4.1 Review

Chronic myeloid leukemia in Asia

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 89, 期 1, 页码 14-23

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12185-008-0230-0

关键词

Epidemiology; Treatment; Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML); Asia

资金

  1. Singapore Cancer Syndicate [SCS-TS0065, SCS-AS0076]
  2. National Cancer Control R D Program [0320290-3]
  3. Ministry of Health and Welfare (Republic of Korea) [R21-2002-000-00010-0]
  4. National Research Resource Bank Program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation
  5. Ministry of Science and Technology
  6. National Research Foundation of Korea [R21-2002-000-00010-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in Asia has an incidence rather lower than in Western countries yet tends to afflict a younger population. As in the West, imatinib mesylate (IM, Glivec) has supplanted busulphan, hydroxyurea and interferon-alpha as first-line treatment. Its use has resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of hematopoietic stem cell transplantations (HSCT) performed. Although it is expensive, IM induces a complete cytogenetic response in 60-90% of newly diagnosed patients, and up to 10% for those in blastic phase. The standard dose of 400 mg is well tolerated by most patients, although adverse events have been observed, including drug-induced cytopenia. Through the Glivec International Patient Assistance Program, the majority of CML patients has access to IM and can expect prolonged survival, even in the absence of HSCT. However, just as in Western countries, resistance to imatinib has emerged in Asian countries. They will require the novel tyrosine kinase inhibitors (dasatinib, nilotinib) becoming available through either clinical trials or market approval. This review examines the available data on CML in China, Hong Kong, India, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据