期刊文献+

PAD与TAD方案治疗新诊断多发性骨髓瘤患者的疗效比较及预后分析 被引量:16

Response and prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma induced by PAD/TAD
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的 评价PAD方案(硼替佐米+表柔吡星+地塞米松)和TAD方案(沙利度胺+表柔吡星+地塞米松)诱导治疗后多发性骨髓瘤患者的疗效及预后,并评估细胞遗传学分层及自体造血干细胞移植对PAD诱导治疗患者预后的影响.方法 前瞻性研究191例自2008年5月至2013年12月经第二军医大学长征医院血液科及上海市闸北区中心医院血液科确诊的多发性骨髓瘤患者,非随机进入PAD诱导治疗组(PAD组,132例)和TAD诱导治疗组(TAD组,59例),诱导后根据患者意愿分别按自体外周造血干细胞移植或原诱导方案巩固治疗,分析两组的诱导后疗效及生存差异,并评估细胞遗传学分层及自体造血干细胞移植对PAD诱导治疗患者的预后影响.结果 PAD与TAD组诱导后的缓解率分别为84.4% (108/128)和69.5%(41/59),差异有统计学意义(P=0.011);获得非常好的部分缓解(VGPR)以上疗效率分别为70.3%(90/128)和32.2% (19/59),差异有统计学意义(P<0.001);获得接近完全缓解/完全缓解(nCR/CR)率分别为68.0%(87/128)和25.4%(15/59),差异有统计学意义(P <0.001).PAD组与TAD组患者的中位无进展生存(PFS)期及总生存(OS)期差异尚无统计学意义(P =0.223、0.989).接受PAD诱导治疗的132例患者的生存分析显示:荧光原位杂交(FISH)高危组患者的中位PFS和OS均短于FISH低危组(15.2比19.1个月,41.2个月比未到达),且OS差异有统计学意义(P =0.098、0.017).根据巩固方式进一步的亚组生存分析显示,在FISH高危组,诱导后接受造血干细胞移植巩固患者的中位PFS期显著长于诱导后继续原诱导方案巩固的患者(17.8比14.6个月,P=0.029),而两组之间的总生存期暂差异无统计学意义(P=0.840).在FISH低危组,诱导后接受造血干细胞移植巩固患者与接受原诱导方案巩固患者间中位PFS及OS期差异均无统计学意义(P =0.131、0.294).结论 PAD方案诱导治疗总缓解率及高质量缓解率均显著好于TAD.且在以PAD诱导后,以FISH为基础的细胞遗传学分层可以区分高危及低危多发性骨髓瘤患者的预后.对于FISH高危患者,接受自体造血干细胞移植可以延长其PFS. Objective To evaluate the impact of cytogenetic grouping and autologous stem cell transplantation on the prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) induced by PAD (velcade + epirubicin + dexamethasone) and TAD (thalidomide + epirubicin + dexamethasone).Methods A total of 191 patients with a definite diagnosis of MM were enrolled from May 2008 to December 2013 into this prospective study.They were non-randomly induced by PAD (n =132) or TAD (n =59) plus autologous stem cell transplantation or chemotherapy.Response and survival rates were also analyzed between two groups.Results The overall response rates of PAD and TAD groups were 84.4% (108/128) and 69.5% (41/59) (P =0.011) respectively.The very good partial remission(VGPR) rates were 70.3% (90/128) and 32.2% (19/59) (P < 0.001) and near complete remission/complete remission (nCR/CR) rates 68.0% (87/128) and 25.4% (15/59) respectively (P < 0.001).Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed no significant inter-group difference (P =0.223,0.989).The survival analysis of PAD group showed that FISH high-risk group had shorter PFS and OS than FISH low-risk group (15.2 vs 19.1 months for PFS,P-0.098; 41.2 months vs non-attaining for OS,P =0.017).In FISH high-risk group,patients consolidated with autologous stem cell transplantation showed longer PFS than those with chemotherapy (17.8 vs 14.6 months,P =0.029) while the OS showed no difference(P--0.840).In FISH low-risk group,no difference were observed in PFS and OS between patients with consolidation therapies alone (P =0.131,0.294).Conclusions The response rates are higher in patients induced by PAD than by TAD.After PAD induction,cytogenetic grouping may further distinguish the prognosis of MM patients.For FISH high-risk patients,their PFS is prolonged by autologous stem cell transplantation.
出处 《中华医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2015年第10期731-735,共5页 National Medical Journal of China
基金 国家自然科学基金(30731160619)
关键词 多发性骨髓瘤 造血干细胞移植 预后 细胞遗传学 Multiple myeloma Stem cell transplantation Prognosis Cytogenetic
作者简介 通信作者:侯健,Email:houjian@medmail.com.cn
  • 相关文献

参考文献16

  • 1Munshi NC, Anderson KC. New strategies in the treatment of multiple myeloma [ J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2013, 19 ( 13 ) : 3337- 3344.
  • 2Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma [ J ]. Leukemia, 2009, 23( 1 ) :3-9.
  • 3Ross FM, Avet-Loiseau H, Ameye G, et al. Report from the European Myeloma Network on interphase FISH in multiplemyeloma and related disorders [ J ]. Haematologica, 2012,97 ( 8 ) : 1272-1277.
  • 4Kumar S, Fonseca R, Ketterling RP, et al. Trisomies in multiple myeloma: impact on survival in patients with high-risk cytogenetics[ J]. Blood, 2012, 119(9) :2100-2105.
  • 5Petrucci MT, Levi A, Bringhen S, et al. Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone in elderly patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a muhicenter, open label phase 1/2 study[J]. Cancer, 2013, 119(5) :971-977.
  • 6Rajkumar SV, Blood E, Vesole D, et al. Phase In clinical trial of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a clinical trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group[ J]. J Clin Oncol, 2006, 24(3) :431-436.
  • 7Lokhorst HM, Schmidt-Wolf I, Sonneveld P, et al. Thalidomide in induction treatment increases the very good partial response rate before and after high-dose therapy in previously untreated multiple myeloma[ J ]. Haematologica, 2008, 93 ( 1 ) : 124-127.
  • 8Jagannath S, Durie BG, Wolf JL, et al. Extended follow-up of a phase 2 trial of bortezomib alone and in combination with dexamethasone for the frontline treatment of multiple myeloma [J]. Br J Haematol, 2009, 146(6) :619-626.
  • 9Sonneveld P, Schmidt-Wolf IG, van der Holt B, et al. Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase Ⅲ HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial[ J]. J Clin Oncol, 2012, 30(24) :2946-2955.
  • 10Richardson PG, Weller E, Lonial S, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma [ J ]. Blood, 2010, 116 (5) :679-686.

同被引文献106

引证文献16

二级引证文献84

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部