Riccardi A, Ucci G, Luoni R, Brugnatelli S, Mora O, Spanedda R, De Paoli A, Barbarano L, Di Stasi M, Alberio F
Clinica Medica II, Università and Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Policlinico S. Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Br J Cancer. 1994 Dec;70(6):1203-10. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1994.474.
The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether the prognostic significance of staging in multiple myeloma (MM) is influenced by the aggressiveness of effective induction treatment and/or by continuing or discontinuing maintenance chemotherapy. Patients with untreated stage I MM (defined according to Durie and Salmon) were randomised between being followed without cytostatics until the disease progressed and receiving six courses of melphalan and prednisone (MP-P) just after diagnosis; stage II patients were uniformly treated with MPH-P and stage III patients were randomised between MPH-P and four courses of combination chemotherapy with Peptichemio, vincristine and prednisone (PTC-VCR-P). Within each stage, responsive patients were randomised between receiving additional therapy only until maximal tumour reduction was reached (plateau phase) and continuing induction therapy indefinitely until relapse. With resistant, progressive or relapsing disease, patients originally treated with MPH-P for induction received combination chemotherapy and vice versa. The overall first response rate was 43.8% (42.2% in 206 stage I, II and III patients treated with MPH-P and 48.0% in 75 stage III patients treated with combination chemotherapy, P = NS). Combination chemotherapy was more myelotoxic than MPH-P and, in particular, caused more non-haematological side-effects. Both the less and the more aggressive induction policies gave the same disease control. Progression of disease was statistically similar in stage I patients who were initially left untreated and in t hose who received MPH-P just after diagnosis; median duration of first response was similar in stage III patients receiving MPH-P and in those on combination chemotherapy. In all stages, discontinuing or continuing maintenance did not alter the median duration of first response. The overall second response rate was 28.5% (34.0% to MPH-P and 25.3% to combination chemotherapy, P = NS). Median survival was greater than 78 months in stage I, was 46.3 months in stage II and was 24.3 months in stage III patients, still independent of both induction and post-induction policies. In MM, the significance of staging for survival is independent of both the aggressiveness of induction and of continuing or discontinuing maintenance chemotherapy after the maximal tumor reduction has been achieved. Both MPH-P and and the association of PTC, VCR and P are effective in inducing first response and also second response in patients failing on the alternative regimen, but PTC-VCR-P causes more side effects. Thus, the overwhelming majority of patients with MM can safely be given MPH-P as first therapy, and this treatment may be delayed in early diseases.
本研究的目的是确定多发性骨髓瘤(MM)分期的预后意义是否受有效诱导治疗的侵袭性和/或维持化疗的持续或中断的影响。未经治疗的I期MM患者(根据Durie和Salmon标准定义)被随机分为两组,一组在疾病进展前不使用细胞抑制剂进行观察,另一组在诊断后立即接受六个疗程的美法仑和泼尼松(MP-P)治疗;II期患者统一接受MPH-P治疗,III期患者在MPH-P和四个疗程的含Peptichemio、长春新碱和泼尼松的联合化疗(PTC-VCR-P)之间随机分组。在每个分期内,反应性患者被随机分为两组,一组仅接受额外治疗直至达到最大肿瘤缩小(平台期),另一组无限期持续诱导治疗直至复发。对于耐药、进展或复发的疾病,最初接受MPH-P诱导治疗的患者接受联合化疗,反之亦然。总体首次缓解率为43.8%(206例接受MPH-P治疗的I、II和III期患者中为42.2%,75例接受联合化疗的III期患者中为48.0%,P=无显著性差异)。联合化疗比MPH-P的骨髓毒性更大,尤其是引起更多非血液学副作用。诱导策略积极程度不同的两组都能达到相同的疾病控制效果。最初未接受治疗的I期患者和诊断后立即接受MPH-P治疗的患者疾病进展在统计学上相似;接受MPH-P治疗的III期患者和接受联合化疗的患者首次缓解的中位持续时间相似。在所有分期中,维持治疗的中断或持续并未改变首次缓解的中位持续时间。总体第二次缓解率为28.5%(对MPH-P为34.0%,对联合化疗为25.3%,P=无显著性差异)。I期患者的中位生存期大于78个月,II期患者为46.3个月,III期患者为24.3个月,仍与诱导和诱导后策略无关。在MM中,分期对生存的意义独立于诱导的侵袭性以及在达到最大肿瘤缩小后维持化疗的持续或中断。MPH-P以及PTC、VCR和P的联合用药在诱导首次缓解以及对替代方案治疗失败的患者诱导第二次缓解方面均有效,但PTC-VCR-P引起更多副作用。因此,绝大多数MM患者可以安全地将MPH-P作为首选治疗,并且这种治疗在早期疾病中可以延迟使用。