Literature DB >> 32408060

Comparison of induction strategies and responses for acute myeloid leukemia patients after resistance to hypomethylating agents for antecedent myeloid malignancy.

Chetasi Talati1, Aaron D Goldberg2, Amanda Przespolewski3, Onyee Chan4, Najla Al Ali4, Jongphil Kim5, Chris Famulare6, David Sallman4, Eric Padron4, Andrew Kuykendall4, Jeffrey E Lancet4, Eunice Wang3, Martin S Tallman2, Rami Komrokji4, Kendra Sweet4.   

Abstract

Outcomes in patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) (including therapy related myeloid neoplasms and AML with myelodysplasia related changes (MRC)) are poor. Patients treated with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) for antecedent hematological malignancy (AHM) have suboptimal responses to induction chemotherapy upon transformation to AML. We investigated outcomes after various induction strategies in patients with sAML who had prior HMA exposure. We identified 242 patients with sAML who had prior HMA treatment for AHM and later received induction chemotherapy upon AML transformation and divided into 3 cohorts based on induction regimen: (A) CLAG/M (B) 7 + 3 and (C) CPX-351. The CR/CRi rate was 53% in cohort A, 32% in cohort B and 41.2% in cohort C (p = 0.005 between cohort A and B) (p = 0.329 between cohorts A and C) (p = 0.402 between cohorts B and C). The early death rates were not significantly different among the three cohorts (p = 0.200). In patients who received ≤4 cycles of HMAs prior to AML transformation, response rates to CPX-351 were higher (64.3%) with a trend toward better overall survival (OS) (19.9 vs. 5.5 months) compared to >4 cycles (p = 0.092). There was no significant difference in median OS among the 3 groups: cohort A (7.27 months), cohort B (7.63 months) and cohort C (7.07 months) (p = 0.887). We demonstrate that CLAG/M and CPX-351 yield higher CR/CRi rates compared to 7 + 3 in patients with sAML after HMA failure. Median OS remains poor and did not differ among the 3 groups, illustrating the unmet need for more efficacious therapy for sAML patients following HMA failure.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acute myeloid leukemia; Hypomethylating agents; Induction chemotherapy; Secondary AML

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32408060      PMCID: PMC7771257          DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106367

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Leuk Res        ISSN: 0145-2126            Impact factor:   3.156


  19 in total

1.  Outcome of acute myeloid leukaemia following myelodysplastic syndrome after azacitidine treatment failure.

Authors:  Thomas Prébet; Steven D Gore; Sylvain Thépot; Benjamin Esterni; Bruno Quesnel; Odile Beyne Rauzy; François Dreyfus; Claude Gardin; Pierre Fenaux; Norbert Vey
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 6.998

2.  Risk stratification using a new prognostic score for patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia: results of the prospective AML96 trial.

Authors:  F Stölzel; M Pfirrmann; W E Aulitzky; M Kaufmann; H Bodenstein; M Bornhäuser; C Röllig; M Kramer; B Mohr; U Oelschlägel; N Schmitz; S Soucek; C Thiede; G Ehninger; M Schaich
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 11.528

Review 3.  Azacitidine for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with 20%-30% blasts and multilineage dysplasia.

Authors:  Patricia Font
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2011-03-09       Impact factor: 3.845

4.  Acute myeloid leukemia in the elderly: assessment of multidrug resistance (MDR1) and cytogenetics distinguishes biologic subgroups with remarkably distinct responses to standard chemotherapy. A Southwest Oncology Group study.

Authors:  C P Leith; K J Kopecky; J Godwin; T McConnell; M L Slovak; I M Chen; D R Head; F R Appelbaum; C L Willman
Journal:  Blood       Date:  1997-05-01       Impact factor: 22.113

5.  Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomised, open-label, phase III study.

Authors:  Pierre Fenaux; Ghulam J Mufti; Eva Hellstrom-Lindberg; Valeria Santini; Carlo Finelli; Aristoteles Giagounidis; Robert Schoch; Norbert Gattermann; Guillermo Sanz; Alan List; Steven D Gore; John F Seymour; John M Bennett; John Byrd; Jay Backstrom; Linda Zimmerman; David McKenzie; Cl Beach; Lewis R Silverman
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2009-02-21       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Cladribine, cytarabine, filgrastim, and mitoxantrone (CLAG-M) compared to standard induction in acute myeloid leukemia from myelodysplastic syndrome after azanucleoside failure.

Authors:  Michael V Jaglal; Vu H Duong; Celeste M Bello; Najla H Al Ali; Eric Padron; Hugo F Fernandez; Alan F List; Jeffrey E Lancet; Rami S Komrokji
Journal:  Leuk Res       Date:  2013-12-25       Impact factor: 3.156

7.  Decitabine improves patient outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes: results of a phase III randomized study.

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

Review 8.  The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia.

Authors:  Daniel A Arber; Attilio Orazi; Robert Hasserjian; Jürgen Thiele; Michael J Borowitz; Michelle M Le Beau; Clara D Bloomfield; Mario Cazzola; James W Vardiman
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 22.113

9.  Mechanisms of resistance to decitabine in the myelodysplastic syndrome.

Authors:  Taichun Qin; Ryan Castoro; Samih El Ahdab; Jaroslav Jelinek; Xiaodan Wang; Jiali Si; Jingmin Shu; Rong He; Nianxiang Zhang; Woonbok Chung; Hagop M Kantarjian; Jean-Pierre J Issa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  CPX-351 (cytarabine and daunorubicin) Liposome for Injection Versus Conventional Cytarabine Plus Daunorubicin in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

Authors:  Jeffrey E Lancet; Geoffrey L Uy; Jorge E Cortes; Laura F Newell; Tara L Lin; Ellen K Ritchie; Robert K Stuart; Stephen A Strickland; Donna Hogge; Scott R Solomon; Richard M Stone; Dale L Bixby; Jonathan E Kolitz; Gary J Schiller; Matthew J Wieduwilt; Daniel H Ryan; Antje Hoering; Kamalika Banerjee; Michael Chiarella; Arthur C Louie; Bruno C Medeiros
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Secondary AML Emerging After Therapy with Hypomethylating Agents: Outcomes, Prognostic Factors, and Treatment Options.

Authors:  Daniel R Richardson; Steven D Green; Matthew C Foster; Joshua F Zeidner
Journal:  Curr Hematol Malig Rep       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 3.952

Review 2.  Oncology stewardship in acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Madeleine A Ochs; Bernard L Marini; Anthony J Perissinotti; Charles E Foucar; Kristen Pettit; Patrick Burke; Dale L Bixby; Lydia L Benitez
Journal:  Ann Hematol       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 4.030

3.  Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes in patients with secondary AML with prior hypomethylating agent exposure.

Authors:  Nicholas J Short; Sangeetha Venugopal; Wei Qiao; Tapan M Kadia; Farhad Ravandi; Walid Macaron; Courtney D Dinardo; Naval Daver; Marina Konopleva; Gautam Borthakur; Elizabeth J Shpall; Uday Popat; Richard E Champlin; Rohtesh Mehta; Gheath Al-Atrash; Betul Oran; Elias Jabbour; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Ghayas C Issa; Guillermo Montalban-Bravo; Musa Yilmaz; Abhishek Maiti; Hagop Kantarjian
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2022-01-29       Impact factor: 17.388

4.  Dose intensity for induction in acute myeloid leukemia: what, when, and for whom?

Authors:  Shannon R McCurdy; Selina M Luger
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 9.941

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.