| Literature DB >> 32873343 |
Lixin Wang1,2, Jianmin Luo3, Guofeng Chen4,5,6, Meiyun Fang7, Xudong Wei8, Yinghua Li9, Zhuogang Liu10, Yin Zhang11, Sujun Gao12, Jianliang Shen2, Xin Wang13, Xiaoning Gao6, Wei Zhou5, Yigai Ma14, Hui Liu15, Xinquan Li16, Linhua Yang17, Kai Sun11, Li Yu18,19.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epigenetic mechanisms play an important role in the chemoresistance of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The clinical response to epigenetic modifier-based chemotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory AML (r/r AML) is unclear. This multicenter clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of epigenetic modifiers (chidamide and decitabine) in combination with aclarubicin, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with r/r AML.Entities:
Keywords: DNA methyltransferase inhibitor; Histone deacetylase inhibitor; Next-generation sequencing; Relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia
Year: 2020 PMID: 32873343 PMCID: PMC7466805 DOI: 10.1186/s13148-020-00923-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Epigenetics ISSN: 1868-7075 Impact factor: 6.551
Patient demographics and baseline characteristics (N = 93)
| Characteristic | Value$ |
|---|---|
| Age, years | 40.0 ± 12.4 |
| Sex, no. (%) | |
| Male | 50 (53.8) |
| Female | 43 (46.2) |
| BM blasts, % | 0.4 ± 0.3 |
| HB, g/dL | 91.0 ± 25.3 |
| WBC, × 109/L | 9.2 ± 15.9 |
| PLT, × 109/L | 69.5 ± 66.4 |
| ECOG PS, no. (%) | |
| 0 | 34 (36.6) |
| 1 | 42 (45.2) |
| 2 | 16 (17.2) |
| 3 | 1 (1.1) |
| FAB classification, no. (%) | |
| M0 | 2 (2.2) |
| M1 | 3 (3.2) |
| M2 | 49 (52.7) |
| M4 | 14 (15.1) |
| M5 | 24 (25.8) |
| M6 | 1 (1.1) |
| Diagnosis, no. (%) | |
| Refractory | 37 (39.8) |
| Early relapse | 38 (40.9) |
| Late relapse | 18 (19.4) |
| Antecedent hematologic disorders, no. (%) | |
| Myelodysplastic syndromes | 3 (3.2) |
| Aplastic anemia | 1 (1.1) |
| Prior therapies, no. (%) | |
| 0–5 | 52 (55.9) |
| 6–10 | 28 (30.1) |
| ≥ 11 | 13 (14.0) |
| Prior therapy, no. (%) | |
| Prior epigenetic agents | 17 (18.3) |
| Prior allogeneic stem cell transplant | 2 (2.2) |
| Karyotype, no. (%) | |
| Normal karyotype | 54 (58.1) |
| Complex karyotype# | 9 (9.7) |
| T (8; 21) | 13 (14.0) |
| Mutation counts, no. (%)* | |
| 0 | 12 (13.6) |
| 1 | 20 (22.7) |
| 2 | 22 (25.0) |
| 3 | 19 (21.6) |
| 4 | 12 (13.6) |
| 5 | 3 (3.4) |
Abbreviations: BM bone marrow, HB hemoglobin, WBC white blood cell count, PLT platelets, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, FAB French-American-British, CEBPA-dm CEPBA double mutation
$Descriptive statistics were presented as the mean ± standard deviation (mean ± SD) for continuous data and as numbers and percentages for dichotomous/categorical data
*Measured in 88 patients who underwent gene mutation detection
#Complex karyotype was defined as ≥ 3 clonal chromosomal abnormalities
Best response after 1–2 cycles of the CDCAG therapy (N = 93)
| Clinical response | |
|---|---|
| CR | 24 (25.8) |
| CRi | 19 (20.4) |
| PR | 8 (8.6) |
| NR | 38 (40.9) |
| ED | 4 (4.3) |
Abbreviations: CR complete remission, CRi complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, PR partial remission, NR no response, ED early death
Fig. 1Survival curves. a Overall survival curves for 93 patients with r/r AML. b Relapse-free survival curves for 43 patients with r/r AML. c Overall survival curves for 93 patients with r/r AML. Data are categorized according to whether CR/CRi was achieved. r/r AML, relapse/refractory acute myeloid leukemia; CR/CRi, complete remission or complete remission with incomplete count recovery
