• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

CHOP方案与ProMACE-CytaBOM方案治疗侵袭性非霍奇金淋巴瘤的多中心随机试验长期结果。(PETHEMA:西班牙血液恶性肿瘤治疗研究合作组,西班牙血液学会)

CHOP vs. ProMACE-CytaBOM in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: long-term results of a multicenter randomized trial.(PETHEMA: Spanish Cooperative Group for the Study of Hematological Malignancies Treatment, Spanish Society of Hematology).

作者信息

Montserrat E, García-Conde J, Viñolas N, López-Guillermo A, Hernández-Nieto L, Zubizarreta A, Maldonado J, Alcalá A, Faura M V, Llorente A, Bladé J, Fontanillas M, Estapé J

机构信息

Department of Hematology, University of Barcelona, Spain.

出版信息

Eur J Haematol. 1996 Nov;57(5):377-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.1996.tb01396.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0609.1996.tb01396.x
PMID:9003479
Abstract

From May 1985 to May 1989, 175 patients with previously untreated aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were randomized to receive CHOP or ProMACE-CytaBOM. Eligibility criteria included follicular large-cell diffuse small cleaved-cell, diffuse mixed, diffuse large-cell and immunoblastic lymphoma with an Ann Arbor stage II, III or IV. One hundred and forty-eight patients were evaluable. There were no significant differences between the 2 treatments in response rate (83.5% [57.5% CR] for CHOP vs. 88% [62% CR] for ProMACE-CytaBOM), time to treatment failure (29% vs. 31% at 5 yr), or overall survival (42% in both groups at 5 yr). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the 2 regimens when response rates and outcome were analyzed for different prognostic subgroups. Toxicity was not significantly different between the 2 regimens, although only 1 patient died as result of treatment-related toxicity in the CHOP arm compared to 6 patient in the ProMACE-CytaBOM group (p = 0.126). In conclusion, in this study ProMACE-CytaBOM has not proved to be superior to CHOP in aggressive lymphomas. This trial gives support to the notion that CHOP still is the standard chemotherapy for aggressive lymphomas, and that new treatment approaches for these lymphomas should be compared to CHOP.

摘要

1985年5月至1989年5月,175例既往未经治疗的侵袭性非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者被随机分组,分别接受CHOP方案或ProMACE - CytaBOM方案治疗。入选标准包括滤泡性大细胞、弥漫性小裂细胞、弥漫性混合性、弥漫性大细胞和免疫母细胞淋巴瘤,Ann Arbor分期为II、III或IV期。148例患者可进行评估。两种治疗方案在缓解率(CHOP方案为83.5%[完全缓解率57.5%],ProMACE - CytaBOM方案为88%[完全缓解率62%])、治疗失败时间(5年时分别为29%和31%)或总生存率(两组5年时均为42%)方面无显著差异。此外,对不同预后亚组分析缓解率和转归时,两种方案之间也无显著差异。两种方案的毒性无显著差异,尽管CHOP组仅有1例患者死于治疗相关毒性,而ProMACE - CytaBOM组有6例患者死亡(p = 0.126)。总之,在本研究中,ProMACE - CytaBOM方案在侵袭性淋巴瘤中并未证明优于CHOP方案。该试验支持了CHOP方案仍是侵袭性淋巴瘤标准化疗方案这一观点,并且这些淋巴瘤的新治疗方法应与CHOP方案进行比较。

