含去甲基化药物方案治疗中高危骨髓增生异常综合征/骨髓增殖性肿瘤29例疗效观察
DOI:
作者:
作者单位:

南京医科大学第一附属医院江苏省人民医院血液科

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

基金项目:


Efficacy of 29 cases with intermediate to high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes/myeloproliferative neoplasms treated with regimens containing hypomethylating agents
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    目的:探讨含去甲基化药物(hypomethylating agents,HAMs)方案治疗中高危骨髓增生异常综合征/骨髓增殖性肿瘤(myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms,MDS/MPN)患者的临床疗效及安全性。方法:对2012年11月至2022年1月在南京医科大学第一附属医院血液科接受含HAMs方案治疗的29例中高危MDS/MPN患者进行回顾性分析,按治疗方案分为单用HAMs组和地西他滨(decitabine,DAC)联合小剂量化疗(D-CAG)组,比较两组患者的临床缓解率、中位总生存期(overall survival,OS)及无白血病生存期(leukemia-free survival,LFS)。结果:29例MDS/MPN患者中男性22例,女性7例,中位年龄66岁。单用HAMs组16例,D-CAG组13例,两组患者临床特征无显著性差异(P>0.05)。两组患者临床有效率无明显差异。生存分析结果显示D-CAG组患者中位OS较单用HAMs组明显延长(26.3个月 vs. 13.5个月,P=0.0095)。且与单用HAMs组患者相比,D-CAG组患者有较长的中位LFS(24.2个月 vs. 8.7个月,P=0.0455)。单因素分析发现初诊时血红蛋白(≥70 vs. <70g/L)和治疗方案是OS的影响因素;多因素分析结果表明仅有治疗方案是影响患者OS的独立预后因素。两组患者主要不良反应为3~4级骨髓抑制,肺部感染、发热(未查明感染灶)。与单用HAMs方案相比,D-CAG组更容易发生3~4级骨髓抑制,但并未增加患者感染的风险。结论:D-CAG方案应用于MDS/MPN患者是安全有效的,并可能带来生存获益,这将为临床治疗提供参考。

    Abstract:

    Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of regimens containing hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN). Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 29 patients with intermediate- to high-risk MDS/MPN who received regimens containing HMAs in the hematology department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from November 2012 to January 2022. The patients were divided into the HMAs-treated group and the decitabine combined with low-dose chemotherapy (D-CAG)-treated group, and the clinical remission rate, median overall survival (OS) and leukemia free survival (LFS) of the two groups were compared. Results: A total of 29 MDS/MPN patients including 22 males and 7 females were enrolled, with a median age of 66 years. There were 16 patients in the HMAs-treated group and 13 in the D-CAG-treated group, and the differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in clinical efficiency between the two groups. Survival analysis showed the median OS of patients in the D-CAG-treated group was significantly longer than that in the HAMs-treated group (26.3 months vs. 13.5 months, P=0.0095). And patients in the D-CAG-treated group had a longer median LFS compared with patients in the HAMs-treated group (24.2 months vs. 8.7 months, P=0.0455). Univariate analysis identified hemoglobin (≥70 vs. < 70g/L) and treatment regimen were prognostic factors for OS, while multivariate analysis showed that only treatment regimen was the independent prognostic factor affecting OS. The main adverse effects in both groups were grade 3-4 myelosuppression, pulmonary infection, and fever (the infection focus was not identified). The D-CAG-treated group was more prone to grade 3-4 myelosuppression compared with the HAMs-treated group, but the risk of infection in patients did not increase. Conclusions: D-CAG regimen is safe and effective in MDS/MPN patients, and may bring survival benefit, which will provide a reference for clinical treatment.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2022-03-05
  • 最后修改日期:2022-06-19
  • 录用日期:2022-11-10
  • 在线发布日期:
  • 出版日期: