Search

Objective: The open-label, prospective, observational study aimed to evaluate whether decitabine (DAC) plus thalidomide versus DAC monotherapy improved progression-free (PFS), overall survival (OS) and acute myeloid leukemia-free survival (AML-FS) for risk-tailored elderly patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS)., Method: Enrolled 107 patients (age: 65-82 years) received DAC (52/107) or DAC plus thalidomide (55/107) therapy for MDS., Results: 35/52 patients (67.3%) with DAC therapy reached overall response (OR), compared with 36/55 patients (65.5%) in DAC+thalidomide regimen (P>0.05). DAC+thalidomide administered did not gain more profits of PFS and OS than DAC monotherapy. Risk-tailored analysis showed that DAC+thalidomide therapy did not enhance PFS (48.9% versus 42.8%, P>0.05) and OS (78.6% versus 71.2%, P>0.05) when compared with simple DAC regimen. Nevertheless, DAC+thalidomide markedly improved OS over DAC monotherapy (50.6% versus 40.2%, P<0.05) in high risk profile. Meanwhile, low risk group was superior to high risk group in AML-FS (57.2% versus 21.3%, P<0.01), but DAC+thalidomide still did not prolong 2-year AML-FS when compared with DAC (32.4% versus 27.8%, P<0.05). Moreover, thalidomide had a favorable toxicity profile as a single agent. In comparison with DAC monotherapy, the DAC+thalidomide regimen was relatively well tolerated. There was no severe non-hematological toxicity appearing in elderly patients with MDS., Conclusions: The study demonstrated that DAC+thalidomide improved 2-year OS for high risk patients. Thalidomide's proven activity and low toxicity profile made it an alternative treatment option for risk-tailored elderly patients with MDS., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This open-label, prospective, observational study aimed to evaluate disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), PML-RARα polymerase chain reaction (PCR) monitoring and safety in elderly patients with de novo acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who were treated with either arsenic trioxide (As2O3) or medium-dose cytosine arabinoside (MiDAC) as frontline consolidation regimens. A total of 167 patients (age≥65 years old) received all-trans retinoic acid + daunorubicin as induction therapy. Of these patients, 22 died before attaining complete remission; the remaining 145 subjects received MiDAC- or As2O3-based consolidation therapy. As2O3 was superior to MiDAC for improving DFS and OS. This benefit appeared to result from the longer 5-year DFS (92.0 vs. 69.1%, P<0.01) and OS (94.5 vs. 79.7%, P<0.05) of As2O3 compared to MiDAC. PCR monitoring demonstrated that As2O3 promoted a lower positive rate than MiDAC (21.7 vs. 4.5%, P<0.05), but this treatment had no advantage for maintaining a low positive rate in the high-risk group. The most common life-threatening adverse drug effects in patients with MiDAC were platelet counts<25×10(9)/L (85.7%), leukocyte counts<1.0×10(9)/L (81.4%) and severe infection (84.3%). In contrast, the As2O3 regimen rarely caused leukocyte counts<1.0×10(9)/L (22.7%, P<0.01), platelet counts<25×10(9)/L (37.3%, P<0.01) or severe infection (21.3%, P<0.01). These data confirm that MiDAC should not be added during the initial consolidation of patients with APL because this treatment is far less effective, particularly in patients with a low-risk profile, and far more toxic than As2O3.

The open-label, prospective, observational study aimed to evaluate whether the addition of maintenance rituximab (MR) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), after fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) for cytogenetic risk-tailored elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Enrolled 201 patients (ages 65-84 years) who received FCR and gained an overall response. One hundred and four of 201 patients were in the observation (OBS) arm while 97/201 patients continued to receive MR therapy. After FCR, no more benefits were provided by MR versus OBS in cytogenetic better intermediate-risk cohort. PFS at 10 years reached 68.6 versus 58.1 % (P > 0.05). Ten-year OS was 81.8 versus 74.6 % (P > 0.05). However, the improvement of PFS and OS were as dramatic as the improvements of being MR treating versus OBS mainly in the poor-risk cohort. PFS at 10 years reached 57.1 versus 22.7 % (P < 0.01), and 10-year OS was 71.2 versus 41.7 % (P < 0.01). Compared with OBS, no severe hematologic adverse events (AEs) (Grades 3-4) appeared in patients with MR; only some mild non-hematologic AEs incurred (nausea-vomiting 0.96 %, allergy 1.9 % and infection 1.9 %) during the maintenance treatment. The study showed that MR improved 10-year RFS and OS for cytogenetic poor-risk patients with CLL.

The open-label, prospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety for standard intensive chemotherapy compared with attenuated therapy in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). A total of 297 patients between 65 and 82 years were enrolled in the study. The 141 patients received standard-dose therapy (daunorubicin 45 mg/m(2) × 3 days with cytarabine 100 mg/m(2) × 7 days for induction therapy, while post-induction therapy consisted of high-dose cytarabine 1.5 g/m(2) × 4 days), and the attenuated treatment (daunorubicin 30 mg/m(2) × 3 days with cytarabine 75 mg/m(2) × 7 days for induction therapy, while post-induction therapy consisted of attenuated high-dose Ara-C 1.0 g/m(2) × 3 days) was administered to the remaining 156 patients, based on a random number assigned. Total 168 patients (56.6%) achieved complete remission with an incomplete blood recovery (CR)/CRi. No significant differences were observed between the two treatments (P = 0.60). Attenuated chemotherapy improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared to standard-dose therapy; 5-year OS values for these two groups were 39 and 24 months, respectively (P < 0.001), and the PFS values for these two groups were 35 versus 23 months (P < 0.001). In addition, the attenuated treatment with a poor risk profile overcame the negative impact and yielded OS and PFS values similar to those of the standard-dose chemotherapy with a better-to-intermediate risk profile. Five-year OS values for these two groups were 28 versus 28 months (P = 0.89), and the 5-year PFS values were 27 and 28 months, respectively (P = 0.89). The most common adverse drug effect for chemotherapy was agranulocytosis (98.3%). There was a significant difference in early mortality between the attenuated and standard-dose treatment groups (0.64% vs. 7.1%, respectively, P < 0.01). Standard intensive chemotherapy is less effective and far more toxic than attenuated induction and post-induction regimen in elderly patients with AML.

