Observational studyMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2014
A prospective, observational study of added medium-dose cytosine arabinoside versus As2O3 for elderly patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia.
Observational study in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retinoid Chemoprevention: Who Can Benefit?Current pharmacology reports · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25213763What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.