Abstract
目的
观察小剂量环磷酰胺联合泼尼松持续口服治疗复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤(MM)伴严重心功能不全患者的临床疗效、安全性及心功能改善情况。
方法
选择75例MM伴心功能不全患者,给予环磷酰胺片(50 mg/d)联合泼尼松片(15 mg/d)进行小剂量化疗。
结果
75例患者中,失访2例,在可评估的73例患者中总有效率为64.4%,其中完全缓解(CR)2例(2.7%),很好的部分缓解(VGPR)4例(5.5%),部分缓解(PR)24例(32.9%)。中位生存时间为12(1~70)个月,中位治疗起效时间为90(16~120)d,中位无进展生存时间为12(1~60)个月。与治疗前比较,临床有效组患者血清B型脑钠肽下降[(906.4±104.8)ng/L对(336.6±30.3)ng/L,P<0.01]。患者常见的不良反应为骨髓抑制(32/73,43.8%)、感染(26/73,35.6%)和Cushing综合征(7/73,9.6%),一般可耐受或经对症处理后可缓解。
结论
小剂量环磷酰胺联合泼尼松持续口服治疗复发/难治性MM伴严重心功能不全患者可取得较好的疗效,并能改善患者心功能,具有良好的安全性。
Keywords: 多发性骨髓瘤, 抗肿瘤联合化疗方案, 心力衰竭, 环磷酰胺, 节律性化疗
Abstract
Objective
To observe treatment response, survival, safety and the improvement of ECOG in patients with refractory multiple myeloma (MM)with serious heart failure after the administration of continuous low-dose of cyclophosphamide combined with prednisone (CP).
Methods
From January 2005 to September 2013, a total of 75 patients were treated by metronomic chemotherapy with continuous low-dose cyclophosphamide (50 mg/d) and prednisone (15 mg/d).
Results
Among the 75 patients, 2 were lost for follow-up. In the 73 available patients, the overall response was 64.4%, including 2 patients (2.7%) with complete remission (CR), 4 cases (5.5%) very good partial remission (VGPR), and 24 patients (32.9%) partial remission (PR). The median survival was 12 months (1–70 months) with a median onset time of 90 days (16–120) and a median progressive freedom survival of 12 months (1–60). The level of B-type natriuretic peptide in responders declined significantly, as compared to no responders [(336.6±30.3) ng/L vs (906.4±104.8) ng/L, P<0.01]. Common adverse events were as follows: 32 (43.8%) cases of bone marrow suppression, 26 (35.6%) cases of infection, 8 cases of dizzy as well as sleepiness (11.0%), 7 (9.6%) cases of Cushing syndrome, 4 (5.5%) cases of secondary diabetes mellitus, and 3 (4.1%) cases of edema respectively.
Conclusion
The metronomic chemotherapy of cyclophosphamide combined with prednisone had satisfactory impact on the treatment outcome, including the improvement of cardiac functions and physical capacities, better survival and safety in refractory MM with serious heart failure. It provides a novel regimen for such patients.
Keywords: Multiple myeloma, Antineoplastic combined chemotherapy protocols, Heart failure, Cyclophosphamide, Metronomic chemotherapy
多发性骨髓瘤(multiple myeloma,MM)为老年性疾病,且发病率逐年上升,目前已是血液系统第二大肿瘤[1]。复发/难治性MM患者通常伴有心脏等其他脏器合并症,无法耐受传统化疗方案[2]。因此既往复发/难治性MM伴有严重心功能不全的患者往往无治疗方案可用。即使在目前硼替佐米等新药不断出现的时代也无明显改变。2000年Harahan等[3]首次提出节律性化疗的概念,即持续低剂量化疗(continuous low-dose chemotherapy,LDM),与传统化疗不同点在于剂量低、间歇期短、能持续应用。该治疗模式能增加药物的抗血管形成活性,是一种新颖的化疗方法[4],在治疗实体瘤患者中已取得明确疗效[5]–[11],近年在治疗MM患者中也有报道[12]–[16]。自2005年以来,我们采用小剂量环磷酰胺联合泼尼松持续口服方案治疗一组伴有严重心功能不全、无法应用传统化疗方案的复发/难治性MM患者,现将结果报告如下。
病例和方法
1.一般资料:选择2005年1月至2013年12月入住我院的复发/难治性MM患者75例,诊断符合国际骨髓瘤工作组(IMWG)疗效标准[2],不设最低入组条件,中位年龄72 (45~96)岁,中位随访时间60(2~80)个月。所有患者均存在Ⅲ~Ⅳ级心功能不全,9例患者同时伴有肾功能衰竭(其中2例患者需要每周接受3次血液透析治疗),患者在接受本方案治疗前至少应用1(1~4)种其他方案治疗,治疗1~8个疗程。75例患者的临床特征见表1。
表1. 75例复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤患者的一般临床资料及用药情况.
