4.6 Article

Etoposide, methylprednisolone, cytarabine and cisplatin successfully cytoreduces resistant myeloma patients and mobilizes them for transplant without adverse effects

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 125, 期 6, 页码 756-765

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2004.04981.x

关键词

chemoresistant; myeloma; stem cell harvest; etoposide; methylprednisolone; cytarabine and cisplatin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Myeloma remains incurable with a median survival of 4 years, but outcome can be improved by the use of high-dose therapy. We used the etoposide, methylprednisolone, cytarabine and cisplatin (ESHAP) regimen as second-line therapy in 42 newly diagnosed myeloma patients who had failed vincristine, adriamycin and dexamethasone (VAD)- type therapy (n = 36), responded to first-line treatment but persisted in having significant residual marrow plasmacytosis (n = 5) or failed prior stem cell harvesting (n = 1), with the dual aim of improving disease response and mobilizing peripheral blood stem cells. Fourteen of 21 (67%) patients with no change or progressive disease after VAD responded to ESHAP; seven of 12 (58%) patients with minor response converted to partial response. Marrow plasmacytosis fell from a median of 52% at diagnosis to 23.5% after primary therapy and to15% after ESHAP. ESHAP chemotherapy was well-tolerated. There were 11 admissions due to febrile neutropenia (n = 7), nausea and vomiting (n = 2), pneumonia (n = 1) and perforated bowel (n = 1). Renal function deteriorated in 13 of 42 patients after ESHAP, but none required renal support. ESHAP mobilization was performed in 32 patients of whom 87% achieved a CD34(+) yield >2 x 10(6)/kg. In all, 38 patients proceeded to high-dose therapy. The overall survival for all patients was 62% at 4 years following ESHAP. We conclude that ESHAP has acceptable toxicity and efficient stem cell mobilizing capability, effectively cytoreduced this chemoresistant group of patients, and did not appear to adversely affect transplant outcome.

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

4.6
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