median time for absolute neutrophil count recovery to 0.5×10/L in D-EIAG group and D-CAG group was 14 (10-27) d and 12 (10-26) d, for platelet count recovery to 20×10/L was 15 (11-28) d and 14 (11-24)d, the median red blood cell suspension transfusion volume was 8 (6-12) U and 6 (6-12) U, and the median apheresis platelet transfusion volume was 4 (2-8) U and 3 (2-6) U, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in comparison of the above indicators between the two groups (P>0.05). The hematological adverse reactions of patients were mainly myelosuppression. Grade III-IV hematological adverse events occurred in both groups (100%), with no increase in the incidence of non-hematological toxicities such as gastrointestinal reactions or liver function damage.

CONCLUSION

Decitabine combined with EIAG regimen in the treatment of relapsed/refractory AML and high-risk MDS can improve remission rate, provide an opportunity for subsequent therapies, and have no increase in adverse reactions compared with D-CAG regimen.

摘要

目的

探讨地西他滨联合改良EIAG方案治疗复发/难治性急性髓系白血病(AML)及高危骨髓增生异常综合征(MDS)患者的疗效、预后及安全性。

方法

回顾性分析2017年1月至2020年12月我院收治的44例复发/难治性AML及高危MDS患者的临床资料。根据临床治疗方案将患者分为D-EIAG组(地西他滨联合EIAG方案)和D-CAG组(地西他滨联合CAG方案)。比较两组的完全缓解(CR)、伴有血液学不完全恢复的CR(CRi)、形态学无白血病状态(MLFS)、部分缓解(PR)、总缓解率(ORR)、改良复合完全缓解(mCRc)、总生存(OS)时间、1年OS率、骨髓抑制及不良反应情况。

结果

D-EIAG组中,16例(72.7%)达到mCRc(CR+CRi+MLFS),3例(13.6%)达到PR,ORR(mCRc+PR)为86.4%。D-CAG组中,9例(40.9%)达到mCRc,6例(27.3%)达到PR,ORR为68.2%。两组mCRc率差异有统计学意义(P=0.035),但ORR差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。D-EIAG组和D-CAG组的中位OS时间分别为20(238)个月和16(332)个月,1年OS率分别为72.7%和59.1%。两组1年OS率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。诱导化疗后,D-EIAG组和D-CAG组中性粒细胞绝对值恢复至0.5×10⁹/L的中位时间分别为14(1027)d和12(1026)d,血小板计数恢复至20×10⁹/L的中位时间分别为15(1128)d和14(1124)d,红细胞悬液输注量中位数分别为8(612)U和6(612)U,单采血小板输注量中位数分别为4(28)U和3(26)U。两组上述指标比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。患者血液学不良反应主要为骨髓抑制。两组均发生Ⅲ-Ⅳ级血液学不良事件(100%),胃肠道反应、肝功能损害等非血液学毒性发生率未增加。

结论

地西他滨联合EIAG方案治疗复发/难治性AML及高危MDS可提高缓解率,为后续治疗提供机会,且与D-CAG方案相比不良反应未增加。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验