| 项目 | 数值 |
| 年龄[岁,M(范围)] | 72(45~96) |
| 性别[例(%),男/女] | 41(54.7)/34(45.3) |
| 类型(例,IgG/IgA/IgD/IgM /轻链) | 37/21/4/2/11 |
| D-S分期(例,ⅡA/ⅢA/ⅢB) | 3/53/19 |
| ISS分期[例(%),Ⅱ期/Ⅲ期] | 21(28.0)/54(72.0) |
| 骨髓瘤细胞比例[%,M(范围)] | 25.0(0.5~96.5) |
| HGB[g/L,M(范围)] | 76(37~170) |
| PLT[×109/L,M(范围)] | 137(21~405) |
| ECOG评分(例,2分/3分/4分) | 3/44/28 |
| NYHA心功能分级[例(%),Ⅲ级/Ⅳ级] | 47(62.7)/28(37.3) |
| BNP[ng/L,M(范围)] | 949.6(784.5~1 114.7) |
| β2微球蛋白[例(%)] | |
| <3.5 µg/L | 4(5.3) |
| 3.5~5.5 µg/L | 24(32.0) |
| >5.5 µg/L | 47(62.7) |
| 肌酐[例(%),<177/≥177 µmol/L] | 56(74.7)/19(25.3) |
| 既往治疗[例(%)] | |
| 沙利度胺+±也塞米松方案 | 14(18.7) |
| 马法兰+泼尼松方案 | 10(13.3) |
| 其他方案 | 51(68.0) |
注:D-S:Durie-Salmon;ISS:国际分期体系;ECOG:美国东部肿瘤协作组;NYHA:纽约心脏病协会;BNP:B型脑钠肽;其他方案:包括MOD(米托蒽醌+长春瑞滨+地塞米松)、VAD(长春新碱+阿霉素+地塞米松)、DT-PACE(地塞米松+沙利度胺+顺铂+阿霉素+环磷酰胺+依托泊苷)、TCD(沙利度胺+环磷酰胺+地塞米松)、TMD(沙利度胺+米托蒽醌+地塞米松)、VMCP(长春新碱+马法兰+环磷酰胺+泼尼松)、DCEP(顺铂+环磷酰胺+依托泊苷+泼尼松)方案
2.治疗方案:CP方案:小剂量环磷酰胺(50 mg/d)联合泼尼松(15 mg/d)持续口服。化疗过程中患者中性粒细胞和血小板分别降至0.5×109/L和30×109/L时停用环磷酰胺,分别给予G-CSF、输注单采血小板治疗。待中性粒细胞>1.0×109/L时,继续应用本方案。如患者经过3个月规范治疗后仍未达到疾病稳定(SD),该方案即被终止。患者持续应用本方案,直到疾病进展(PD)后停药。若患者达到完全缓解(CR),用药6个月后停药。
3.疗效及不良反应观察:参照IMWG制定的MM疗效标准[17],分为CR、很好的部分缓解(VGPR)、部分缓解(PR)、SD和PD。随访记录患者无进展生存(PFS)时间和总生存(OS)时间。体能评估参考美国东部肿瘤协作组(Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, ECOG)标准[18]。观察患者B型脑钠肽(B-type natriuretic peptide,BNP)指标变化。如服药后有效且无明显不良反应则持续口服。按美国国立癌症研究所常见毒性事件标准(NCI CTCAE)3.0版判断不良反应。
4.随访:每月随访1次,至SD后改为每2个月随访1次。采用住院随访的方式,随访截止时间为2013年12月。
5.统计学处理:采用SPSS 17.0软件进行统计学分析。患者治疗前后BNP均数的比较采用t检验,PFS时间采用极限乘积法(Kaplan-Meier)计算,并用Log-rank检验。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
结果
