...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Oncology >Randomized trial of fludarabine versus fludarabine and idarubicin as frontline treatment in patients with indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma.
【24h】

Randomized trial of fludarabine versus fludarabine and idarubicin as frontline treatment in patients with indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma.

机译:氟达拉滨与氟达拉滨和伊达比星联合治疗惰性或套细胞淋巴瘤的一线治疗的随机试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

PURPOSE: A first comparative trial of fludarabine (FLU) alone versus FLU plus idarubicin (FLU-ID) for indolent or mantle-cell lymphomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 1995 to July 1998, 199 patients aged 25 to 65 years (median, 54 years) with newly diagnosed stages II to IV indolent or mantle-cell lymphomas (standard risk according to the International Prognostic Index) were enrolled onto a multicenter, 1:1 randomized study. Of the 199 patients who were able to be assessed, 101 were assigned to the FLU group (six monthly cycles of FLU 25 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 through 5) and 98 to the FLU-ID group (six monthly cycles of FLU 25 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 through 3 and idarubicin 12 mg/m(2) on day 1). RESULTS: In the FLU group, complete response (CR) and partial response rates were 47% and 37%, respectively, whereas in the FLU-ID group, they were 39% and 42%, respectively. In-depth analysis of the CR rate with respect to histologic type showed that FLU seemed to be superior to FLU-ID in treating follicular lymphomas (60% v 40%, respectively), whereas FLU-ID seemed to be more effective than FLU in treating nonfollicular lymphomas (small lymphocytic, 43% v 29%, respectively; immunocytoma, 38% v 23%, respectively; P = not significant), excluding the mantle-cell subset (in which there was no difference between the two groups). No striking differences were observed between the two protocols in terms of overall response or toxicity, which was generally mild. However, with a median follow-up of 19 months, only 29 patients (62%) who received FLU alone have maintained their initial CR, compared with 32 (84%) of those who received FLU-ID therapy (P =.021). CONCLUSION: Although the FLU-ID regimen may not significantly improve the induction of CR in most indolent-lymphoma patients, our preliminary data do suggest that, with respect to FLU alone, it may be capable of conferring a longer-lasting CR and that it might be superior in terms of CR rate in small lymphocytic and immunocytoma subtypes.
机译:目的:氟达拉滨(FLU)与FLU加伊达比星(FLU-ID)单独治疗惰性或套细胞淋巴瘤的首次比较试验。患者与方法:从1995年9月至1998年7月,纳入199位年龄在25至65岁(中位数为54岁)的新诊断为II至IV期顽固性或套细胞淋巴瘤(根据国际预后指数的标准风险)的患者多中心,1:1随机研究。在能够评估的199例患者中,有101例被分配到FLU组(在第1至5天的六个月周期FLU 25 mg / m(2)/ d),而98例被分配到FLU-ID组(六个月)第1天到第3天FLU 25 mg / m(2)/ d的周期和第1天伊达比星12 mg / m(2)的周期)。结果:在FLU组中,完全缓解(CR)和部分缓解率分别为47%和37%,而在FLU-ID组中,分别为39%和42%。对组织学类型的CR率的深入分析表明,在滤泡性淋巴瘤的治疗中,FLU似乎优于FLU-ID(分别为60%对40%),而FLU-ID似乎比FLU-ID更有效。治疗非滤泡性淋巴瘤(小淋巴细胞,分别为43%v 29%;免疫细胞瘤,分别为38%v 23%; P =不显着),但不包括套细胞亚群(两组之间无差异)。在总体反应或毒性方面,这两种方案之间没有观察到显着差异,总体上是温和的。然而,平均随访时间为19个月,仅29例(62%)仅接受FLU的患者维持了其初始CR,而接受FLU-ID治疗的患者中只有32例(84%)(P = .021) 。结论:尽管FLU-ID方案可能无法显着改善大多数惰性淋巴瘤患者的CR诱导,但我们的初步数据确实表明,就FLU而言,它可以赋予CR更长的持续时间,小淋巴细胞和免疫细胞瘤亚型的CR率可能更高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号