4.6 Article

Phase I trial of low dose decitabine targeting DNA hypermethylation in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: dose-limiting myelosuppression without evidence of DNA hypomethylation

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 150, 期 2, 页码 189-195

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08213.x

关键词

decitabine; methylation; chronic lymphocytic leukaemia; non-Hodgkin lymphoma

资金

  1. D. Warren Brown Foundation
  2. Specialized Center for Research from the Leukaemia and Lymphoma Society [P30 CA16058]
  3. NCI [K23 CA109004-01A1, U01 CA76576, 3P01 CA101956]
  4. MGI Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Targeting aberrant DNA hypermethylation in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with decitabine may reverse epigenetic silencing in B-cell malignancies. Twenty patients were enrolled in two phase I trials to determine the minimum effective pharmacological dose of decitabine in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL (n = 16) and NHL (n = 4). Patients received 1-3 cycles of decitabine. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed in 2 of 4 CLL and 2 of 2 NHL patients receiving decitabine at 15 mg/m2 per d days 1-10, consisting of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia and hyperbilirubinaemia. Six patients with CLL received decitabine at 10 mg/m2 per d days 1-10 without DLT; however, re-expression of methylated genes or changes in global DNA methylation were not observed. Therefore, a 5-day decitabine schedule was examined. With 15 mg/m2 per d decitabine days 1-5, DLT occurred in 2 of 6 CLL and 2 of 2 NHL patients, consisting of grade 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and febrile neutropenia. Eight patients had stable disease. In 17 patients, there were no significant changes in genome-wide methylation or in target gene re-expression. In conclusion, dose-limiting myelosuppression and infectious complications prevented dose escalation of decitabine to levels associated with changes in global methylation or gene re-expression in CLL and NHL.

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