1.疗效观察:75例患者中,失访2例,在可评估的73例患者中总有效率为64.4%,其中CR 2例(2.7%),VGPR 4例(5.5%),PR 24例(32.9%),SD 17例(23.3%),PD 26例(35.6%)。至今仍生存20例,2例CR患者中1例在停药半年后复发,再次经此方案诱导,2个月后再次获得VGPR,另1例CR患者停药2年后复发,再次经此方案诱导3个月后再次获得CR。
2.患者心功能不全改善情况:治疗前血清BNP水平为949.6(95%CI, 784.5~1 114.7)ng/L(正常参考值范围为0~80 ng/L),提示患者心功能较差[19]–[20],应用洋地黄、利尿剂等常规治疗后无明显好转。将患者分为有效组(疗效评价为SD及其以上者)和无效组(疗效评价为PD者)。治疗前两组患者血清BNP水平差异无统计学意义(P=0.122)。经过CP方案治疗后,有效组患者血清BNP水平较治疗前明显下降,差异有统计学意义(P=0.000);无效组患者与治疗前相比差异无统计学意义(P=0.726);治疗后两组差异有统计学意义(P=0.000)(表2)。同时与无效组比较,有效组患者心血管事件(包括不稳定心绞痛、非致死性心肌梗死、非致命性心衰、恶性心律失常)发生率明显减少,ECOG评分进步率明显增加(P值均<0.05)(表2)。
表2. 复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤伴严重心功能不全患者治疗前后心功能不全改善及心血管事件发生率比较.
| 组别 | 例数 | 血清BNP水平(ng/L, x±s) |
心血管事件发生[例(%)] |
ECOG评分进步[例(%)] | ||||||
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | P值 | 不稳定心绞痛 | 非致死性心肌梗死 | 非致命性心衰 | 恶性心率失常 | 心源性猝死 | |||
| 有效组 | 47 | 906.4±104.8 | 336.6±30.3 | <0.01 | 1(2.3) | 1(2.3) | 13(27.7) | 5(19.2) | 1(2.3) | 26(55.3) |
| 无效组 | 26 | 1 027.7±136.2 | 836.8±145.9 | 0.726 | 7(26.9) | 5(19.2) | 12(46.2) | 9(34.6) | 2(7.7) | 4(15.4) |
| P值 | 0.122 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | >0.05 | <0.01 | ||
注:BNP:B型脑钠肽;ECOG:美国东部肿瘤协作组
3.生存分析:患者接受CP方案的中位时间为8(1~53)个月,中位起效时间为90(16~120)d。中位OS时间为12(1~70)个月,其中临床有效组患者中位OS为22(4~70)个月),无效组为4(4~26)个月,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)(图1)。中位PFS为12(1~60)个月,其中临床有效组患者中位PFS为28(3~60)个月,无效组为2(1~10)个月,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)(图2)。
图1. 治疗后两组复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤伴严重心功能不全患者总生存比较.
图2. 治疗后两组复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤伴严重心功能不全患者疾病无进展生存比较.