相似文献

1
CHOP vs. ProMACE-CytaBOM in the treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: long-term results of a multicenter randomized trial.(PETHEMA: Spanish Cooperative Group for the Study of Hematological Malignancies Treatment, Spanish Society of Hematology).CHOP方案与ProMACE-CytaBOM方案治疗侵袭性非霍奇金淋巴瘤的多中心随机试验长期结果。(PETHEMA:西班牙血液恶性肿瘤治疗研究合作组,西班牙血液学会)
Eur J Haematol. 1996 Nov;57(5):377-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.1996.tb01396.x.
2
CEOP-B/VIMB vs. promace-CytaBOM in the treatment of intermediate or high grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: A randomised multicenter study of Southern Italy Cooperative Group.
Int J Oncol. 2000 Jan;16(1):149-54. doi: 10.3892/ijo.16.1.149.
3
[Clinical randomized comparative trial of ProMACE-CytaBOM regimen and CHOP regimen in treating non-Hodgkin's lymphoma].普罗梅塞-赛塔博姆方案与CHOP方案治疗非霍奇金淋巴瘤的临床随机对照试验
Ai Zheng. 2005 Apr;24(4):461-4.
4
Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.标准方案(CHOP)与三种强化化疗方案治疗晚期非霍奇金淋巴瘤的比较。
N Engl J Med. 1993 Apr 8;328(14):1002-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199304083281404.
5
[Treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with the ProMACE- CytaBOM protocol].采用ProMACE-CytaBOM方案治疗侵袭性非霍奇金淋巴瘤
Srp Arh Celok Lek. 1998 Sep-Oct;126(9-10):345-8.
6
Superiority of ProMACE-CytaBOM over ProMACE-MOPP in the treatment of advanced diffuse aggressive lymphoma: results of a prospective randomized trial.ProMACE-CytaBOM方案在治疗晚期弥漫性侵袭性淋巴瘤方面优于ProMACE-MOPP方案:一项前瞻性随机试验的结果
J Clin Oncol. 1991 Jan;9(1):25-38. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1991.9.1.25.
7
A phase III comparison of CHOP vs. m-BACOD vs. ProMACE-CytaBOM vs. MACOP-B in patients with intermediate- or high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of SWOG-8516 (Intergroup 0067), the National High-Priority Lymphoma Study.CHOP方案、m-BACOD方案、ProMACE-CytaBOM方案与MACOP-B方案治疗中高危非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者的III期比较:SWOG-8516(肿瘤协作组0067)研究结果,国家高优先级淋巴瘤研究
Ann Oncol. 1994;5 Suppl 2:91-5. doi: 10.1093/annonc/5.suppl_2.s91.
8
Long-term follow-up of ProMACE-CytaBOM in non-Hodgkin's lymphomas.ProMACE-CytaBOM方案治疗非霍奇金淋巴瘤的长期随访
Ann Oncol. 1991 Jan;2 Suppl 1:33-5. doi: 10.1093/annonc/2.suppl_1.33.
9
[ProMACE-MOPP vs. ProMACE-CytaBOM polychemotherapies in the treatment of large-cell and unclassifiable non-Hodgkin's lymphomas].[ProMACE-MOPP与ProMACE-CytaBOM联合化疗方案治疗大细胞及无法分类的非霍奇金淋巴瘤]
Ann Ital Med Int. 1991 Jul-Sep;6(3):267-72.
10
ProMACE-CytaBOM: combination chemotherapy for diffuse large cell lymphoma.ProMACE-CytaBOM方案:用于弥漫性大细胞淋巴瘤的联合化疗。
Anticancer Res. 1989 Jul-Aug;9(4):1233-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Epstein-Barr Virus-Driven T-Cell Lymphoma with Haemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis: A Life-Threatening Disorder Extending Beyond Childhood.爱泼斯坦-巴尔病毒驱动的T细胞淋巴瘤伴噬血细胞性淋巴组织细胞增生症:一种危及生命的疾病,不仅局限于儿童期。
Eur J Case Rep Intern Med. 2024 Oct 17;11(11):004931. doi: 10.12890/2024_004931. eCollection 2024.
2
Impact of Epstein-Barr Virus on Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Not Otherwise Specified and Angioimmunoblastic T-Cell Lymphoma.爱泼斯坦-巴尔病毒对未另行指定的外周T细胞淋巴瘤和血管免疫母细胞性T细胞淋巴瘤的影响。
Front Oncol. 2022 Jan 11;11:797028. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.797028. eCollection 2021.
3
Comparative efficacy of different chemotherapies for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a network-meta analysis.
不同化疗方案治疗非霍奇金淋巴瘤的疗效比较:一项网状Meta分析
Oncotarget. 2017 Aug 24;8(53):91238-91247. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.20437. eCollection 2017 Oct 31.
4
NHL (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma).非霍奇金淋巴瘤(弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤)
BMJ Clin Evid. 2010 Nov 15;2010:2401.
5
NHL (diffuse large B cell lymphoma).非霍奇金淋巴瘤(弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤)
BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 Jan 18;2008:2401.
6
A randomized controlled trial investigating the survival benefit of dose-intensified multidrug combination chemotherapy (LSG9) for intermediate- or high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study 9002.一项关于剂量强化多药联合化疗(LSG9)对中或高度非霍奇金淋巴瘤生存获益的随机对照试验:日本临床肿瘤学组研究9002。
Int J Hematol. 2004 Nov;80(4):341-50. doi: 10.1532/ijh97.04085.
7
Survival in patients with intermediate or high grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing third generation regimens with CHOP.中高度非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者的生存情况:比较第三代化疗方案与CHOP方案的随机研究的荟萃分析
Br J Cancer. 2001 Feb 2;84(3):303-7. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1566.