[Retracted] A Retrospective Cohort Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Clinical Value of 6‐TG versus 6‐MP Maintenance Therapy in Children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Authors: Tu Minghui , Zhang Aiming , Hu Li , Wang Feng 
Published: August 2022

Objective. To explore the efficacy, safety, and clinical value of 6‐TG versus 6‐MP when treating childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Methods. The study period was from January 2017 to June 2021. The subjects of this study were 100 children with ALL who were treated in our hospital. According to different intervention methods, the children who received 6‐MP maintenance therapy were selected as the control group, with a total of 57 cases. Children with TG maintenance therapy were included in the research group, a total of 43 cases. The ICNS recurrence rate, non‐ICNS recurrence rate, first remission mortality rate, secondary malignant tumor, and other indicators were compared. Results. First of all, we compared the effective rate: complete remission (CR), partial remission, and nonremission in the study group, and the effective rate was 87.5%. In the control group, there were CR, partial remission, and no remission, and the effective rate was 65.5%. The effective rate of the study group was higher, and the difference between groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There were 55 cases of failure in the study group, with an incidence of 21.91%. There were 42 cases of total failure events in the control group, the incidence rate was 18.02%, and there exhibited no remarkable difference (P > 0.05). In the study group, 6 cases died in the first remission, with a fatality rate of 2.39%, while there exhibited no death in the control group. The mortality in the first remission period in the study group was lower (P < 0.05). The overall recurrence rate of the study group was 5.57%, while that of the control group was 11.15%. The overall recurrence rate of the study group was lower, and the difference between groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The recurrence rate of ICNS was 2.14% in the study group and 2.98% in the control group, and there exhibited no remarkable difference (P > 0.05). The non‐ICNS recurrence rate was 3.43% in the study group and 7.17% in the control group. There exhibited no remarkable difference (P > 0.05). The incidence of secondary malignant tumor events was 0.85% in the study group and 1.59% in the control group. There exhibited no remarkable difference (P > 0.05). The incidence of hepatic vein occlusive disease was 7.29% in the study group and 2.39% in the control group. The incidence of hepatic vein occlusive disease in the study group was higher, and the difference between groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Finally, we compared the incidence of adverse reactions. In the study group, there were 12 cases of oral mucosal damage, 7 cases of liver function damage, 6 cases of infection, 10 cases of myelosuppression, 9 cases of gastrointestinal reaction, and 4 cases of skin damage; the incidence rate was 23.17%. In the control group, there were 12 cases of oral mucosal damage, 7 cases of liver function damage, 6 cases of infection, 10 cases of myelosuppression, 9 cases of gastrointestinal reaction, and 4 cases of skin damage, with an incidence of 19.12%. There exhibited no remarkable difference in the incidence of adverse reactions (P > 0.05). Conclusion. 6‐TG maintenance therapy in children with ALL can enhance the overall effective rate, can reduce the first remission mortality and the total recurrence rate, and will not increase the overall incidence of adverse reactions, but the incidence of reversible or irreversible hepatic veno‐occlusive disease is remarkably increased, which has a certain clinical value. Background. Treatment‐related hepatotoxicity and myelosuppression remain formidable challenges for clinicians. Pharmacokinetic studies found that 6‐TG has a more direct intracellular activation pathway, shorter cytotoxic time, and stronger potency than 6‐MP. Therefore, this study investigated the efficacy, safety, and clinical value of 6‐TG and 6‐MP in the treatment of children with ALL.