机构地区:[1]南方医科大学南方医院血液病研究所,广州510515
出 处:《中华内科杂志》2012年第11期880-884,共5页Chinese Journal of Internal Medicine
基 金:卫生公益性行业科研专项经费项目(201202017)
摘 要:目的比较马利兰(Bu)和氟达拉滨(Flu)组成的预处理方案(Bu/Flu)与Bu和环磷酰胺(Cy)组成的预处理方案(Bu/Cy)在急性髓性白血病第一次完全缓解(AML—CR1)患者异基因造血干细胞移植(allo-HSCT)中的移植相关毒性和疗效的差异。方法32例接受allo—HSCT的AML—CR1患者按移植顺序交替分至Bu/Cy组(Bu3.2mg·kg-1·d-1,移植前第7~4天;Cy60mg·kg-1·d-1,移植前第3~2天)或Bu/Flu组(Bu3.2mg·kg-1·d-1,移植前第5~2天;Flu30mg·m-1·d-1,移植前第6—2天)。评价两组预处理相关毒性(RRT)、移植物抗宿主病(GVHD)发生率与严重程度、3年累积复发率、非复发死亡率(NRM)、3年无病生存(EFS)率和总生存(OS)率等方面的差异。结果中位随访时间为617.5(6~1261)d。两组中性粒细胞和血小板中位重建时间无明显差异(P=0.121和P=0.171),移植后30d嵌合状态分析提示两组患者均达到完全植入。Bu/Cy组预处理后中性粒细胞持续〈0.1×109/L和血小板持续〈20×109/L中位时间明显长于Bu/Flu组[6(3—14)d比2.5(1~9)d,P=0.000;3(1~36)d比1(0—4)d,P=0.047]。Bu/Cy组与Bu/Flu组Ⅱ-Ⅳ度RRT发生率分别为68.8%和25.0%(P=0.032);急性GVHD发生率分别为46.7%和75.0%(P=0.149),慢性GVHD发生率分别为46.7%和80.0%(P=0.149);NRM分别为25.0%和6.3%(P=0.333);3年累积复发率分别为(17.9±11.7)%和(14.1±9.3)%(P=0.834);3年EFS率分别为(65.5±12.7)%和(80.2±10.3)%(P=0.362);3年OS率分别为(68.8±11.6)%和(87.5±8.3)%(P=0.111)。结论Bu/Flu是一种清髓性预处理方案,与Bu/Cy方案比较具有低骨髓抑制毒性及RRT。Bu/Flu作为AML—CR1患者allo-HSCT预处理方案其疗效不低于Bu/Cy。Objective To compare the transplant-related toxicity and the efficacy of busulfan/ fludarabine (Bu/Flu) and busulfan/cyclophosphamide (Bu/Cy) as conditioning regimen in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) for acute myeloid leukemia(AML) in the first complete remission ( CR1 ). Methods Totally 32 AML-CR1 patients underwent allo-HSCT were divided into Bu/Cy (Bu 3.2 mg·kg-1·d-1, 7-4 days before transplantation; Cy 60 mg·kg-1·d-1, 3-2 days before transplantation) and Bu/Flu (Bu 3.2 mg·kg-1·d-1,5-2 days before transplantation; Flu 30 mg·m-2·d-1, 6-2 days before transplantation) groups, The regimen-related toxicity (RRT), incidence and severity of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), 3-year cumulative relapse rate, non-relapse mortality (NRM), 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate were compared between the two groups. Results The median follow-up duration was 617.5 (6-1261) days. All patients achieved successful engraftment on 30 day after transplantation. There were no significant differences in the median time to neutrophil engraftment (P = 0. 121 ) and platelet engraftment (P = 0. 171 ) between the two groups. The median duration of neutrophil count under 0. 1×109/L and platelet count under 20×109/L in the Bu/Cy group were significantly longer than those in the Bu/Flu group ( P = 0. 000 and P = 0. 047 ). The incidence of grades Ⅱ-Ⅳ RRT were 68.8% and 25.0% (P = 0.032) in the Bu/Cy and the Bu/Flu groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the incidence of acute GVHD (P = 0. 149), chronic GVHD (P=0. 149), incidence of NRM (P =0. 333) , 3-year cumulative relapse rates (P =0. 834) , 3- year EFS rate (P = 0. 362) and OS rate (P = 0. 111 ) between the two groups. Conclusion Compared with Bu/Cy, Bu/Flu is a myeloablative condition regimen with milder bone marrow suppression and lower RRT incidence rate in allogeneic HSCT for AML-CR1 patients wit
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...