INTRODUCTION: Most patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) age ≥ 60 years are not offered intensive induction because of high mortality. Phase 2 studies of clofarabine plus low-dose cytarabine (CLDA) as frontline therapy for elderly AML patients demonstrated high response and acceptable toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We hypothesized that induction therapy with CLDA provides equivalent outcomes to but is less toxic than intensive induction in these patients. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a propensity score-matched comparison of AML patients age ≥ 60 years given induction CLDA versus idarubicin and cytarabine (IA). Ninety-five patients in both groups were matched according to their propensity score. RESULTS: We did not observe statistically significant differences in response, overall survival, or mortality rate between the two induction regimens. However, CLDA produced significantly fewer grade 3 or worse toxicities (46% for CLDA vs. 62% for IA; P = .03). Furthermore, among responders, the median response duration was significantly longer with CLDA when we censored patients who underwent stem cell transplantation (15.9 months for CLDA vs. 7.0 months for IA; P = .033). CONCLUSION: Compared with intensive induction, CLDA offers equivalent responses and survival but less toxicity in clinically well-matched cohorts of elderly AML patients. Prospective randomized trials to confirm these findings are warranted.
INTRODUCTION: Most patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) age ≥ 60 years are not offered intensive induction because of high mortality. Phase 2 studies of clofarabine plus low-dose cytarabine (CLDA) as frontline therapy for elderly AMLpatients demonstrated high response and acceptable toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We hypothesized that induction therapy with CLDA provides equivalent outcomes to but is less toxic than intensive induction in these patients. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a propensity score-matched comparison of AMLpatients age ≥ 60 years given induction CLDA versus idarubicin and cytarabine (IA). Ninety-five patients in both groups were matched according to their propensity score. RESULTS: We did not observe statistically significant differences in response, overall survival, or mortality rate between the two induction regimens. However, CLDA produced significantly fewer grade 3 or worse toxicities (46% for CLDA vs. 62% for IA; P = .03). Furthermore, among responders, the median response duration was significantly longer with CLDA when we censored patients who underwent stem cell transplantation (15.9 months for CLDA vs. 7.0 months for IA; P = .033). CONCLUSION: Compared with intensive induction, CLDA offers equivalent responses and survival but less toxicity in clinically well-matched cohorts of elderly AMLpatients. Prospective randomized trials to confirm these findings are warranted.
Authors: G Juliusson; R Billström; A Gruber; E Hellström-Lindberg; M Höglunds; K Karlsson; D Stockelberg; A Wahlin; M Aström; C Arnesson; U Brunell-Abrahamsson; J Carstensen; E Fredriksson; E Holmberg; K Nordenskjöld; F Wiklund Journal: Leukemia Date: 2006-01 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: B Löwenberg; R Zittoun; H Kerkhofs; U Jehn; J Abels; L Debusscher; C Cauchie; M Peetermans; G Solbu; S Suciu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Frederick R Appelbaum; Holly Gundacker; David R Head; Marilyn L Slovak; Cheryl L Willman; John E Godwin; Jeanne E Anderson; Stephen H Petersdorf Journal: Blood Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Mikkael A Sekeres; Gordon Guyatt; Gregory Abel; Shabbir Alibhai; Jessica K Altman; Rena Buckstein; Hannah Choe; Pinkal Desai; Harry Erba; Christopher S Hourigan; Thomas W LeBlanc; Mark Litzow; Janet MacEachern; Laura C Michaelis; Sudipto Mukherjee; Kristen O'Dwyer; Ashley Rosko; Richard Stone; Arnav Agarwal; L E Colunga-Lozano; Yaping Chang; QiuKui Hao; Romina Brignardello-Petersen Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-08-11
Authors: Varun V Prabhu; Mala K Talekar; Amriti R Lulla; C Leah B Kline; Lanlan Zhou; Junior Hall; A Pieter J Van den Heuvel; David T Dicker; Jawad Babar; Stephan A Grupp; Mathew J Garnett; Ultan McDermott; Cyril H Benes; Jeffrey J Pu; David F Claxton; Nadia Khan; Wolfgang Oster; Joshua E Allen; Wafik S El-Deiry Journal: Cell Cycle Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 4.534
Authors: Yaping Chang; Gordon H Guyatt; Trevor Teich; Jamie L Dawdy; Shaneela Shahid; Jessica K Altman; Richard M Stone; Mikkael A Sekeres; Sudipto Mukherjee; Thomas W LeBlanc; Gregory A Abel; Christopher S Hourigan; Mark R Litzow; Laura C Michaelis; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Pinkal Desai; Rena Buckstein; Janet MacEachern; Romina Brignardello-Petersen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240