ライフサイエンスコーパス: chlorambucil

1 e agents (azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, or chlorambucil).

2 less intense regimens like obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil.

3 lt in a major clinical benefit compared with chlorambucil.

4 ing first-line therapy with fludarabine with chlorambucil.

5 ng agents temozolomide (TMZ), carmustine and chlorambucil.

6 cyclophosphamide, or fludarabine, than with chlorambucil.

7 abine plus cyclophosphamide, fludarabine, or chlorambucil.

8 icity induced by fludarabine, cladribine, or chlorambucil.

9 lorambucil, fludarabine, or fludarabine plus chlorambucil.

10 lorambucil, fludarabine, or fludarabine plus chlorambucil.

11 remission and progression-free survival than chlorambucil.

12 t does not respond to initial treatment with chlorambucil.

13 is pH dependent for both mechlorethamine and chlorambucil.

14 from the cytotoxicity of a nitrogen mustard, chlorambucil.

15 ely 4-fold resistance to the anticancer drug chlorambucil.

16 e run were conjugated at one or both ends to chlorambucil.

17 tuzumab plus chlorambucil, or rituximab plus chlorambucil.

18 ior to rituximab when each was combined with chlorambucil.

19 osphonium derivative of the nitrogen mustard chlorambucil.

20 tected CLL cells from apoptosis induction by chlorambucil.

21 ravenously, every 28 days, for 6 courses) or chlorambucil (0.4 mg/kg body weight [BW] with an increas

22 different anticancer drugs (caffeic acid and chlorambucil, 1 equiv each).

23 receive immediate systemic therapy with oral chlorambucil 10 mg per day continuously.

24 omly assigned patients (1:1) to receive oral chlorambucil (10 mg/m(2)) on days 1-7 of a 28 day treatm

25 cycle one, and 500 mg/m(2) thereafter) plus chlorambucil (10 mg/m(2)/d all cycles; day 1 through 7)

26 phamide (36%) than with fludarabine (10%) or chlorambucil (10%; p<0.00005).

27 tinum (2.4 mg/kg), carboplatinum (50 mg/kg), chlorambucil (12 mg/kg), BCNU (13.2 mg/kg), or TBI (80 c

28 sphamide (5%) than with fludarabine (11%) or chlorambucil (12%).

29 ne (36%) compared with patients treated with chlorambucil (17.8%; P < .001).

30 meter per day for 5 days every 28 days) plus chlorambucil (20 mg per square meter every 28 days).

31 tients, 33 of whom received prednisolone and chlorambucil, 37 ciclosporin, and 38 supportive therapy

32 s cyclophosphamide (196) for six courses, or chlorambucil (387) for 12 courses.

33 travenously daily for 5 days every 28 days), chlorambucil (40 mg per square meter, given orally every

34 two groups (median overall survival for oral chlorambucil 5.9 [range 0-17.8] years and for observatio

35 h stable disease continued to be given daily chlorambucil 6 mg/m(2) PO for 14 consecutive days every

36 This is a first example of repurposing chlorambucil, a drug not used in breast and pancreatic c

37 lete response (CR), six additional cycles of chlorambucil alone could be administered.

38 with single-agent fludarabine compared with chlorambucil alone or the combination of both agents had

39 ab in MALT Lymphoma) was launched to compare chlorambucil alone versus chlorambucil plus rituximab in

40 group (109 [50%] patients; vs 98 [43%] given chlorambucil alone), with neutropenia being the most com

41 obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil alone, prolonged overall survival (hazard r

42 r clinical outcomes than does treatment with chlorambucil alone, while also being tolerable for patie

43 cantly higher for fludarabine alone than for chlorambucil alone.

44 rambucil plus ofatumumab and 226 patients to chlorambucil alone.

45 inutuzumab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio for progression or deat

46 rituximab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34 to

47 ival in the other two groups (56 months with chlorambucil and 55 months with combined treatment).

48 ts of outcome after chemoimmunotherapy using chlorambucil and anti-CD20 treatment.

49 tor increased their sensitivity to acrolein, chlorambucil and cisplatin between 1.9-fold and 3.1-fold

50 Leukemia 4 (UK LRF CCL4) trial that compared chlorambucil and fludarabine with and without cyclophosp

51 intensive CIT, the combination treatment of chlorambucil and obinutuzumab or ofatumumab is an option

52 f 142 patients treated with fludarabine plus chlorambucil and one (0.5%) of 188 receiving fludarabine

53 d during apoptosis induced with fludarabine, chlorambucil and prednisolone.

