Addition of @entity8778 to XXXX and @entity2592 during Induction Increases the Overall Efficacy Rate in Adult @entity1 with @entity3052 : A Matched-Pair Retrospective Comparison.

@entity1 @entity8778 @entity137 @entity8779 @entity2592 @entity3052 @entity11059
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate a novel induction regimen composed of @entity8779 ( @entity11059 ), @entity2592 ( @entity2592 ) and @entity8778 (IAC regimen) for @entity3052 ( @entity3052 ) @entity1 , and to identify the prognostic factors affecting treatment outcomes. METHODS: The clinical data of 27 untreated @entity3052 @entity1 who received the IAC regimen as primary induction therapy in our hospital between April and November 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. The treatment outcomes of the IAC regimen were compared with two IA ( @entity11059 + @entity2592 ) regimens ( @entity11059 10 mg/m2 and @entity11059 12 mg/m2) in a pair-matched analysis. RESULTS: The complete remission (CR) rate in the IAC arm was higher compared to the IAL arm (p = 0.002) as was the overall efficacy rate (p = 0.017). There was no significant difference in outcomes between the IAC and IAH ( @entity2592 with high-dose @entity11059 ) arms. The IAC arm contained significantly higher CR rates than the IAL ( @entity2592 with low-dose @entity11059 ) arm in both the intermediate group (p = 0.050) and the unfavorable group (p = 0.013). @entity137 did not differ between the IAC group and the other two arms. High WBC at diagnosis (p = 0.022) and an unfavorable karyotype (p = 0.026) were related to a poorer response. The IAC regimen (p = 0.013) had greater superiority over the IAL regimen on efficacy than over the IAH regimen (p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: The IAC regimen achieved a more significant advantage over the IAL regimen without increasing the risk of adverse events. The efficacy of induction therapy is associated with WBC at diagnosis, karyotype and induction regimen.
