4.6 Article

Maintenance treatment with azacytidine for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or acute myeloid leukaemia following MDS in complete remission after induction chemotherapy

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 150, 期 3, 页码 293-302

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08235.x

关键词

myelodysplastic syndrome; azacytidine; clinical studies; maintenance therapy; DNA-methylation

资金

  1. Nordic Cancer Union
  2. Swedish Cancer Society
  3. Cancer Society in Stockholm
  4. Pharmion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>This prospective Phase II study is the first to assess the feasibility and efficacy of maintenance 5-azacytidine for older patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and MDS-acute myeloid leukaemia syndromes in complete remission (CR) after induction chemotherapy. Sixty patients were enrolled and treated by standard induction chemotherapy. Patients that reached CR started maintenance therapy with subcutaneous azacytidine, 5/28 d until relapse. Promoter-methylation status of CDKN2B (P15 ink4b), CDH1 and HIC1 was examined pre-induction, in CR and 6, 12 and 24 months post CR. Twenty-four (40%) patients achieved CR after induction chemotherapy and 23 started maintenance treatment with azacytidine. Median CR duration was 13 center dot 5 months, > 24 months in 17% of the patients, and 18-30 center dot 5 months in the four patients with trisomy 8. CR duration was not associated with CDKN2B methylation status or karyotype. Median overall survival was 20 months. Hypermethylation of CDH1 was significantly associated with low CR rate, early relapse, and short overall survival (P = 0 center dot 003). 5-azacytidine treatment, at a dose of 60 mg/m2 was well tolerated. Grade III-IV thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred after 9 center dot 5 and 30% of the cycles, respectively, while haemoglobin levels increased during treatment. 5-azacytidine treatment is safe, feasible and may be of benefit in a subset of patients.

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