摘要
目的探讨地西他滨联合小剂量HAG方案与CAG方案治疗老年急性髓系白血病的疗效比较。方法回顾性分析我科2012年7月至2015年7月住院32例老年急性髓系白血病患者，分别使用地西他滨联合小剂量HAG方案治疗15例，CAG方案治疗17例。比较分析两组患者的疗效及不良反应。结果使用地西他滨联合小剂量HAG方案治疗组患者完全缓解（CR）10例（66．7％），部分缓解（PR）2例（13．3％），未缓解（NR）3例（20％），总有效率80％；CAG组完全缓解（cR）6例（35．3％），部分缓解（PR）1例（5．9％），未缓解（NR）10例（58．8％），总有效率41．2％。总有效率前者明显高于后者，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组患者不良反应主要为骨髓抑制、呼吸道感染、消化道反应等，经对症治疗均可缓解，不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论地西他滨联合小剂量HAG方案治疗老年急性髓系白血病有效率明显高于CAG方案，不良反应均可耐受，可作为老年急性髓系白血病的首选治疗方案。
Objectives To explore the differences in therapeutic efficacy between decitabine combined with low dose HAG（D＋ HAG）and CAG in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia （AML）. Methods Totally 32 elderly patients with AML in our department from July 2012 to July 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. 15 patients were on a therapy of decitabine combined with low dose HAG,and 17 patients with CAG. Efficacy and side effects were compared between the two groups. Results In（D＋ HAG） versus CAG groups,the complete remission（CR）was 10 cases（66.7%）vs. 6 cases （35.3 %）, partial remission（PR） was 2 cases （ 13.3% ） vs. 1 case （5.9% ）, non-remission（NR） was 3 cases（20%）vs. 10 cases（58.8%） ,and the total efficacy rate（CR＋PR）was 80% vs. 41.2%（P〈0.05）. The side effects in two groups mainly included bone marrow depression, respiratory tract infection, gastrointestinal reaction, which were all alleviated after symptomatic treatments. The incidence rate of side effects had no statistical difference （P〉0.05）. Conclusions The treatment of decitabine combined with low dose of HAG is prior to CAG,and the side effects are all tolerated. So decitabine combined with low dose of HAG can be served as the first-line therapy for elderly AML patients.
出处
《中华老年医学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2017年第1期57-59,共3页
Chinese Journal of Geriatrics
关键词
白血病髓样
抗肿瘤联合化疗方案
Leukemia,myloid
Antineoplastic combined chemotherapy protocols
