| Literature DB >> 35736066 |
Chiara Cattaneo1, Francesco Marchesi2, Irene Terrenato3, Valentina Bonuomo4, Nicola Stefano Fracchiolla5, Mario Delia6, Marianna Criscuolo7, Anna Candoni8, Lucia Prezioso9, Davide Facchinelli10, Crescenza Pasciolla11, Maria Ilaria Del Principe12, Michelina Dargenio13, Caterina Buquicchio14, Maria Enza Mitra15, Francesca Farina16, Erika Borlenghi1, Gianpaolo Nadali4, Vito Pier Gagliardi6, Luana Fianchi7, Mariarita Sciumè5, Pierantonio Menna17, Alessandro Busca18, Giuseppe Rossi1, Livio Pagano7.
Abstract
The potential drug-drug interactions of midostaurin may impact the choice of antifungal (AF) prophylaxis in FLT3-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. To evaluate the incidence of invasive fungal diseases (IFD) during the treatment of FLT3-mutated AML patients and to correlate it to the different AF prophylaxis strategies, we planned a multicenter observational study involving 15 SEIFEM centers. One hundred fourteen patients treated with chemotherapy + midostaurin as induction/reinduction, consolidation or both were enrolled. During induction, the incidence of probable/proven and possible IFD was 10.5% and 9.7%, respectively; no statistically significant difference was observed according to the different AF strategy adopted. The median duration of neutropenia was similar in patients with or without IFD. Proven/probable and possible IFD incidence was 2.4% and 1.8%, respectively, during consolidation. Age was the only risk factor for IFD (OR, 95% CI, 1.10 [1.03-1.19]) and complete remission achievement after first induction the only one for survival (OR, 95% CI, 5.12 [1.93-13.60]). The rate of midostaurin discontinuation was similar across different AF strategies. The IFD attributable mortality during induction was 8.3%. In conclusion, the 20.2% overall incidence of IFD occurring in FLT3-mutated AML during induction with chemotherapy + midostaurin, regardless of AF strategy type, was noteworthy, and merits further study, particularly in elderly patients.Entities:
Keywords: acute myeloid leukemia; antifungal prophylaxis; invasive fungal disease; midostaurin
Year: 2022 PMID: 35736066 PMCID: PMC9224885 DOI: 10.3390/jof8060583
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Characteristics of 114 enrolled patients.
|
| 49/65 |
|
| 55 (18–78) |
|
| 94 (82.5)/20(17.5) |
|
| 70 (61.4) |
|
| 34 (32.7)/70 (67.3) * |
|
No Fluconazole Posaconazole Posaconazole → Echinocandin Echinocandin L-AmB Isavuconazole | |
|
No Posaconazole Posaconazole → Echinocandin Echinocandin | |
|
No Fluconazole Posaconazole Posaconazole → Echinocandin Echinocandin L-AmB Isavuconazole Voriconazole | |
|
| 22 (range 8–180) |
|
| 16/114 (14) |
|
| 83 (72.8%) |
|
| 5 (1–32) |
* ELN risk class evaluable in 104 patients; ** evaluable in 105 patients. ELN: European Leukemia Net; AF: antifungal; cht: chemotherapy; L-AmB: liposomal amphotericin B; PMN: polymorphonucleated; CR: complete remission.
Figure 1Flowchart of the enrolled patients. IFD: invasive fungal disease; CR: complete remission.
Characteristics of proven/probable IFD.
| Type of IFD | Microbiology/Biomarker | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| Pulmonary aspergillosis | GM serum |
|
| Pulmonary aspergillosis | GM BAL |
|
| Pulmonary + sinus aspergillosis | GM serum |
|
| Pulmonary aspergillosis | |
|
| Pulmonary aspergillosis | GM serum |
|
| Pulmonary aspergillosis | GM serum/BAL |
|
| Geothricosis | |
|
| Pulmonary aspergillosis | GM serum |
|
| Candidemia | |
|
| Candidemia |
|
|
| Candidemia | |
|
| Candidemia |
|
|
| ||
|
| Pulmonary aspergillosis | GM serum |
|
| ||
|
| Pulmonary aspergillosis | GM serum |
|
| Pulmonary + sinus aspergillosis | GM BAL |
|
| Pulmonary aspergillosis | GM serum |
|
| Candidemia |
|
IFD: invasive fungal disease; GM: galactomannan; BAL bronchoalveolar lavage.
Figure 2IFD incidence during induction chemotherapy according to different AF prophylaxis. IFD: invasive fungal disease.
(a) Risk of IFD (proven + probable vs possible + no) estimates for patients at 1st induction. (b) Risk of IFD (proven + probable + possible vs no) estimates for patients at 1st induction.
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| |
|
| Continuous |
|
|
|
| Female vs. Male | 0.73 (0.22–2.42) | 0.605 |
|
| TKD vs. ITD | 2.50 (0.68–9.25) | 0.170 |
|
| Pos vs. Neg | 0.88 (0.26–2.97) | 0.838 |
|
| Not low vs. Low | 0.97 (0.27–3.47) | 0.960 |
|
| Yes vs. No | not estim | not estim |
|
| Continuous | 0.99 (0.95–1.03) | 0.665 |
|
| Yes vs. No | 0.58 (0.17–1.98) | 0.388 |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| |
|
| Continuous |
|
|
|
| Female vs. Male | 0.98 (0.39–2.45) | 0.957 |
|
| TKD vs. ITD | 1.30 (0.42–4.02) | 0.647 |
|
| Pos vs. Neg | 0.79 (0.31–2.00) | 0.617 |
|
| Not low vs. Low | 1.05 (0.38–2.88) | 0.922 |
|
| Yes vs. No | 0.74 (0.14–3.94) | 0.725 |
|
| Continuous | 0.99 (0.97–1.02) | 0.861 |
|
| Yes vs. No | 0.49 (0.19–1.27) | 0.141 |
IFD: invasive fungal disease; ELN: European Leukemia Net; AF: antifungal. * evaluable in 105 patients
Predictive factors for survival (patients at 1st induction).
| . | Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
|
| continuous | 1.03 (0.98–1.08) | 0.222 | ||
|
| Female vs. Male | 1.11 (0.40–3.02) | 0.846 | ||
|
| TKD vs. ITD | 0.73 (0.17–3.22) | 0.679 | ||
|
| Pos vs. Neg | 1.02 (0.39–2.63) | 0.974 | ||
|
| Not low vs. Low | 1.53 (0.51–4.58) | 0.452 | ||
|
| Yes vs. No | 0.63 (0.14–2.80) | 0.539 | ||
|
| continuous |
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes vs. No | 1.64 (0.61–4.41) | 0.331 | ||
|
| Yes vs. No | 1.90 (0.66–5.47) | 0.235 | ||
|
| Yes vs. No | 1.86 (0.22–15.67) | 0.568 | ||
|
| Yes vs. No | 1.57 (0.35–6.98) | 0.554 | ||
|
| Yes vs. No | 1.81 (0.40–8.15) | 0.438 | ||
|
| No CR vs. CR |
|
|
|
|
IFD: invasive fungal disease; ELN: European Leukemia Net; AF: antifungal. * evaluable in 105 patients.
Figure 3Overall survival of 114 patients (a) and of 31 primary refractory patients (b) according to IFD occurrence.