Efficacy and safety of imatinib versus nilotinib in elderly patients with chronic phase of chronic myeloid leukemia
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：探讨伊马替尼（imatinib，IM）或尼洛替尼（nilotinib，NIL）治疗老年慢性髓系白血病（chronic myeloid leukemia，CML）患者的疗效和安全性。 方法：回顾分析75例一线使用IM或NIL年龄≥60岁的CML患者，IM组43例，NIL组32例，比较两组患者的疗效及安全性。结果：IM组和NIL组间3、6、9、12个月主要分子学反应（major molecular response，MMR）（分别为23.07% vs. 15.00 %，52.38% vs. 52.38%，57.89% vs. 59.09%，54.17% vs. 57.14%）及MR4.0（分别为11.53% vs. 10.00 %，52.38% vs. 47.62%，57.89% vs. 50.00%，54.17% vs. 42.86%）无统计学差异（P＜0.05）；3、6、12、18个月最佳反应率无统计学差异（分别为60.47% vs. 75.00 %，60.47% vs. 71.88%，62.79% vs. 75.00%，72.09% vs. 90.63%，P＞0.05）；总生存（overall survival，OS）、无进展生存（progression-free survival，PFS）及无事件生存（event-free survival，EFS）期无统计学差异（90.70% vs. 93.75%，79.07% vs. 90.62%，34.88% vs. 65.63%，P＞0.05）；NIL组较IM组治疗失败率低（15.63% vs. 44.19%，P=0.009），但更易发生血液学或心血管不良事件（Adverse Event，AE）（31.25% vs. 6.78%，P=0.006）。结论：IM或NIL一线治疗老年CML均获得良好疗效，NIL治疗失败率低于IM，但NIL较IM更易出现血液学或心血管不良反应。
Abstract:
Objective：This study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of imatinib（IM）or nilotinib（NIL）as the first-line treatment in elderly chronic phase of chronic myeloid leukemia（CML-CP）. Methods：A retrospective analysis of 75 elderly CML patients receiving IM or NIL as first-line treatment. The clinical efficacy and safety indexes were compared between IM（43 cases）and NIL（32 cases）group. Results：No difference was found between the two groups when comparing 3 month-，6 month-，9 month- and 12 month- major molecular response（MMR）（23.07% vs. 15.00 %，52.38% vs. 52.38%，57.89% vs. 59.09%，54.17% vs. 57.14%，P＞0.05）and MR4.0（11.53% vs. 10.00 %，52.38% vs. 47.62%，57.89% vs. 50.00%，54.17% vs. 42.86%，P＞0.05）. There was no significantly difference of 3 month-，6 month-，12 month- and 18 month- optimal response between the two groups（60.47% vs. 75.00 %，60.47% vs. 71.88%，62.79% vs. 75.00%，72.09% vs. 90.63%，P＞0.05），as well as overall survival（OS），progression-free survival（PFS）and event-free survival（EFS）during the therapies（90.70% vs. 93.75%，79.07% vs. 90.62%，34.88% vs. 65.63%，P＞0.05）. More failure happened in IM group（15.63% vs. 44.19%，P=0.009）. More cardiovascular or hematologic adverse events（AEs） happened in NIL group（31.25% vs. 6.78%，P=0.006）. Conclusion：No difference was found between IM and NIL when comparing molecular response and optimal response. Less failure but more cardiovascular or hematologic AEs happened in NIL group.
