Response evaluation
| . | LDC* . | SDC . | Total . | P† . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First induction | 83 | 100 | 183 | .811 |
| CR | 58 (69.9) | 67 (67.0) | 125 (68.3) | |
| PR | 12 (14.5) | 18 (18.0) | 30 (16.4) | |
| NR | 13 (15.6) | 15 (15.0) | 28 (15.3) | |
| Second induction | 80 | 96 | 176 | .436 |
| CR | 71 (88.8) | 83 (86.4) | 154 (87.5) | |
| PR | 4 (5.0) | 6 (6.3) | 10 (5.7) | |
| NR | 2 (2.5) | 6 (6.3) | 8 (4.5) | |
| Unavailable‡ | 3 (3.7) | 1 (1.0) | 4 (2.3) | |
| Treatment-related deaths | 1§ | 2 | 3 | 1.000 |
| Induction I | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Induction II | 1 (1.2) | 2 (2.0) | 3 (1.6) | |
| Abandonment | 7 | 7 | 14 | |
| After induction I | 3 (3.6) | 4 (4.0) | 7 (3.8) | .912 |
| After induction II | 4 (4.8) | 3 (3.0) | 7 (3.8) |
| . | LDC* . | SDC . | Total . | P† . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First induction | 83 | 100 | 183 | .811 |
| CR | 58 (69.9) | 67 (67.0) | 125 (68.3) | |
| PR | 12 (14.5) | 18 (18.0) | 30 (16.4) | |
| NR | 13 (15.6) | 15 (15.0) | 28 (15.3) | |
| Second induction | 80 | 96 | 176 | .436 |
| CR | 71 (88.8) | 83 (86.4) | 154 (87.5) | |
| PR | 4 (5.0) | 6 (6.3) | 10 (5.7) | |
| NR | 2 (2.5) | 6 (6.3) | 8 (4.5) | |
| Unavailable‡ | 3 (3.7) | 1 (1.0) | 4 (2.3) | |
| Treatment-related deaths | 1§ | 2 | 3 | 1.000 |
| Induction I | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Induction II | 1 (1.2) | 2 (2.0) | 3 (1.6) | |
| Abandonment | 7 | 7 | 14 | |
| After induction I | 3 (3.6) | 4 (4.0) | 7 (3.8) | .912 |
| After induction II | 4 (4.8) | 3 (3.0) | 7 (3.8) |
All data are presented as n (%).
Twenty-two patients received 1 course of LDC for induction I and SDC for induction II.
Monte Carlo analysis was used for categorical variables with N×3 charts.
Two patients abandoned treatment and 1 patient in the LDC/SDC group died of treatment-related toxicity before evaluation of remission induction II; 1 patient died of treatment-related toxicity in the SDC group before evaluation of remission induction II.
Patient received LDC for induction I and SDC for induction II.