4.不良反应:本组患者中最常见的治疗不良反应是骨髓抑制、感染和Cushing综合征。32例(43.8%)患者出现了骨髓抑制血小板减少,其中28例(87.5%)≤2级,在2周内恢复到基线水平;4例(12.5%)为3~4级,需要血小板输注支持。中性粒细胞减少13例,粒细胞缺乏3例,26例(35.6%)患者发生感染,其中肺炎19例(26.0%),上呼吸道感染7例(9.6%),3例在血培养和痰培养中分别发现了铜绿假单胞菌和白色念珠菌。7例(9.6%)患者出现Cushing综合征。6例(8.2%)患者出现乏力症状,未经特殊处理自行缓解。3例(4.1%)患者出现≤2级的腹胀、便秘症状,经缓泻剂处理后恢复。8例(11.0%)患者出现了头昏、嗜睡症状,随着疗程的增加,症状逐渐好转。
讨论
MM是一种浆细胞恶性增生性疾病。传统的给药方案是间隔使用最大耐受剂量的细胞毒药物,目的是通过间隔用药使正常细胞得以恢复。NCCN指南中针对复发/难治性MM患者推荐使用挽救治疗方案[21]–[22]。对该类患者的治疗策略包括:一类为增加细胞毒药物的使用数量和(或)剂量;另一类为增加如沙利度胺、硼替佐米、雷利度胺等新药;对伴有严重心功能不全的复发/难治性患者,指南中则无明确的治疗方法。然而,临床实践中,复发的MM患者经常伴随有严重的心功能不全,而这往往成为治疗的主要或次要目标。这些患者既不能耐受常规剂量的化疗方案,或不能耐受新药所引起的不良反应[2]–[3],[18],[23]–[25],同样也不符合进入新药临床试验的要求。因此,治疗这部分患者成为临床上一个巨大的挑战。
我们曾采用CP方案治疗复发/难治性MM伴严重脏器功能不全患者获得良好疗效[15]–[16]。在本研究中我们的结果显示,在可评估的73例患者中总有效率为64.4%,中位OS时间为12(1~70)个月,其中有效组患者47例,无效组患者26例,提示该方案能有效延长患者的生存时间;治疗前两组患者血清BNP水平差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),经过本方案治疗后,有效组患者血清BNP水平下降,与无效组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);在心血管事件发生上,尤其在不稳定心绞痛、非致死性心肌梗死、非致命性心衰、恶性心律失常这四类心血管事件的发生上,有效组均优于无效组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而在心源性猝死方面,两组相较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。ECOG评分进步率在有效组增加明显,有26例患者ECOG体能评分得到了改善,而无效组仅有4例得到改善(P<0.01)。可能的原因是否为治疗有效后贫血改善或者心肌淀粉样病变改善尚不得而知(因这一组患者一般情况较差未能活检)。目前治疗伴有严重心功能不全的MM患者尚未见相关文献报道。
本方案最常见的不良反应是骨髓抑制、感染和Cushing综合征,但随着疗程的增加,患者肿瘤负荷下降明显,自身免疫功能恢复,感染等化疗不良反应都能逐渐缓解。研究结果初步显示CP方案治疗伴有严重心功能不全MM患者,疗效可靠,易耐受,安全性强。有文献报道接受最大耐受剂量化疗方案为基础治疗的206例患者总有效率为45.6%,中位OS时间为30.5个月[26]。提示接受本方案治疗的患者可获得与接受常规化疗者同等疗效,并可大大改善患者的心脏功能及生存时间。
总之,在本研究中我们的结果显示,对于严重心功能不全的MM患者,节律性化疗是一种新的且安全有效的治疗手段,同时具有不良反应小、花费低、前期临床试验的可行性等优势,长期结果有待于增加病例数及延长观察时间确定。相信这种化疗模式将使一部分原来无法治疗的患者临床受益。
Funding Statement
基金项目:上海市科委科研计划项目(14411973400)
References
- 1.Vázquez FJ, Funtowicz G, Rivello HG, et al. Nodular hepatic lesions secondary to multiple myeloma[J] Medicina (B Aires) 2010;70(4):311–315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Trotti A, Byhardt R, Stetz J, et al. Common toxicity criteria: version 2.0. an improved reference for grading the acute effects of cancer treatment: impact on radiotherapy[J] Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47(1):13–47. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(99)00559-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hanahan D, Bergers G, Bergsland E. Less is more, regularly: metronomic dosing of cytotoxic drugs can target tumor angiogenesis in mice[J] J Clin Invest. 2000;105(8):1045–1047. doi: 10.1172/JCI9872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Stempak D, Gammon J, Halton J, et al. A pilot pharmacokinetic and antiangiogenic biomarker study of celecoxib and low-dose metronomic vinblastine or cyclophosphamide in pediatric recurrent solid tumors[J] J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2006;28(11):720–728. doi: 10.1097/01.mph.0000243657.64056.c3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bocci G, Tuccori M, Emmenegger U, et al. Cyclophosphamide-methotrexate ‘metronomic’ chemotherapy for the palliative treatment of metastatic breast cancer. A comparative pharmacoeconomic evaluation[J] Ann Oncol. 2005;16(8):1243–1252. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Munoz R, Shaked Y, Bertolini F, et al. Anti-angiogenic treatment of breast cancer using metronomic low-dose chemotherapy[J] Breast. 2005;14(6):466–479. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2005.08.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Baruchel S, Diezi M, Hargrave D, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetics of temozolomide using a dose-escalation, metronomic schedule in recurrent paediatric brain tumours[J] Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(14):2335–2342. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.03.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Buckstein R, Kerbel RS, Shaked Y, et al. High-Dose celecoxib and metronomic “low-dose” cyclophosphamide is an effective and safe therapy in patients with relapsed and refractory aggressive histology non-Hodgkin's lymphoma[J] Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(17):5190–5198. