Adding Mercaptopurine and Methotrexate to Alternate Week ATRA Maintenance Therapy Does Not Improve the Outcome for Adults with Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APL) in First Remission: Results From North American Leukemia Intergroup Trial C9710
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 258 This randomized phase III clinical trial was designed to evaluate the potential benefit and toxicity of (a) arsenic trioxide (ATO) as initial consolidation therapy and (b) maintenance therapy with oral tretinoin (ATRA) either alone or together with 6-mercaptopurine (MP) and methotrexate (MTX) in newly diagnosed patients with APL. All patients received induction therapy with ATRA, daunorubicin (DNR) and cytarabine. Adults (≥ 15 years) were randomized at study entry to receive a standard consolidation with 2 courses of ATRA plus DNR, or 2 courses of ATO as initial consolidation followed by 2 courses of ATRA plus DNR. Patients who remained in complete remission (CR; n=331) were then randomized (stratified by consolidation arm and age group) to one year of maintenance with ATRA alone (45 mg/m2/d) for 7 days repeated every other week (n=166) or in combination with MP 60 mg/m2/daily plus oral MTX 20 mg/m2/weekly (n=161). The target number of maintenance events was 146, and the study had 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.6 at 5 years. We previously reported that the addition of ATO consolidation markedly improved event-free (EFS) and disease-free (DFS) survival (Blood 2010; 116:3751–3757). We now report the results of the maintenance randomization after a median follow up of 6.2 years. The two groups were well balanced by pretreatment characteristics. DFS, the primary endpoint, and overall survival (OS) were not statistically different for the two maintenance arms (log-rank p=0.14 and p=0.33, respectively). Evaluation by consolidation arm (by intention-to-treat, ITT) and by APL risk group also failed to demonstrate a significant advantage for either maintenance treatment. There was no interaction effect between consolidation and maintenance arms (p=0.78). Age, gender, CD56 expression and FLT3-ITD or TKD mutations at diagnosis did not have an impact on outcome by maintenance arm.ATRA*ATRA/MP/MTX*PDFS: overall41/16630/1610.14DFS by consolidation arm (ITT): ATO10/844/780.13no ATO31/8226/830.21DFS by risk group: low/intermediate25/12819/1300.20high16/3811/310.683-year DFS from CR79%87%0.056OS: overall22/16616/1650.33OS by consolidation arm (ITT): ATO8/843/810.15no ATO14/8213/840.72OS by risk group: low/intermediate14/1289/1340.20high8/387/310.733-year OS from study entry92%95%0.28*Number of events/number of patients in each group or subgroup. No treatment-related deaths were reported during maintenance therapy. Hematologic adverse events were more common in the combination arm (maximum grade 3/4, 18% vs 4%; p< 0.0001), as were non-hematologic adverse events (maximum grade 3/4, 36% vs 25%; p=0.033). Only 71 DFS events have occurred to date. Although the 3-yr DFS favors the combination arm, the differences in DFS and OS with the addition of MP and MTX to ATRA maintenance do not reach statistical significance. The addition of ATO consolidation therapy remains the most important determinant of DFS and OS for APL patients in first remission on this randomized trial. Among patients who were randomized to maintenance, only 5 patients who received ATO consolidation have relapsed – 2 from the combination arm and 3 from the ATRA alone arm. Relapse of APL is uncommon in patients who received ATO consolidation, and the need for any maintenance therapy in these patients has yet to be determined. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Arsenic trioxide as consolidation treatment for APL.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».