Na

°MEC, mitoxantrone, etoposide, cytarabine; ICE, idarubicin, cytarabine, etoposide; IDAC, intermediate-dose cytarabine; Mito, mitoxantrone; IdA, idarubicin; FLAG, fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; FA, fludarabine, cytarabine; Acl, aclarubicin; Rub, rubidizone; CECA, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, carboplatin, cytarabine; E, etoposide; NA, not available.

°MEC, mitoxantrone, etoposide, cytarabine; ICE, idarubicin, cytarabine, etoposide; IDAC, intermediate-dose cytarabine; Mito, mitoxantrone; IdA, idarubicin; FLAG, fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; FA, fludarabine, cytarabine; Acl, aclarubicin; Rub, rubidizone; CECA, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, carboplatin, cytarabine; E, etoposide; NA, not available.

of patients (from 20 to 63) and have reported CR rates ranging from 40 to 68%. Given the relatively small size of these studies and the potential powerful influence of patient selection on outcome, it is difficult to evaluate the relative merits of these regimens based on these reports. Nonetheless, several of the regimens described in these papers have found their way into common usage. For example, combinations of mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (MEC) produced response rates of 60-68% as described by Archimbaud et al. and Vignetti et al. and are now commonly used.1213 The

FLAG regimen combining fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) provided a 50% response rate and is likewise commonly prescribed.19 These regimens have not been compared in any systematic manner to other regimens.

0 0

Post a comment