Woods W G, Kobrinsky N, Buckley J D, Lee J W, Sanders J, Neudorf S, Gold S, Barnard D R, DeSwarte J, Dusenbery K, Kalousek D, Arthur D C, Lange B J
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Blood. 1996 Jun 15;87(12):4979-89.
Timed sequencing of cycles of induction chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been proposed as a way to achieve maximal leukemic cell kill through recruitment and synchronization of residual neoplastic cells. Furthermore, whether intensive induction therapy should be continued in the presence of profound myelosuppression is an important question. The Children's Cancer Group (CCG) conducted a prospective randomized trial in which 589 patients with AML were randomized at diagnosis to one of two induction approaches involving a 4-day cycle of five active chemotherapeutic agents, with the second cycle administered either 10 days after the first cycle, despite low or dropping blood counts (intensive timing), or 14 days or later from the beginning of the first cycle, depending on bone marrow status (standard timing). All patients achieving remission received a total of four cycles of induction therapy. They were then allocated to allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) if a compatible family donor was present or randomized to aggressive nonmyeloablative therapy or to myeloablative therapy with purged autologous BMT rescue. The three postremission arms remain coded. Induction success and median days to complete induction were similar for the 295 patients randomized to the intensive timing arm (75%, 99 days) compared with the 294 patients randomized to the standard timing arm (70%, 105 days; P = .18 for remission). However, a marked improvement in outcome was demonstrated in patients randomized to the intensive timing arm, with an actuarial event-free survival at 3 years of 42% +/- 7% (95% confidence interval [CI]) versus 27% +/- 6% for patients on the standard timing arm (P = .0005). Disease-free survival results at 3 years from the end of induction were superior for patients receiving intensively timed induction therapy (N = 211), 55% +/- 9% versus 37% +/- 9% for standard timing patients (N = 195, P = .0002), with a median follow-up from achieving remission of 28 months. Superior results were documented for patients receiving intensive timing irrespective of the postremission therapy to which they were allocated. Intensively timed induction therapy for patients with AML markedly improves event-free survival, even for patients undergoing myeloablative therapy with BMT rescue. Without controlling for the type of induction therapy received, results of various BMT studies in AML comparing different preparative regimens will be difficult to interpret.
急性髓系白血病(AML)诱导化疗周期的定时测序已被提出,作为一种通过募集和同步残留肿瘤细胞来实现最大程度白血病细胞杀伤的方法。此外,在存在严重骨髓抑制的情况下是否应继续强化诱导治疗是一个重要问题。儿童癌症组(CCG)进行了一项前瞻性随机试验,589例AML患者在诊断时被随机分为两种诱导方案之一,这两种方案都涉及为期4天的含五种活性化疗药物的周期,第二个周期在第一个周期后10天给药,无论血细胞计数低或在下降(强化定时),或者从第一个周期开始14天或更晚给药,具体取决于骨髓状况(标准定时)。所有获得缓解的患者共接受四个周期的诱导治疗。然后,如果有合适的家庭供体,他们被分配接受异基因骨髓移植(BMT),或者被随机分配接受积极的非清髓性治疗或接受有净化自体BMT救援的清髓性治疗。三个缓解后治疗组仍处于编码状态。随机分配到强化定时组的295例患者与随机分配到标准定时组的294例患者相比,诱导成功率和完成诱导的中位天数相似(分别为75%,99天和70%,105天;缓解率P = 0.18)。然而,随机分配到强化定时组的患者的结局有显著改善,3年无事件生存率为42%±7%(95%置信区间[CI]),而标准定时组患者为27%±6%(P = 0.0005)。诱导结束后3年的无病生存结果,接受强化定时诱导治疗的患者(N = 211)优于标准定时患者(N = 195,分别为55%±9%和37%±9%,P = 0.0002),从缓解开始的中位随访时间为28个月。无论分配到何种缓解后治疗,接受强化定时治疗的患者都有更好的结果。AML患者的强化定时诱导治疗显著提高了无事件生存率,即使对于接受有BMT救援的清髓性治疗的患者也是如此。如果不控制所接受的诱导治疗类型,AML中比较不同预处理方案的各种BMT研究结果将难以解释。