Weick J K, Kopecky K J, Appelbaum F R, Head D R, Kingsbury L L, Balcerzak S P, Bickers J N, Hynes H E, Welborn J L, Simon S R, Grever M
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Ft Lauderdale, USA.
Blood. 1996 Oct 15;88(8):2841-51.
Interest in high-dose cytarabine (HDAC) for both induction and postremission therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) prompted the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) to initiate a randomized trial comparing HDAC with standard-dose cytarabine (SDAC) for remission induction of previously untreated AML and to compare high-dose treatment versus conventional doses for consolidation therapy. Patients less than 65 years of age with de novo or secondary AML were randomized for induction between SDAC 200 mg/ m2/d for 7 days by continuous infusion or HDAC at 2 g/ m2 intravenously every 12 hours for 12 doses; both groups received daunorubicin (DNR) at 45 mg/m2/d intravenously for 3 days. Complete responders to SDAC were randomized to receive either two additional courses of SDAC plus DNR or one course of HDAC plus DNR. Complete responders to HDAC were nonrandomly assigned to receive one additional course of HDAC plus DNR. Of patients randomized between SDAC (n = 493) and HDAC (n = 172) induction, 361 achieved complete remission (CR). The CR rate was slightly poorer with HDAC: 55% versus 58% with SDAC for patients aged less than 50, and 45% (HDAC) versus 53% (SDAC) for patients aged 50 to 64 (age-adjusted one-tailed P = .96). With a median follow-up time of 51 months, survival was not significantly better with HDAC (P = .41); the estimated survival rate at 4 years was 32% (HDAC) versus 22% (SDAC) for those aged less than 50, and 13% (HDAC) versus 11% (SDAC) for those aged 50 to 64. However, relapse-free survival was somewhat better following HDAC Induction (P = .049): 33% (HDAC) versus 21% (SDAC) at 4 years for those aged less than 50, and 21% (HDAC) versus 9% (SDAC) for those aged 50 to 64. Induction with HDAC was associated with a significantly increased risk of fatal (P = .0033) and neurologic (P < .0001) toxicity. Among patients who achieved CR with SDAC, survival and disease-free survival (DFS) following consolidation randomization were not significantly better with HDAC compared with SDAC (P = .77 and .46, respectively). Patients who received both HDAC induction and consolidation had the best postremission outcomes; however, the proportion of CR patients who did not go on to protocol consolidation therapy was more than twice as high after HDAC induction compared with SDAC. Induction therapy with HDAC plus DNR was associated with greater toxicity than SDAC plus DNR, but with no improvement in CR rate or survival. Following CR induction with SDAC, consolidation with HDAC increased toxicity but not survival or DFS. In a nonrandomized comparison, patients who received both HDAC induction and consolidation had superior survival and DFS compared with those who received SDAC induction with either SDAC or HDAC consolidation.
对大剂量阿糖胞苷(HDAC)用于急性髓系白血病(AML)诱导缓解和缓解后治疗的兴趣促使西南肿瘤协作组(SWOG)开展一项随机试验,比较HDAC与标准剂量阿糖胞苷(SDAC)用于初治AML的缓解诱导情况,并比较大剂量治疗与传统剂量用于巩固治疗的效果。年龄小于65岁的初发或继发AML患者被随机分组,诱导治疗时,一组接受持续静脉输注SDAC 200mg/m²/d,共7天;另一组接受HDAC 2g/m²静脉注射,每12小时1次,共12剂;两组均接受柔红霉素(DNR)45mg/m²/d静脉注射,共3天。SDAC诱导治疗的完全缓解者被随机分组,接受另外两个疗程的SDAC加DNR或一个疗程的HDAC加DNR。HDAC诱导治疗的完全缓解者非随机接受另外一个疗程的HDAC加DNR。在随机接受SDAC(n = 493)和HDAC(n = 172)诱导治疗的患者中,361例实现完全缓解(CR)。HDAC组的CR率略低:年龄小于50岁的患者,HDAC组为55%,SDAC组为58%;年龄50至64岁的患者,HDAC组为45%,SDAC组为53%(年龄校正单尾P = 0.96)。中位随访时间为51个月,HDAC组的生存率无显著提高(P = 0.41);年龄小于50岁的患者,4年估计生存率HDAC组为32%,SDAC组为22%;年龄50至64岁的患者,HDAC组为13%,SDAC组为11%。然而,HDAC诱导治疗后的无复发生存率略好(P = 0.049):年龄小于50岁的患者,4年时HDAC组为33%,SDAC组为21%;年龄50至64岁的患者,HDAC组为21%,SDAC组为9%。HDAC诱导治疗与致命性毒性(P = 0.0033)和神经毒性(P < 0.0001)风险显著增加相关。在SDAC诱导实现CR的患者中,巩固治疗随机分组后,HDAC组的生存和无病生存(DFS)与SDAC组相比无显著改善(分别为P = 0.77和0.46)。接受HDAC诱导和巩固治疗的患者缓解后结局最佳;然而,HDAC诱导后未继续接受方案巩固治疗的CR患者比例是SDAC诱导后的两倍多。HDAC加DNR诱导治疗比SDAC加DNR毒性更大,但CR率或生存率无改善。SDAC诱导CR后,HDAC巩固治疗增加了毒性,但未提高生存率或DFS。在一项非随机比较中,接受HDAC诱导和巩固治疗的患者比接受SDAC诱导并采用SDAC或HDAC巩固治疗的患者生存率和DFS更高。