Efficacy and Prognostic Evaluation of Hypomethylating Therapy in Patients with Myelodysplastic/Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.
10.19746/j.cnki.issn.1009-2137.2025.05.023
- Author:
Jing-Ya SUN
1
;
Xiao-Han WANG
1
;
Yue-Kun QI
1
;
Ting-Ting QIU
1
;
De-Peng LI
1
Author Information
1. Department of Hematology, The Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical Universiy, Xuzhou 221000, Jiangsu Province, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms;
hypomethylating therapy;
efficacy;
influencing factors
- MeSH:
Humans;
Prognosis;
Decitabine/therapeutic use*;
Azacitidine/therapeutic use*;
Male;
Female;
Myelodysplastic Syndromes/drug therapy*;
Middle Aged;
Myelodysplastic-Myeloproliferative Diseases/drug therapy*;
Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic/therapeutic use*;
Treatment Outcome;
Aged;
Myeloproliferative Disorders/drug therapy*;
Adult;
DNA Methylation
- From:
Journal of Experimental Hematology
2025;33(5):1392-1397
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To study the efficacy and prognosis of patients with myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) treated with hypomethylating agents (HMA), and to analyze the factors that may affect their efficacy and prognosis, in order to provide a clinical basis for the choice of treatment options for patients with MDS/MPN.
METHODS:35 patients with newly diagnosed MDS/MPN who received hypomethylating therapy from January 2018 to April 2024 in the Department of Hematology of Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University were included. The patients were divided into decitabine group (15 cases) and azacitidine group (20 cases) according to the treatment regimen. The efficacy, median overall survival (OS), and median progression-free survival (PFS) of the patients after HMA treatment were evaluated. The differences in efficacy and survival between the two groups were compared, and factors affecting efficacy and prognosis of MDS/MPN patients were analyzed.
RESULTS:The overall response rate (ORR) of the 35 MDS/MPN patients treated with HMA was 51.4%. The ORR was 73.3% in decitabine group and 35.0% in azacitidine group, with a statistically significant difference (P =0.041). Survival analysis showed that the median OS was 12 months and the median PFS was 10 months in the entire cohort of the patients. There was no difference in median OS between decitabine group and azacitidine group. The median PFS in decitabine group was 12 months, higher than that in azacitidine group (7 months), but the difference was not statistically significant (P =0.505). Multivariate analysis showed that the treatment regimen and platelet count were independent influencing factors for the efficacy of HAM treatment; The course and therapeutic efficacy of HMA treatment were independent influencing factors for OS in MDS/MPN patients. The main adverse reactions of HMA treatment were myelosuppression and pulmonary infection. Gastrointestinal reactions were more likely to occur in the azacitidine group than in the decitabine group, and the difference was statistically significant (P =0.027).
CONCLUSION:HMA treatment is effective and well-tolerated in some MDS/MPN patients. Decitabine shows superior efficacy compared with azacitidine and is less likely to cause gastrointestinal reactions. Patients who received ≥4 courses of HMAs and responded to hypomethylating therapy had longer OS.
