4.7 Review

Phase 1 trial and pharmacokinetic study of arsenic trioxide in children and adolescents with refractory or relapsed acute leukemia, including acute promyelocytic leukemia or lymphoma

期刊

BLOOD
卷 111, 期 2, 页码 566-573

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2007-08-107839

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [U01 CA097452, UM1 CA097452, CA97452] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arsenic trioxide (ATO) induces remission in 85% of adults with refractory acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). We conducted a phase 1 trial of ATO in children (median age 13 y, range, 2-19) with refractory leukemia. ATO was administered intravenously over 2 hours, 5 d/wk for 20 doses/cycle. Patients with APL (n = 13) received 0.15 mg/kg per day, and patients with other types of leukemia received 0.15 mg/kg per day (n = 2) or 0.2 mg/kg per day (n = 4). Nineteen of the 24 enrolled patients were fully evaluable for toxicity. At 0.15 mg/kg per day, 2 of 15 patients experienced dose-limiting corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation, pneumonitis, or neuropathic pain. At 0.2 mg/kg per day, 2 of 4 patients had dose-limiting QTc prolongation or pancreatitis. Non-dose-limiting toxicities included elevated serum transaminases, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, constipation, electrolyte imbalance, hyperglycemia, dermatitis, and headache. At 0.15 mg/kg per day, the median (range) plasma arsenic maximum concentration (C-max) was 0.28 mu M (0.11-0.37 mu M) and at 0.2 mg/kg per day5 C-max was 0.40 and 0.46 mu M; area under the concentration times time curve (AUC(0-24)) was 2.50 mu M-hr (1.28-3.85 mu M-hr) and 4.37 mu M-hr and 4.69 mu M-hr, respectively. Morphologic complete response (CR) was achieved in 85% of patients with APL; no responses were observed in non-APL patients. ATO is well-tolerated in children at the recommended dose of 0.15 mg/kg per day. The response rate in children with relapsed APL is similar to the response rate in adults.

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