54 tance to the cytotoxic drugs fludarabine and chlorambucil and to the novel p53-elevating agent nutlin

55 These results suggest that chlorambucil and/or an antimetabolite should be administ

56 bine plus cyclophosphamide, bendamustine, or chlorambucil) and anti-CD20 antibody (rituximab, ofatumu

57 (chlorambucil, rituximab, and rituximab plus chlorambucil), and was confirmed in the validation set.

58 ine significantly improved PFS compared with chlorambucil, and in patients with WM, it improved OS.

59 iven luciferase activity by cisplatin, BCNU, chlorambucil, and melphalan and also induced endogenous

60 For the mustards mechlorethamine, chlorambucil, and melphalan, both sites of monoalkylatio

61 apeutic option; however, response rates with chlorambucil are low, and more effective treatments are

62 ent failure was significantly shorter in the chlorambucil arm (11 vs 18 months; P = .004), but no dif

63 he fludarabine arm versus 69.8 months in the chlorambucil arm (95% CI, 61.6 to 79.8 months; P = .014)

64 versus 38.6% (95% CI, 32.0% to 45.7%) in the chlorambucil arm (P = .07).

65 cies were significantly more frequent in the chlorambucil arm with 6-year cumulative incidence rate o

66 ved in the fludarabine arm compared with the chlorambucil arm: PFS, 36.3 versus 27.1 months (P = .012

67 onths in the fludarabine vs 64 months in the chlorambucil arm; P = .15).

68 cisplatin were cross-resistant to melphalan, chlorambucil, arsenite, and cadmium.

69 lsulfate micellar system, in the presence of chlorambucil as a model template (anticancer drug).

70 These data support the use of chlorambucil as an acceptable treatment for many older p

71 ven had received oral cyclophosphamide and 1 chlorambucil as their main immunosuppressive drug.

72 Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil alone, prolo

73 with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil or rituximab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil monotherapy,

74 Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with rituximab-chlorambucil, r

75 rds (namely, mechlorethamine, melphalan, and chlorambucil), at least in the mouse embryonic stem cell

76 icancer activities of a 63-member library of chlorambucil-based neoglycosides.

77 AFC content) in animals given carboplatinum, chlorambucil, BCNU, and TBI, but not in animals treated

78 G-CSF administration in animals treated with chlorambucil, BCNU, or TBI.

79 The reaction specificity of chlorambucil-bearing ODNs suggests that they may have ge

80 Whereas chlorambucil, busulfan, and radiophosphorus (32P) have b

81 binutuzumab-chlorambucil than with rituximab-chlorambucil, but the risk of infection was not increase

82 Interaction effects of fludarabine versus chlorambucil by age group (PFS, P = .046; OS, P = .006)

83 7 of a 28 day treatment course or to receive chlorambucil by this schedule plus intravenous ofatumuma

84 cell line (human ovarian carcinoma line) to chlorambucil (CBL).

85 In this study MT was incubated in vitro with chlorambucil (CHB) under conditions where only 1:1 coval

86 of the anticancer drugs melphalan (MLP) and chlorambucil (CHB).

87 This study uses a TFO-chlorambucil (chl) conjugate capable of forming site-spe

88 The nitrogen mustard Chlorambucil (Chl) generates covalent adducts with doubl

89 , which combines the DNA crosslinking moiety chlorambucil (Chl) with a sequence-selective hairpin pyr

90 A chlorambucil (CHL)-induced mutation of the jcpk (juvenil

91 rease in tumor growth delay by the weak acid chlorambucil (CHL).

92 nthracyclines induced greatest resistance to chlorambucil, cisplatin, carboplatin, and cladribine.

93 1, a 3-arm phase 3 trial comparing frontline chlorambucil (Clb) vs Clb plus rituximab (Clb-R) or Clb

94 risons), which were in turn better than with chlorambucil (complete response rate 7%, overall respons

95 Hairpin polyamide-chlorambucil conjugates containing an alpha-diaminobutyr

96 tigate whether the addition of ofatumumab to chlorambucil could lead to better clinical outcomes than

97 uced by treating patients with prednisolone, chlorambucil, cyclophosphamide, anthracycline, or fludar

98 l, showing that the observed protection from chlorambucil cytotoxicity was absolutely dependent upon

