 |
 |

Treatment of MyelomaComparison of Melphalan, Chlorambucil, and Azathioprine
Southeastern Cancer Study Group
Arch Intern Med. 1975;135(1):157-162.
Abstract
A randomized study compared the response of patients with multiple myeloma to chlorambucil, melphalan, and azathioprine. All patients also received a combination of prednisone and fluoxymesterone. Seventy-three of 86 patients entered on the study could have evaluations. The results indicate that melphalan produced more responses than either azathioprine or chlorambucil, but responses to both of these agents were observed. No difference was noted between survival curves for patients with no poor-risk factors as compared to those having at least one poor-risk factor. The only poor-risk factor affecting survival in this group of patients was the blood urea nitrogen level.
Author Affiliations
Written by William J. Hammack, MD, Veterans Administration Hospital, and University of Alabama School of Medicine, Birmingham, Ala; and Charles M. Huguley, Jr., MD, and Yick-Kwong Chan, PhD, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. Dr. Chan is now with the Veterans Administration Hospital, Perry Point, Md.
Footnotes
Received for publication March 7, 1974; accepted May 16.
For a complete listing of participants, see p 162.
Read before the Symposium of Myeloma, Atlanta, Oct 22, 1973.
Reprint requests to Room 718, Woodruff Building, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30329 (Dr. Huguley).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Based on Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART): Consensus Statement
Dispenzieri et al.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:323-341.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Differential competition with cytotoxic agents: an approach to selectivity in cancer chemotherapy
Rabinowitz et al.
Science 1979;206:1085-1087.
ABSTRACT
Renal Transplantation for End-stage Myeloma Kidney: Report of a Patient With Long-term Survival
Spence et al.
Arch Surg 1979;114:950-952.
ABSTRACT
|