Fig. 2Correlation between somatic mutations and clinical responses. a Landscape of mutations detected in 88 patients at enrollment. Each row represents a gene, and each column corresponds to a participant in the study. The number of patients with mutations is listed on the left. Bar plots indicate the number of mutations per patient (top bar plot) and the number of mutations detected for each gene (side bar plot). b Co-mutations among the 88 patients with gene mutation detection. The thickness of the connecting lines indicates the frequency with which the two mutations co-occurred. c Landscape of mutations detected in 88 patients at enrollment, according to whether the patient achieved a response (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete count recovery) or not. Each row represents a gene, and each column corresponds to a participant in the study. CEBPA-dm, CEBPA double mutation
Univariate and multivariate models of ORR for patients categorized according to their mutations (N = 76 (measured in 76 patients who had detectable gene mutations))
| Univariate models | Multivariate models | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% Cl) | OR (95% Cl) | |||
| Category | ||||
| Other mutations | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Mutations in panel ET# | 3.73 (1.43, 9.73) | 0.0070 | 4.45 (1.46, 13.50) | 0.0085 |
| Age | 1.03 (0.99, 1.07) | 0.0920 | 1.04 (0.99, 1.08) | 0.1351 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Female | 0.43 (0.17, 1.11) | 0.0823 | 0.39 (0.13, 1.21) | 0.1035 |
| BM blasts | 0.13 (0.02, 0.80) | 0.0275 | 0.32 (0.04, 3.01) | 0.3218 |
| HB | 1.02 (1.00, 1.04) | 0.0244 | 1.01 (0.99, 1.04) | 0.2979 |
| WBC | 1.00 (0.98, 1.03) | 0.9117 | ||
| PLT | 1.01 (1.00, 1.01) | 0.1566 | ||
| ECOG PS | ||||
| 0 | 1.0 | |||
| 1 | 0.24 (0.08, 0.78) | 0.0169 | ||
| 2 | 0.73 (0.19, 2.90) | 0.6580 | ||
| 3 | 0.00 (0.00, Inf) | 0.9913 | ||
| Diagnosis | ||||
| Refractory | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Early relapse | 2.00 (0.69, 5.78) | 0.2002 | 1.81 (0.51, 6.47) | 0.3600 |
| Late relapse | 4.27 (1.09, 16.83) | 0.0377 | 4.91 (0.90, 26.80) | 0.0663 |
| Prior therapies | ||||
| 0–5 | 1.0 | |||
| 6–10 | 1.32 (0.48, 3.66) | 0.5912 | ||
| ≥ 11 | 1.87 (0.49, 7.18) | 0.3588 | ||
Abbreviations: OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, BM bone marrow, HB hemoglobin, WBC white blood cell count, PLT platelets, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score
#Panel ET: epigenetic modifier-related or transcription factor-related gene mutations, but without FLT3-ITD co-mutation
Fig. 3Overall survival curves for 76 patients with detectable mutation. Data are categorized according to whether mutation was in panel ET*. *Panel ET: epigenetic modifier-related or transcription factor-related gene mutations, but without FLT3-ITD co-mutation
Treatment-related non-hematologic adverse events
| AE* | Any grade AE, | Grade 3/4 AE, |
|---|---|---|
| Any AE | 93 (100.0) | 59 (63.4) |
| Infection** | 43 (46.2) | 25 (26.9) |
| Nausea | 41 (44.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Fatigue | 31 (33.3) | 1 (1.1) |
| Vomiting | 31 (33.3) | 1 (1.1) |
| Hypokalemia | 29 (31.2) | 9 (9.7) |
| Hypoalbuminemia | 25 (26.9) | 0 (0.0) |
| Febrile neutropenia | 23 (24.7) | 23 (24.8) |
| Pneumonia | 21 (22.6) | 13 (14.0) |
| Hypocalcemia | 18 (19.4) | 1 (1.1) |
| Cough | 17 (18.3) | 0 (0.0) |
| Hyponatremia | 16 (17.2) | 2 (2.2) |
| Abdominal pain | 14 (15.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Pharyngalgia | 14 (15.1) | 1 (1.1) |
| Anorexia | 12 (12.9) | 2 (2.2) |
| Diarrhea | 10 (10.8) | 0 (0.0) |
Abbreviations: AE adverse event
*AEs were assessed based on the CTCAE (NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) version 5.0 and are shown with a frequency ≥ 10%
**Infection included pneumonia