ABSTRACT
Objective To observe the anti-relapse and anti-graft versus host disease (GVHD) effects and side effects of ruxolitinib on patients who have relapsed leukemia after allo-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).Methods The clinical data of four patients sufferring from relapsed leukemia were collected and analyzed retrospectively.Three cases had a positive gene and 1 case had a extramedullary recurrence.All of them had serious GVHD involving multiparts,as the result of attenuating immunosuppressant aggressively.One case had central nervous system leukemia before allo-HSCT.Those patients were treated with ruxolitinib,according to the degree of GVHD,the treatment strategy and curative effect of GVHD,and the residual condition of original leukemia.Then,the degree of GVHD,the residual condition of original leukemia and the side effects of ruxolitinib were revaluated once a month after taking ruxolitinib.Results One case achieved completer remission (CR) and there partial remission (PR) in consideration of GVHD.Up to date,2 cases had no relapse in any level and 2 cases replased according to any of the results related to bone marrow aspiration.Conclusion Ruxolitinib is effective in patients with GVHD after allo-HSCT and doesn't influence GVL effect or increase the risk of relapse at the same time.Ruxolitinib doesn't have obvious side effects when treating GVHD.
ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of nilotinib and imatinib as frontline therapy in newly diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase ( CML-CP ) . Methods Until December 31st 2016, 18 patients using nilotinib and 83 using imatinib were recruited in our study.The efficacy and safety of two groups were evaluated .Results A total of 101 patients with CML-CP included 18 receiving nilotinib and 83 imatinib.The optimal response rates at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months in nilotinib and imatinib group were 88.9%(16/18) vs 57.3%(47/82) (P=0.012), 82.4%(14/17) vs 55.7%(44/79) (P=0.041), 9/12 vs 63.9% (39/61) (P=0.460), 6/9 vs 68.9% (31/45) (P=0.896) respectively.The optimal response rates by 3 months in low sokal risk group on nilotinib and imatinib were 9/9 vs 76.5%(26/34) (P=0.107), in intermediate and high sokal risk group were 7/8 vs 45.2%(14/31) (P=0.032).At the end of follow-up, the rate of major molecular response (MMR) in nilotinib group was 72.2%, which was higher than 56.6% in imatinib group (P=0.021).The rate of complete cytogenetic response ( CCyR ) in nilotinib group was 100%, which was higher than 71.1% in imatinib group (P =0.002).Progression free survival (PFS) rates in nilotinib and imatinib groups were 94.4%and 98.8%(P=0.019) respectively; whereas event free survival (EFS) rates were 88.9% and 48.2%(P=0.045).The incidence of drug related adverse reactions in nilotinib and imatinib was similar with only minor proportion of grade 3/4 adverse reactions .Conclusions Nilotinib achieves a deeper molecular response in a shorter time than imatinib in newly diagnosed patients with CML-CP, especially in patients with high risk outcome .Good safety is obtained in both groups so as to ensure a long-term administration and improving prognosis .