99 Conclusion Rituximab in combination with chlorambucil demonstrated superior efficacy in mucosa-as

100 Chlorambucil did not benefit from conjugation.

101 B-CLL cells whereas the cross-linking agent chlorambucil elicited both of these effects.

102 ples from the LRF CLL4 trial, which compared chlorambucil, fludarabine, and FC, were screened by TaqM

103 Regimens included chlorambucil, fludarabine, fludarabine plus rituximab (F

104 ed intergroup study comparing treatment with chlorambucil, fludarabine, or fludarabine plus chlorambu

105 Patients were randomized to therapy with chlorambucil, fludarabine, or fludarabine plus chlorambu

106 Patients were treated with chlorambucil for a median of 14.0 weeks (mean, 14.5 week

107 d, anti-CD20 antibody recently approved with chlorambucil for the initial therapy of chronic lymphocy

108 y, whereas both values were 14 months in the chlorambucil group (P<0.001 for both comparisons).

109 r groove, it is inaccessible to the tethered chlorambucil group of the ODN during the search for homo

110 significantly lower in the prednisolone and chlorambucil group than in the supportive care group (19

111 oups but were higher in the prednisolone and chlorambucil group than in the supportive care only grou

112 signment of patients to the fludarabine-plus-chlorambucil group was stopped when a planned interim an

113 Patients treated with fludarabine plus chlorambucil had more infections than those receiving ei

114 Immunosuppression with chlorambucil has not been effective, but the study desig

115 (ODNs) bearing the reactive nitrogen mustard chlorambucil have been used as sequence-directed affinit

116 anticancer activity/selectivity of the drug chlorambucil, herein we report the synthesis and antican

117 mission after treatment with fludarabine and chlorambucil in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukem

118 Superiority over chlorambucil in previously untreated patients with chron

119 red the efficacy of fludarabine with that of chlorambucil in the primary treatment of chronic lymphoc

120 d with that of rituximab, each combined with chlorambucil, in patients with previously untreated CLL

121 Treatment with chlorambucil induced a 10-fold sensitivity to steroids;

122 Here we describe a new chlorambucil-induced deletion allele, lstAlb, that uncov

123 ion, 6 months' therapy with prednisolone and chlorambucil is the treatment approach best supported by

124 Addition of ofatumumab to chlorambucil led to clinically important improvements wi

125 ow-up of 7.4 years, addition of rituximab to chlorambucil led to significantly better EFS (hazard rat

126 suggesting that the addition of rituximab to chlorambucil may improve efficacy with no unexpected adv

127 R-chlorambucil may improve outcome for patients who are in

128 er drugs cisplatin, etoposide, mitoxantrone, chlorambucil, melphalan, and carmustine [1,3-bis(2-chlor

129 ODNs conjugated with either two chlorambucil moieties or a novel tetrafunctional mustard

130 domly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either chlorambucil monotherapy (6 mg/m(2)/d orally on weeks 1

131 For this population, chlorambucil monotherapy is an appropriate therapeutic o

132 or rituximab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil monotherapy, increased response rates and p

133 orably with previously published results for chlorambucil monotherapy, suggesting that the addition o

134 earance of 30 to 69 ml per minute to receive chlorambucil, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil, or rituxim

135 a site containing all four bases and bearing chlorambucil on an interior base was shown to efficientl

136 months (10.6-13.8) in the group assigned to chlorambucil only (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.72;

137 single agents, such as the established drugs chlorambucil or cyclophosphamide, or the newer purine an

138 Patients treated with chlorambucil or fludarabine were more than twice as like

139 ty-seven patients were randomized to receive chlorambucil or fludarabine, alone or with cyclophospham

140 n provided greater survival benefit than did chlorambucil or fludarabine.

141 after FC (odds ratio 0.27; P = .004) but not chlorambucil or fludarabine.

142 phoma) who were randomly assigned to receive chlorambucil or fludarabine.

143 Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil or rituximab-chlorambucil, as compared with

144 analogue, bendamustine, anti-CD20 antibody, chlorambucil, or alemtuzumab as first-line or second-lin

145 either rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil, or cytarabine.

146 one or in combination with alpha-interferon, chlorambucil, or interleukin-2 (IL-2).

147 e to receive chlorambucil, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil, or rituximab plus chlorambucil.

148 hs of alternating cycles of prednisolone and chlorambucil, or supportive treatment plus 12 months of

149 nd more herpesvirus infections compared with chlorambucil (P =.008 and P =.004, respectively).

