BACKGROUND:Decitabine, a hypomethylating agent, is active and has been approved for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. Intensive chemotherapy is an accepted form of therapy for patients with higher risk MDS. The comparative efficacy of these 2 forms of treatment in MDS is unknown. The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles of decitabine and intensive chemotherapy in MDS. METHODS: The authors compared lower intensity decitabine therapy (n = 115 patients) with intensive chemotherapy (as it is used in acute myeloid leukemia [AML]) in patients with higher risk MDS. Two comparisons were made with a cohort of 376 historic patients (from 1995 to 2005): The first comparison included a subcohort of 115 patients (Group A) who matched the 115 decitabine study patients according to age, International Prognostic Scoring System, and cytogenetics; and the second comparison included the whole cohort of 376 patients without matching (Group B). A multivariate analysis was performed for outcome. RESULTS: The complete remission (CR) rate according to AML criteria was 43% with decitabine, 46% with intensive chemotherapy in Group A, and 52% with intensive chemotherapy in Group B. Compared with Group A, mortality at 6 weeks was 3% with decitabine versus 13% with intensive chemotherapy (P = .006) and, at 3 months, 7% with decitabine versus 23% with intensive chemotherapy (P = .001). Survival was better with decitabine versus intensive chemotherapy in Group A (median survival: 22 months vs 12 months; P < .001). A multivariate analysis of survival in all 491 patients who received decitabine or intensive chemotherapy (Group B) selected decitabine as an independent, favorable prognostic factor for survival (P = .006; hazard ratio, 0.74) after accounting for the independent prognostic effect of pretreatment factors. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, decitabine was associated with a survival advantage compared with intensive chemotherapy in patients with higher risk MDS. Future studies should evaluate prospectively the results of decitabine versus intensive chemotherapy in this setting.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Decitabine, a hypomethylating agent, is active and has been approved for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. Intensive chemotherapy is an accepted form of therapy for patients with higher risk MDS. The comparative efficacy of these 2 forms of treatment in MDS is unknown. The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles of decitabine and intensive chemotherapy in MDS. METHODS: The authors compared lower intensity decitabine therapy (n = 115 patients) with intensive chemotherapy (as it is used in acute myeloid leukemia [AML]) in patients with higher risk MDS. Two comparisons were made with a cohort of 376 historic patients (from 1995 to 2005): The first comparison included a subcohort of 115 patients (Group A) who matched the 115 decitabine study patients according to age, International Prognostic Scoring System, and cytogenetics; and the second comparison included the whole cohort of 376 patients without matching (Group B). A multivariate analysis was performed for outcome. RESULTS: The complete remission (CR) rate according to AML criteria was 43% with decitabine, 46% with intensive chemotherapy in Group A, and 52% with intensive chemotherapy in Group B. Compared with Group A, mortality at 6 weeks was 3% with decitabine versus 13% with intensive chemotherapy (P = .006) and, at 3 months, 7% with decitabine versus 23% with intensive chemotherapy (P = .001). Survival was better with decitabine versus intensive chemotherapy in Group A (median survival: 22 months vs 12 months; P < .001). A multivariate analysis of survival in all 491 patients who received decitabine or intensive chemotherapy (Group B) selected decitabine as an independent, favorable prognostic factor for survival (P = .006; hazard ratio, 0.74) after accounting for the independent prognostic effect of pretreatment factors. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, decitabine was associated with a survival advantage compared with intensive chemotherapy in patients with higher risk MDS. Future studies should evaluate prospectively the results of decitabine versus intensive chemotherapy in this setting.
Authors: N L Harris; E S Jaffe; J Diebold; G Flandrin; H K Muller-Hermelink; J Vardiman; T A Lister; C D Bloomfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Greenberg; C Cox; M M LeBeau; P Fenaux; P Morel; G Sanz; M Sanz; T Vallespi; T Hamblin; D Oscier; K Ohyashiki; K Toyama; C Aul; G Mufti; J Bennett Journal: Blood Date: 1997-03-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Peter L Greenberg; John M Bennett; Bob Lowenberg; Pierre W Wijermans; Stephen D Nimer; Antonio Pinto; Miloslav Beran; Theo M de Witte; Richard M Stone; Moshe Mittelman; Guillermo F Sanz; Steven D Gore; Charles A Schiffer; Hagop Kantarjian Journal: Blood Date: 2006-04-11 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Hagop Kantarjian; Jean-Pierre J Issa; Craig S Rosenfeld; John M Bennett; Maher Albitar; John DiPersio; Virginia Klimek; James Slack; Carlos de Castro; Farhad Ravandi; Richard Helmer; Lanlan Shen; Stephen D Nimer; Richard Leavitt; Azra Raza; Hussain Saba Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; John M Bennett; Kenneth J Kopecky; Thomas Büchner; Cheryl L Willman; Elihu H Estey; Charles A Schiffer; Hartmut Doehner; Martin S Tallman; T Andrew Lister; Francesco Lo-Coco; Roel Willemze; Andrea Biondi; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Richard A Larson; Bob Löwenberg; Miguel A Sanz; David R Head; Ryuzo Ohno; Clara D Bloomfield; Francesco LoCocco Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Corey S Cutler; Stephanie J Lee; Peter Greenberg; H Joachim Deeg; Waleska S Pérez; Claudio Anasetti; Brian J Bolwell; Mitchell S Cairo; Robert Peter Gale; John P Klein; Hillard M Lazarus; Jane L Liesveld; Philip L McCarthy; Gustavo A Milone; J Douglas Rizzo; Kirk R Schultz; Michael E Trigg; Armand Keating; Daniel J Weisdorf; Joseph H Antin; Mary M Horowitz Journal: Blood Date: 2004-03-23 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Yogen Saunthararajah; Pierre Triozzi; Brian Rini; Arun Singh; Tomas Radivoyevitch; Mikkael Sekeres; Anjali Advani; Ramon Tiu; Frederic Reu; Matt Kalaycio; Ed Copelan; Eric Hsi; Alan Lichtin; Brian Bolwell Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.929
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