4.7 Article

Randomized Open-Label Phase II Study of Decitabine in Patients With Low- or Intermediate-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 31, 期 20, 页码 2548-+

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.6823

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Eisai Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This open-label, randomized phase II trial assessed efficacy and tolerability of two low-dose regimens of subcutaneous (SC) decitabine in patients with low-or intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Patients and Methods Patients received decitabine 20 mg/m(2) SC per day for 3 consecutive days on days 1, 2, and 3 every 28 days (schedule A) or 20 mg/m(2) SC per day once every 7 days on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days (schedule B) for up to 1 year. Primary efficacy end point was overall improvement rate (OIR: complete remission [CR], partial remission [PR], marrow CR [mCR], or hematologic improvement [HI]). Secondary end points were HI, transfusion independence, cytogenetic response, overall survival (OS), and time to acute myeloid leukemia or death. Results Efficacy and safety populations were identical: schedule A, n = 43; schedule B, n = 22. Median time from MDS diagnosis to treatment was 3.6 months; 89% had de novo MDS. The trial was terminated early on achievement of protocol-defined OIR superiority of schedule A over schedule B; OIR was 23% for schedule A (seven CRs, three HIs) and 23% for schedule B (one mCR, one PR, three HIs). No differences were observed in secondary end points. Median OS was not reached; approximately 70% of patients were alive at 500 days. Patients in schedule A (67%) and schedule B (59%) were RBC/platelet independent on study. The most frequent drug-related adverse events overall were neutropenia (28% v 36%), anemia (23% v 18%), and thrombocytopenia (16% v 32%). Conclusion In this phase II study, low-dose decitabine showed promising results in patients with low-or intermediate-1-risk MDS. (C) 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

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

4.7
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