4.7 Article

Multicenter, randomized comparative trial of fludarabine and the combination of cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-prednisone in 92 patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia in first relapse or with primary refractory disease

期刊

BLOOD
卷 98, 期 9, 页码 2640-2644

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V98.9.2640

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Few reports are available on the treatment of patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) and primary or secondary resistance to alkylating-agent-based regimens. From December 1993 through December 1997, 92 patients with WM resistant to first-line therapy (42) or with first relapse (50) after alkylating-agent therapy were randomly assigned to receive fludarabine (25 mg/m(2) of body-surface area on days 1-5) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (Adriamycin), and prednisone (CAP; 750 mg/m(2) cyclophosphamide and 25 mg/m(2) doxorubicin on day 1 and 40 mg/m(2) prednisone on days 1-5). The first end point evaluated was the response rate after 6 treatment courses. Forty-five patients received CAP and 45 received fludarabine. Two patients died before the first course of chemotherapy. No statistical differences were observed between the 2 treatment arms with respect to hematologic toxicity or Infections. Mucositis and alopecia occurred significantly more often in patients treated with CAP Partial responses were obtained In 14 patients (30%) treated with fludarabine and 5 patients (11%) treated with CAP (P = .019). Responses were more durable in patients treated with fludarabine (19 months versus 3 months), and the event-free survival rate was significantly higher in this group (P < .01). Forty-four patients died, 22 in the fludarabine group and 22 in the CAP group. There was no statistical difference in the median overall survival time in the 2 study arms. Fludarabine was thus more active than CAP in salvage therapy of WM and should be tested as first-line therapy in a randomized comparison with alkylating agents. (C) 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.

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