4.7 Article

Improved outcome for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of Dana-Farber Consortium Protocol 91-01

期刊

BLOOD
卷 97, 期 5, 页码 1211-1218

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V97.5.1211

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 68484, CA06516] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) Consortium Protocol 91-01 was designed to improve the outcome of children with newly diagnosed ALL while minimizing toxicity, Compared with prior protocols, past-remission therapy was intensified by substituting dexamethasone for prednisone and prolonging the asparaginase intensification from 20 to 30 weeks, Between 1991 and 1995, 377 patients (age, 0-18 years) were enrolled; 137 patients were considered standard risk (SR), and 240 patients were high risk (HR), Following a 5.0-year median follow-up, the estimated 5-year event-free survival (EFS) +/- SE for all patients was 83% +/- 2%, which is superior to prior DFCI ALL Consortium protocols conducted between 1981 and 1991 (P = .03), There was no significant difference in 5-year EFS based upon risk group (87% +/- 3% for SR and 81% +/- 3% for HR, P = .24), Age at diagnosis was a statistically significant prognostic factor (P = .03), with inferior outcomes observed in infants and children 9 years or older, Patients who tolerated 25 or fewer weeks of asparaginase had a significantly worse outcome than those who received at least 26 weeks of asparaginase (P < .01, both univariate and multivariate). Older children (at least 9 years of age) were significantly more likely to have tolerated 25 or fewer weeks of asparaginase (P < .01), Treatment on Protocol 91-01 significantly improved the outcome of children with ALL, perhaps due to the prolonged asparaginase intensification and/or the use of dexamethasone. The inferior outcome of older children may be due, in part, to increased intolerance of intensive therapy. (Blood. 2001;97:1211-1218) (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