...
首页> 外文期刊>Blood: The Journal of the American Society of Hematology >International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts
【24h】

International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts

机译:阿扎胞苷与常规护理方案在国际上进行的第3期研究,针对新诊断为AML且胚泡> 30%的老年患者

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated azacitidine efficacy and safety vs conventional care regimens (CCRs) in 488 patients age >= 65 years with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with >30% bone marrow blasts. Before randomization, a CCR(standard induction chemotherapy, low-dose ara-c, or supportive care only) was preselected for each patient. Patients then were assigned 1: 1 to azacitidine (n = 241) or CCR (n = 247). Patients assigned to CCR received their preselected treatment. Median overall survival (OS) was increased with azacitidine vs CCR: 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-12.7 months) vs 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.6 months), respectively (hazard ratio [HR] was 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.03; stratified log-rank P = .1009). One-year survival rates with azacitidine and CCR were 46.5% and 34.2%, respectively (difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 3.5%-21.0%). A prespecified analysis censoring patients who received AML treatment after discontinuing study drug showed median OS with azacitidine vs CCR was 12.1 months (95% CI, 9.2-14.2 months) vs 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.1-9.6 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96; stratified log-rank P = .0190). Univariate analysis showed favorable trends for azacitidine compared with CCR across all subgroups defined by baseline demographic and disease features. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profile of azacitidine. Azacitidine may be an important treatment option for this difficult-to-treat AML population.
机译:这项多中心,随机,开放标签的3期临床试验对488名年龄≥65岁,新诊断为急性髓细胞性白血病(AML),骨髓原始细胞> 30%的患者进行了阿扎胞苷的疗效和安全性与常规治疗方案(CCR)的比较。在随机分组之前,为每个患者预先选择CCR(标准诱导化疗,低剂量ara-c或仅支持治疗)。然后将患者分配给阿扎胞苷(n = 241)或CCR(n = 247)1:1。分配至CCR的患者接受了预先选择的治疗。阿扎胞苷与CCR相比,中位总生存期(OS)分别增加了10.4个月(95%置信区间[CI],8.0-12.7个月)和6.5个月(95%CI,5.0-8.6个月)(危险比[HR])系数为0.85; 95%CI为0.69-1.03;分层对数秩P = .1009)。阿扎胞苷和CCR的一年生存率分别为46.5%和34.2%(差异为12.3%; 95%CI为3.5%-21.0%)。一项预先指定的分析检查结果显示,停用研究药物后接受AML治疗的患者显示,阿扎胞苷与CCR的中位OS分别为12.1个月(95%CI,9.2-14.2个月)和6.9个月(95%CI,5.1-9.6个月; HR,0.76; 95%CI,0.60-0.96;分层对数秩P = .0190)。单变量分析显示,在由基线人口统计学和疾病特征所定义的所有亚组中,阿扎胞苷与CCR相比均呈有利趋势。不良事件与已建立的阿扎胞苷安全性特征一致。对于这种难以治疗的AML人群,阿扎胞苷可能是重要的治疗选择。

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