BACKGROUND: There is no standard post-remission therapy in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. DESIGN AND METHODS: From 1999 to 2006, the Acute Leukemia French Association group ran two concurrent randomized trials with overlapping inclusion criteria for patients aged 65 to 70 with acute myeloid leukemia, with different post-remission strategies: two intensive courses in the 9801 trial, one intensive course or six outpatient courses in the 9803 trial. We analyzed the outcome of these patients per protocol and per post-remission therapy. RESULTS:Two hundred and eleven patients aged 65 to 70 years with de novo acute myeloid leukemia were enrolled in trial 9801 (n=76) or 9803 (n=135). The patients in the two trials had comparable white blood cell counts (P=0.3), cytogenetics (P=0.49), and complete remission rates (70% and 57%, respectively; P=0.17). Overall survival was identical in both trials (32% and 34% at 2 years, respectively; P=0.71). Overall survival after complete remission was identical in the 103 of 130 patients who received the planned post-remission courses (n=44 with two intensive courses, n=28 with one intensive course, n=31 with six outpatient courses; 41%, 55%, and 58% at 2 years, respectively; P=0.34). Even in patients with favorable or normal karyotype (n=97), overall survival from complete remission was not improved by more intensive post-remission therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged 65 to 70 years with de novo acute myeloid leukemia in complete remission after standard intensive induction chemotherapy, there is no apparent benefit from intensive post-remission therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00931138 and NCT00363025).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is no standard post-remission therapy in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. DESIGN AND METHODS: From 1999 to 2006, the Acute Leukemia French Association group ran two concurrent randomized trials with overlapping inclusion criteria for patients aged 65 to 70 with acute myeloid leukemia, with different post-remission strategies: two intensive courses in the 9801 trial, one intensive course or six outpatient courses in the 9803 trial. We analyzed the outcome of these patients per protocol and per post-remission therapy. RESULTS: Two hundred and eleven patients aged 65 to 70 years with de novo acute myeloid leukemia were enrolled in trial 9801 (n=76) or 9803 (n=135). The patients in the two trials had comparable white blood cell counts (P=0.3), cytogenetics (P=0.49), and complete remission rates (70% and 57%, respectively; P=0.17). Overall survival was identical in both trials (32% and 34% at 2 years, respectively; P=0.71). Overall survival after complete remission was identical in the 103 of 130 patients who received the planned post-remission courses (n=44 with two intensive courses, n=28 with one intensive course, n=31 with six outpatient courses; 41%, 55%, and 58% at 2 years, respectively; P=0.34). Even in patients with favorable or normal karyotype (n=97), overall survival from complete remission was not improved by more intensive post-remission therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged 65 to 70 years with de novo acute myeloid leukemia in complete remission after standard intensive induction chemotherapy, there is no apparent benefit from intensive post-remission therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00931138 and NCT00363025).
Authors: Christoph Röllig; Christian Thiede; Martin Gramatzki; Walter Aulitzky; Heinrich Bodenstein; Martin Bornhäuser; Uwe Platzbecker; Reingard Stuhlmann; Ulrich Schuler; Silke Soucek; Michael Kramer; Brigitte Mohr; Uta Oelschlaegel; Friedrich Stölzel; Malte von Bonin; Martin Wermke; Hannes Wandt; Gerhard Ehninger; Markus Schaich Journal: Blood Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: R F Schlenk; S Fröhling; F Hartmann; J Th Fischer; A Glasmacher; F Del Valle; K Götze; C Nerl; R Schoch; H Pralle; H G Mergenthaler; M Hensel; E Koller; H Kirchen; A Matzdorff; H Salwender; H G Biedermann; S Kremers; D Haase; A Benner; K Döhner; H Döhner Journal: Leukemia Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Hagop Kantarjian; Susan O'brien; Jorge Cortes; Francis Giles; Stefan Faderl; Elias Jabbour; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; William Wierda; Sherry Pierce; Jianqin Shan; Elihu Estey Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: R M Stone; D T Berg; S L George; R K Dodge; P A Paciucci; P P Schulman; E J Lee; J O Moore; B L Powell; M R Baer; C D Bloomfield; C A Schiffer Journal: Blood Date: 2001-08-01 Impact factor: 22.113
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: H Dombret; C Chastang; P Fenaux; J Reiffers; D Bordessoule; R Bouabdallah; F Mandelli; A Ferrant; G Auzanneau; H Tilly Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-06-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hartmut Döhner; Elihu Estey; David Grimwade; Sergio Amadori; Frederick R Appelbaum; Thomas Büchner; Hervé Dombret; Benjamin L Ebert; Pierre Fenaux; Richard A Larson; Ross L Levine; Francesco Lo-Coco; Tomoki Naoe; Dietger Niederwieser; Gert J Ossenkoppele; Miguel Sanz; Jorge Sierra; Martin S Tallman; Hwei-Fang Tien; Andrew H Wei; Bob Löwenberg; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Blood Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Joseph M Brandwein; Michelle Geddes; Jeannine Kassis; Andrea K Kew; Brian Leber; Thomas Nevill; Mitchell Sabloff; Irwindeep Sandhu; Andre C Schuh; John M Storring; John Ashkenas Journal: Am J Blood Res Date: 2013-05-05
Authors: Bernard Tawfik; Sarunas Sliesoraitis; Susan Lyerly; Heidi D Klepin; Julia Lawrence; Scott Isom; Leslie R Ellis; Megan Manuel; Sarah Dralle; Dmitriy Berenzon; Bayard L Powell; Timothy Pardee Journal: Ann Hematol Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 3.673