Caitlin W Elgarten1,2, Andrew C Wood3, Yimei Li4, Todd A Alonzo5, Lisa Eidenschink Brodersen6, Robert B Gerbing7, Kelly D Getz2,4, Y-S Vera Huang8, Michael Loken6, Soheil Meshinchi9, Jessica A Pollard10,11, Lillian Sung12, William G Woods13, E Anders Kolb14, Alan S Gamis15, Richard Aplenc1,2,4. 1. Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA. 6. Hematologics, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA. 7. Children's Oncology Group, Monrovia, California, USA. 8. Department of Biomedical Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 9. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. 10. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 11. Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 12. The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 13. Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Emory University/Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 14. Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, Delaware, USA. 15. Children's Mercy Hospital and Clinics, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-risk pediatric acute myeloid leukemia confers a poor prognosis, and alternative strategies are needed to improve outcomes. We hypothesized that intensifying induction on the AAML1031 clinical trial would improve outcomes compared to the predecessor trial AAML0531. METHODS: Patients on AAML0531 received cytarabine (1600 mg/m2 )/daunorubicin (150 mg/m2 )/etoposide (ADE) for induction II and patients on AAML1031 received mitoxantrone (48 mg/m2 )/cytarabine (8000 mg/m2 ) (MA). Stem cell transplant (SCT) conditioning included busulfan/cyclophosphamide on AAML0531, whereas AAML1031 used busulfan/fludarabine and liberalized donor eligibility. Patients were included in this analysis if they met high-risk criteria common to the two trials by cytogenics or poor disease response after induction I ADE. RESULTS: MA provided no benefit over ADE at: induction II response (complete response [CR]: 64% vs. 62%, p = .87; measurable residual disease [MRD]+: 57% vs. 46%, p = .34); or intensification I response (CR: 79% vs. 94%, p = .27; MRD+: 27% vs. 20%, p = 1.0). When considered with altered SCT approach, MA did not improve 5-year disease-free survival (24% ± 9% vs. 18% ± 15%, p = .63) or 5-year overall survival (35% ± 10% vs. 38% ± 18%, p = .66). MA was associated with slower neutrophil recovery (median 34 vs. 27 days, p = .007) and platelet recovery (median 29 vs. 24.5 days, p = .04) and longer hospital stay (32 vs. 28 days, p = .01) during induction II. CONCLUSION: Intensification of induction II did not improve treatment response or survival, but did increase toxicity and resource utilization. Alternative strategies are urgently needed to improve outcomes for pediatric patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT01371981, NCT00372593).
BACKGROUND: High-risk pediatric acute myeloid leukemia confers a poor prognosis, and alternative strategies are needed to improve outcomes. We hypothesized that intensifying induction on the AAML1031 clinical trial would improve outcomes compared to the predecessor trial AAML0531. METHODS: Patients on AAML0531 received cytarabine (1600 mg/m2 )/daunorubicin (150 mg/m2 )/etoposide (ADE) for induction II and patients on AAML1031 received mitoxantrone (48 mg/m2 )/cytarabine (8000 mg/m2 ) (MA). Stem cell transplant (SCT) conditioning included busulfan/cyclophosphamide on AAML0531, whereas AAML1031 used busulfan/fludarabine and liberalized donor eligibility. Patients were included in this analysis if they met high-risk criteria common to the two trials by cytogenics or poor disease response after induction I ADE. RESULTS: MA provided no benefit over ADE at: induction II response (complete response [CR]: 64% vs. 62%, p = .87; measurable residual disease [MRD]+: 57% vs. 46%, p = .34); or intensification I response (CR: 79% vs. 94%, p = .27; MRD+: 27% vs. 20%, p = 1.0). When considered with altered SCT approach, MA did not improve 5-year disease-free survival (24% ± 9% vs. 18% ± 15%, p = .63) or 5-year overall survival (35% ± 10% vs. 38% ± 18%, p = .66). MA was associated with slower neutrophil recovery (median 34 vs. 27 days, p = .007) and platelet recovery (median 29 vs. 24.5 days, p = .04) and longer hospital stay (32 vs. 28 days, p = .01) during induction II. CONCLUSION: Intensification of induction II did not improve treatment response or survival, but did increase toxicity and resource utilization. Alternative strategies are urgently needed to improve outcomes for pediatric patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT01371981, NCT00372593).
Authors: Jeffrey E Rubnitz; Hiroto Inaba; Gary Dahl; Raul C Ribeiro; W Paul Bowman; Jeffrey Taub; Stanley Pounds; Bassem I Razzouk; Norman J Lacayo; Xueyuan Cao; Soheil Meshinchi; Barbara Degar; Gladstone Airewele; Susana C Raimondi; Mihaela Onciu; Elaine Coustan-Smith; James R Downing; Wing Leung; Ching-Hon Pui; Dario Campana Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Saro H Armenian; Melissa M Hudson; Renee L Mulder; Ming Hui Chen; Louis S Constine; Mary Dwyer; Paul C Nathan; Wim J E Tissing; Sadhna Shankar; Elske Sieswerda; Rod Skinner; Julia Steinberger; Elvira C van Dalen; Helena van der Pal; W Hamish Wallace; Gill Levitt; Leontien C M Kremer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: U Creutzig; J Ritter; M Zimmermann; J Hermann; H Gadner; D B Sawatzki; C M Niemeyer; D Schwabe; B Selle; J Boos; J Kühl; A Feldges Journal: Leukemia Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: R J Mayer; C A Schiffer; B A Peterson; R T Silver; G G Cornwell; O R McIntyre; K R Rai; D R Budman; R R Ellison; M Maguire Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 1985-06 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Hugo F Fernandez; Zhuoxin Sun; Xiaopan Yao; Mark R Litzow; Selina M Luger; Elisabeth M Paietta; Janis Racevskis; Gordon W Dewald; Rhett P Ketterling; John M Bennett; Jacob M Rowe; Hillard M Lazarus; Martin S Tallman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Michel Zwaan; Edward A Kolb; Dirk Reinhardt; Jonas Abrahamsson; Souichi Adachi; Richard Aplenc; Eveline S J M De Bont; Barbara De Moerloose; Michael Dworzak; Brenda E S Gibson; Henrik Hasle; Guy Leverger; Franco Locatelli; Christine Ragu; Raul C Ribeiro; Carmelo Rizzari; Jeffrey E Rubnitz; Owen P Smith; Lillian Sung; Daisuke Tomizawa; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Ursula Creutzig; Gertjan J L Kaspers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alan K Burnett; Robert K Hills; Donald W Milligan; Anthony H Goldstone; Archibald G Prentice; Mary-Frances McMullin; Andrew Duncombe; Brenda Gibson; Keith Wheatley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-28 Impact factor: 44.544