2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2012.12.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Outcome of azacitidine treatment in patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms with assessment of prognostic risk stratification models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Azacitidine has emerged as an alternative of intensive chemotherapy, especially in poor-risk patients [2930]. Azacitidine has already been evaluated in therapy-related myeloid neoplasms with 40% overall response rate and a median OS between 9 and 21 months [3133], which is in line with our LD/t-AML series, although the number of patients treated in our study was very low.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Azacitidine has emerged as an alternative of intensive chemotherapy, especially in poor-risk patients [2930]. Azacitidine has already been evaluated in therapy-related myeloid neoplasms with 40% overall response rate and a median OS between 9 and 21 months [3133], which is in line with our LD/t-AML series, although the number of patients treated in our study was very low.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…While at the time of treatment no data were available on the use of azacitidine for therapy of t-AML, meanwhile some smaller studies have been published on azacitidine for t-MN [14][15][16]. The median length of treatment in all studies was 4.0-4.5 cycles.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data regarding the efficacy of HMAs in t-MN comes primarily from retrospective studies (Table 3). Overall response rate (ORR) to azacitidine ranges from 28 to 50% [110][111][112][113][114]115] and OS ranges from 9.6 months to 21 months. OS in t-MN treated with azacitidine was significantly less than their de novo counterpart (median 9.2 versus 15.3 months, p = 0.002) (2 year OS of 14% vs 33.9%, p = 0.0005) [113,116] .However in two other studies, there was no significant difference in OS between t-MDS and de novo MDS [113,115].…”
Section: Management Strategies For T-mdsmentioning
confidence: 99%