Background: This was an open-label, observational, prospective assessment. We conducted an analysis of the impact of bortezomib-based therapy (PAD: bortezomib, doxorubicin, high-dose dexamethasone vs. CBd: cyclophosphamide bortezomib, low-dose dexamethasone) on the survival rates and adverse events in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM)., Methods: Out of 303 patients, 128 received the PAD regimen and the other 175 patients received the CBd induction therapy (age 65-89 years). Baseline patient characteristics between the two cohorts were balanced in age (P = 0.69), international staging system (ISS) prognostic stages (P = 0.90), serum calcium (P = 0.70), and serum creatinine (P = 0.52)., Results: Overall response (OS) after the induction chemotherapy was achieved in 214 of 303 patients (70.6 %), with no significant differences observed between the two treatment groups (71.9 vs. 69.7 %, P = 0.68). Patients with ISS stage 2 reached the same 5-year OS advantages compared to patients with ISS stage 1, because they received bortezomib-based PAD or CBd treatments. Patients receiving CBd protocol gained similar satisfactory progression-free survival (PFS) results when compared to the PAD regimen group: PFS at 5 years reached 58.2 versus 58.9 % (P = 0.85). Five-year OS in the CBd arm had significant advantages compared to the PAD group, 79.9 versus 49.9 % (P < 0.05). The overall safety profiles showed that 26 of 128 (20.3 %) patients died in the PAD arm, while 13 of 175 patients died (7.4 %) in the CBd group (P < 0.01). Similarly, the PAD arm had a higher serious infection rate than that of the CBd arm (39.2 vs. 13.1 %, P < 0.01)., Conclusions: Bortezomib benefits elderly patients with newly diagnosed MM; they achieve satisfactory treatment responses and survival advantages. Further, patients treated with CBd have superior treatment advantages, with a predictable safety profile, when compared to the PAD regimen.

The purpose was to investigate the role of EphB4 in imatinib (IM) resistance and the mechanism responsible for homoharringtonine (HHT) contributing to imatinib sensitivity for a chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) cell lines. We established cell lines from a patient with CML at the time of first diagnosis and relapsed phase and designated them as NPhA1 and NPhA2, respectively. Stable underexpressing EphB4 cells (NPhA2-sh) were obtained. The activated signal proteins in cells were tested by Western blot. The EphB4 was overexpressed in IM-resistant NPhA2 in comparison with the NPhA1 cell line, but the expression of EphB4 mRNA and protein significantly decreased in knockdown NPhA2-EphB4-sh cells compared with NPhA2 and NPhA1 (P < 0.001) cell lines. NPhA2-EphB4-sh cells were sensitive to IM (IC50 0.93 mg/L), and NPhA2 showed IM resistance (IC50 5.45 mg/L) (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, phospho-Rac1/cdc42 was significantly increased in NPhA2 cells compared to NPhA2-EphB4-sh (P < 0.001). The apoptosis rate reached 58.71 ± 2.39 % with NPhA2 cells incubated with HHT + IM, which was higher than NPhA2 cells incubated with IM alone (P = 0.002). IC50 of NPhA2 cells incubated with IM was 5.45 mg/L. However, co-stimulation with HHT + IM decreased the IC50 of NPhA2 cells from 5.45 to 1.17 mg/L (P < 0.001). Furthermore, HHT blocked the expressions of EphB4/RhoA, but did not down-regulate the phospho-MEK/ERK in NPhA2 cells. The overexpression of EphB4 contributed to IM resistance in CML line cells. EphB4/RhoA may be a new marker of IM resistance. HHT + IM gained more treatment advantages than IM alone by blocking EphB4/RhoA pathways in CML cell lines.

Background: In international prognostic index (IPI) risk-tailored adult patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), it is still unclear whether the addition of maintenance rituximab (MR) improves progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), after RCHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) therapy., Methods: In our study, 207 patients (age: 21-59 years) received six 14-day cycles of RCHOP and gained overall response. After RCHOP, 98 patients were enrolled in the observation (OBS) arm. 109 patients continued to receive MR therapy., Results: In IPI risk <2 profile, PFS at 5 years reached 72.9% (MR arm) versus 56% (OBS arm) (P = 0.033). In IPI risk ≥2 profile, PFS estimation at 5 years was 44.9% (MR arm) versus 33.5% (OBS arm) (P = 0.006). It is noteworthy that patients with IPI ≥2 who received MR achieved PFS similar to that for patients in the OBS arm with the IPI <2, 44.9% versus 56% (P = 0.97). In patients with an IPI <2, OS at 5 years was 83.2% (MR arm) versus 81.2% (OBS arm) (P = 0.708). In patients with an IPI ≥2, 5-year OS estimation was 44.6% (MR arm) versus 40.5% (OBS arm) (P = 0.067). Subgroup analysis of patients with an IPI ≥3 risk profile shows a survival benefit for patients receiving MR. OS at 5 years was 62% (MR arm) versus 49% (OBS arm), (P = 0.033)., Conclusions: In conclusion, maintenance rituximab after RCHOP improves progression-free survival. In addition, overall survival is improved for patients with an IPI ≥3 risk profile receiving MR.