4.7 Review

European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management of chronic myeloid leukemia: 2013

期刊

BLOOD
卷 122, 期 6, 页码 872-884

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2013-05-501569

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [LSHC-CT-2004-503216]
  2. European LeukemiaNet Foundation
  3. European Science Foundation
  4. NIHR Biochemical Research Centre funding scheme
  5. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0611-10275] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advances in chronic myeloid leukemia treatment, particularly regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mandate regular updating of concepts and management. A European LeukemiaNet expert panel reviewed prior and new studies to update recommendations made in 2009. We recommend as initial treatment imatinib, nilotinib, or dasatinib. Response is assessed with standardized real quantitative polymerase chain reaction and/or cytogenetics at 3, 6, and 12 months. BCR-ABL1 transcript levels <= 10% at 3 months, <1% at 6 months, and <= 0.1% from 12 months onward define optimal response, whereas >10% at 6 months and >1% from 12 months onward define failure, mandating a change in treatment. Similarly, partial cytogenetic response (PCyR) at 3 months and complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) from 6 months onward define optimal response, whereas no CyR (Philadelphia chromosome-positive [Ph1]>95%) at 3 months, less than PCyR at 6 months, and less than CCyR from 12 months onward define failure. Between optimal and failure, there is an intermediate warning zone requiring more frequent monitoring. Similar definitions are provided for response to second-line therapy. Specific recommendations are made for patients in the accelerated and blastic phases, and for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Optimal responders should continue therapy indefinitely, with careful surveillance, or they can be enrolled in controlled studies of treatment discontinuation once a deeper molecular response is achieved. (Blood. 2013; 122(6):872-884)

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