Wolfgang Kern1, Elihu H Estey. 1. MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory, Munich, Germany. wolfgang.kern@mll-online.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of high-dose cytosine arabinoside (HDAraC) during induction may improve outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with standard-dose AraC (SDAraC). The objective of this review was to assess the impact of HDAraC during induction therapy for patients with AML based on results from randomized trials. METHODS: All randomized trials in the field were identified by using a predefined search strategy. Trials that assessed the impact of HDAraC compared with SDAraC as induction therapy for adult patients with AML in a randomized fashion and that reported the relevant endpoints were included. Data were extracted from each trial by both reviewers according to prespecified criteria. RESULTS: No differences between HDAraC and SDAraC were found with regard to complete remission rates (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.92-1.10). The weighted mean difference (WMD) for median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 4.19 in favor of HDAraC (95% CI, 0.59-7.78; P = .02). The WMD for 4-year RFS was 10.98 in favor of HDAraC (95% CI, 1.02-20.94; P = .03). The WMD for median overall survival (OS) was - 0.22 for HDAraC compared with SDAraC (95% CI, - 2.76-2.32; P = .9). Data regarding the median OS was heterogeneous between studies (chi-square P = .00), with 2 studies in favor of HDAraC and 2 studies in favor of SDAraC. The WMD for 4-year OS was 6.21 in favor of HDAraC (95% CI, 2.70-9.72; P = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: Induction therapy with HDAraC improved long-term disease control and overall survival in adults age < 60 years with de novo AML. It remains unknown whether patients should receive HDAraC during induction or if it is to be given during postremission therapy. Further analyses should focus on this issue and on the effects of HDAraC in prognostically different subgroups of patients with AML. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: The use of high-dose cytosine arabinoside (HDAraC) during induction may improve outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with standard-dose AraC (SDAraC). The objective of this review was to assess the impact of HDAraC during induction therapy for patients with AML based on results from randomized trials. METHODS: All randomized trials in the field were identified by using a predefined search strategy. Trials that assessed the impact of HDAraC compared with SDAraC as induction therapy for adult patients with AML in a randomized fashion and that reported the relevant endpoints were included. Data were extracted from each trial by both reviewers according to prespecified criteria. RESULTS: No differences between HDAraC and SDAraC were found with regard to complete remission rates (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.92-1.10). The weighted mean difference (WMD) for median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 4.19 in favor of HDAraC (95% CI, 0.59-7.78; P = .02). The WMD for 4-year RFS was 10.98 in favor of HDAraC (95% CI, 1.02-20.94; P = .03). The WMD for median overall survival (OS) was - 0.22 for HDAraC compared with SDAraC (95% CI, - 2.76-2.32; P = .9). Data regarding the median OS was heterogeneous between studies (chi-square P = .00), with 2 studies in favor of HDAraC and 2 studies in favor of SDAraC. The WMD for 4-year OS was 6.21 in favor of HDAraC (95% CI, 2.70-9.72; P = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: Induction therapy with HDAraC improved long-term disease control and overall survival in adults age < 60 years with de novo AML. It remains unknown whether patients should receive HDAraC during induction or if it is to be given during postremission therapy. Further analyses should focus on this issue and on the effects of HDAraC in prognostically different subgroups of patients with AML. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Jeffrey E Rubnitz; Hiroto Inaba; Gary Dahl; Raul C Ribeiro; W Paul Bowman; Jeffrey Taub; Stanley Pounds; Bassem I Razzouk; Norman J Lacayo; Xueyuan Cao; Soheil Meshinchi; Barbara Degar; Gladstone Airewele; Susana C Raimondi; Mihaela Onciu; Elaine Coustan-Smith; James R Downing; Wing Leung; Ching-Hon Pui; Dario Campana Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Hagop Kantarjian; Susan O'Brien; Jorge Cortes; William Wierda; Stefan Faderl; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Jean-Pierre Issa; Elihu Estey; Michael Keating; Emil J Freireich Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tiffany M Scharadin; Michael A Malfatti; Kurt Haack; Kenneth W Turteltaub; Chong-Xian Pan; Paul T Henderson; Brian A Jonas Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: Krishna R Kalari; Scott J Hebbring; High Seng Chai; Liang Li; Jean-Pierre A Kocher; Liewei Wang; Richard M Weinshilboum Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2010-06-04 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Liang Li; Brooke L Fridley; Krishna Kalari; Gregory Jenkins; Anthony Batzler; Richard M Weinshilboum; Liewei Wang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240