150 ere more frequent with fludarabine than with chlorambucil (P=0.08), although, overall, toxic effects

151 ) after single-agent therapy (fludarabine or chlorambucil) (P = .001), but the presence of only seven

152 (19 months with fludarabine, 18 months with chlorambucil; P = .7).

153 FS and OS was improved with fludarabine over chlorambucil (PFS: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.6, 95% CI, 0.5

154 , 2011, we randomly assigned 221 patients to chlorambucil plus ofatumumab and 226 patients to chloram

155 (95% CI 19.0-25.2) in the group assigned to chlorambucil plus ofatumumab compared with 13.1 months (

156 eater adverse events were more common in the chlorambucil plus ofatumumab group (109 [50%] patients;

157 Chlorambucil plus ofatumumab is therefore an important t

158 nts were reported in 22 (10%) patients given chlorambucil plus ofatumumab.

159 aunched to compare chlorambucil alone versus chlorambucil plus rituximab in patients not previously g

160 udy (Randomized Trial of Chlorambucil Versus Chlorambucil Plus Rituximab Versus Rituximab in MALT Lym

161 d to assess how the addition of rituximab to chlorambucil (R-chlorambucil) would affect safety and ef

162 of triplex formation relative to the rate of chlorambucil reaction.

163 Chlorambucil remains the standard of care in many countr

164 t was shown that in MCF7 cells resistance to chlorambucil requires both intact MRP1-dependent efflux

165 Combination therapy with fludarabine plus chlorambucil resulted in significantly more infections t

166 mab-chlorambucil, as compared with rituximab-chlorambucil, resulted in prolongation of progression-fr

167 yamine-based chemoselective glycosylation of chlorambucil revealed sugar- and linker-dependent partit

168 nongastric lymphomas, in each treatment arm (chlorambucil, rituximab, and rituximab plus chlorambucil

169 vely; trend over dose categories, P =.04) or chlorambucil (RRs = 3.8 and 8.4 for duration < 10 months

170 17 to 18, and 21 to 22) or a combination of chlorambucil (same schedule as above) and rituximab (375

171 of MRP1 alone failed to confer resistance to chlorambucil, showing that the observed protection from

172 utropenia were more common with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil than with rituximab-chlorambucil, but the r

173 e SO may be a lifelong condition and because chlorambucil therapy may offer long-term, drug-free remi

174 Short-term, high-dose chlorambucil therapy provides sustained periods of drug-

175 hs; range, 48-441 months) from initiation of chlorambucil therapy.

176 The randomized WM1 study (Trial Comparing Chlorambucil to Fludarabine in Patients With Advanced Wa

177 one (0.5%) of 188 receiving fludarabine; no chlorambucil-treated patients developed t-MDS or t-AML (

178 ons and herpesvirus infections compared with chlorambucil-treated patients.

179 m was to compare administration of immediate chlorambucil treatment with a policy of delaying chloram

180 rambucil treatment with a policy of delaying chlorambucil until clinical progression necessitated its

181 The IELSG-19 study (Randomized Trial of Chlorambucil Versus Chlorambucil Plus Rituximab Versus R

182 Analysis of chlorambucil versus the combination arm was performed an

183 pecified before randomization as alternating chlorambucil, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisolon

184 improved side-effect profile, the regimen of chlorambucil, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone

185 free survival, 26.7 months with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; ha

186 .24; P<0.001; and 16.3 months with rituximab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; ha

187 total cumulative dose of cyclophosphamide or chlorambucil was 118 gm and 6.5 gm, respectively, over a

188 In arm A, chlorambucil was given daily 6 mg/m(2) orally (PO) for 6

189 g oligonucleotide with a terminally appended chlorambucil was shown to label a target guanine residue

190 ponding values for 181 patients treated with chlorambucil were 4 percent and 33 percent (P< 0.001 for

191 Previously, combinations of fludarabine and chlorambucil were abandoned because of increased toxicit

192 Early studies combining fludarabine and chlorambucil were abandoned owing to increased toxicity

193 rge cumulative doses of cyclophosphamide and chlorambucil were associated with the development of MDS

194 s with SO treated with short-term, high-dose chlorambucil were identified.

195 The nitrogen mustards, melphalan and chlorambucil, were both conjugated to 2, and the biologi

196 A total of 100 patients were treated with R-chlorambucil, with a median follow-up of 30 months.

197 the addition of rituximab to chlorambucil (R-chlorambucil) would affect safety and efficacy in patien