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kong DS, Lee JI, Kim WS, et al. A pilot study of metronomic temozolomide treatment in patients with recurrent temozolomide-refractory glioblastoma[J] Oncol Rep. 2006;16(5):1117–1121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Stempak D, Gammon J, Halton J, et al. A pilot pharmacokinetic and antiangiogenic biomarker study of celecoxib and low-dose metronomic vinblastine or cyclophosphamide in pediatric recurrent solid tumors[J] J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2006;28(11):720–728. doi: 10.1097/01.mph.0000243657.64056.c3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Young SD, Whissell M, Noble JC, et al. Phase II clinical trial results involving treatment with low-dose daily oral cyclophosphamide, weekly vinblastine, and rofecoxib in patients with advanced solid tumors[J] Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(10):3092–3098. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.de Weerdt O, van de Donk NW, Veth G, et al. Continuous lowdose cyclophosphamide-prednisone is effective and well tolerated in patients with advanced multiple myeloma[J] Neth J Med. 2001;59(2):50–56. doi: 10.1016/s0300-2977(01)00140-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Trieu Y, Trudel S, Pond GR, et al. Weekly cyclophosphamide and alternate-day prednisone: an effective, convenient, and welltolerated oral treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma after autologous stem cell transplantation[J] Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80(12):1578–1582. doi: 10.4065/80.12.1578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Suvannasankha A, Fausel C, Juliar BE, et al. Final report of toxicity and efficacy of a phase II study of oral cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and prednisone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A Hoosier Oncology Group Trial, HEM01-21[J] Oncologist. 2007;12(1):99–106. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.12-1-99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zhou F, Guo LP, Ling CH, et al. Continuous administration of low-dose cyclophosphamide and prednisone as a salvage treatment for multiple myeloma[J] Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2010;10(1):51–55. doi: 10.3816/CLML.2010.n.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.周 帆, 侯 建, 石 昊天, et al. 小剂量环磷酰胺联合泼尼松持续应用治疗伴有严重并发症的多发性骨髓瘤[J] 白血病·淋巴瘤. 2008;17(5):353–355. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Durie BG, Haronsseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma[J] Leukemia. 2006;20(9):1467–1473. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group[J] Am J Clan Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–655. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.张 之栩, 魏 群. 血清BNP水平与心衰程度相关性的临床研究[J] 中国实验诊断学. 2010;14(8):1216–1217. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Maisel AS, McCord J, Nowak RM, et al. Bedside B-Type natriuretic peptide in the emergency diagnosis of heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Results from the Breathing Not Properly Multinational Study[J] J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41(11):2010–2017. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(03)00405-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology-multiple myeloma[M] NCCN Pratice Guidelines in Oncology-v.2. 2011:24–35. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma[J] Leukemia. 2009;23(1):3–9. doi: 10.1038/leu.2008.291. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Goolsby MJ. National Kidney Foundation Guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification[J] J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2002;14(6):238–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2002.tb00119.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kerbel RS, Kamen BA. The anti-angiogenic basis of metronomic chemotherapy[J] Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(6):423–436. doi: 10.1038/nrc1369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Robin J, Fintel B, Pikovskaya O, et al. Multiple myeloma presenting with high-output heart failure and improving with anti-angiogenesis therapy: two case reports and a review of the literature[J] J Med Case Rep. 2008;2:229. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-2-229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.麦 玉洁, 李 睿, 邹 德慧, et al. 206例多发性骨髓瘤患者不同方案疗效分析[J] 中华血液学杂志. 2005;26(4):193–196. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]


