MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2594319486 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.347.347

Results of a Phase II Study of Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in Higher Risk MDS, CMML or Low Blast Count AML Patients Refractory to or Relapsing after Azacitidine (AZA) Treatment

2016· article· en· W2594319486 sur OpenAlexaff
Marie Sébert, Cécile Bally, Pierre Péterlin, Odile Beyne‐Rauzy, Laurence Legros, Marie Pierre Gourin, Laurence Sanhès, Eric Wattel, Emmanuel Gyan, Sophie Park, Aspasia Stamatoullas, Anne Banos, Kamel Laribi, Simone Jueliger, Luke Bevan, Cendrine Chaffaut, Rosa Sapena, Benedicte Samey, Fatiha Chermat, Sylvie Chevret, Lionel Adès, Pierre Fenaux

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensHotel Dieu Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDecitabineAzacitidineInternal medicineMedicineGastroenterologyHypomethylating agentInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemMyelodysplastic syndromesPhases of clinical researchRefractory (planetary science)NeutropeniaBone marrowOncologyClinical trialDNA methylationToxicityBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) have become the reference treatment of higher risk MDS, but the median survival of about 2 years obtained with AZA remains modest, and median survival after HMA failure is only about 6 months (Prébet et al, JCO 2011). Guadecitabine (GDAC, SGI-110) is a novel HMA dinucleotide of Decitabine and deoxyguanosine, administered SC, which results in extended DAC exposure. In a phase I-II study in AML (Issa, Lancet Oncol, 2015) a dose of 60mg/m2/day for 5 consecutive days was recommended. We designed a national multicenter phase II study evaluating the efficacy of GDAC in higher-risk MDS patients, refractory or relapsing after AZA (NCT02197676). Methods: Main inclusion criteria were (1) IPSS int-2 or high MDS, or CMML with WBC < 13 G/l and marrow blasts > 10%, or AML with 20-30% marrow blasts (2) Refractory to 6 cycles of AZA or relapsing after response, but without overt progression (i.e., greater than doubling of marrow blasts compared to pre AZA values) (3) Age ≥ 18 years (4) Normal liver and renal functions. Patients received GDAC 60mg/m2/d x5 d every 28 d until progression, death or no response after 6 cycles (extended to 9 cycles after the 20 first pts). Global DNA methylation was assessed at baseline and on d 8, 15, 22 and 28 of cycle 1 in blood, and on d 28 of cycles 1 , 3 and 6 in BM and blood ,using bisulfite-converted DNA followed by pyrosequencing technology measuring 3 representative CpG sites of the LINE-1 promoter region. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed on June 2016, with a median FU of 9.6 months Results: Between Aug 2014 and Jan 2016, 56 pts from 13 centers were enrolled, M/F: 37/19, median age 75 years [IQR, 69-76]. 15 patients had primary resistance after 6 cycles of AZA, and 41 patients had relapsed after a response and a median of 13 AZA cycles [IQR 9.75-23]). 15 pts had IWG 2006 progression between onset of AZA and inclusion. At inclusion, WHO classification was RCMD in 2 pts, CMML in 1 pt, RAEB-1 in 11 pts, RAEB-2 in 31 pts and AML in 11 pts; . IPSS was int-1, int-2 and high in 4 (6%), 27 (50%) and 23 (42%) pts, resp. (2NA), and R-IPSS was low, int., high and very high in 1 (2%), 3 (6%), 13 (26%), and 34 (60.7%) pts resp (5NA). 43 (77%) pts were RBC transfusion-dependent (TD) and ECOG was >1 in 5 (9%) pts. The average baseline LINE-1 methylation level in the 45 pts evaluated was 73% in blood and 72% in BM. One pt died before any treatment, and 55 patients received at least one cycle of GDAC, with a median of 3 cycles [IQR, 2-5.5]. 9 pts responded (8 after 3 cycles) with 1 (3%) CR, 2 (5%) CRp, 5 (14%) marrow CR and 1 HI; ie an ORR of 16% (95%CI, 8-28%). Responses were seen in 4/15 (26.6%) primary refractory, and in 5/41 (12.2%) relapsing patients (p=NS). On average, the maximum LINE-1 demethylation occurred during the first cycle on day 8 in blood (median -11.3%), and on day 28 in BM (median -3.1%). Median duration of response was 9 months including so far 2 responses ≥ 1 year (12 and 18 months). 49 SAE occurred in 44 pts, and were mostly hematological, with myelosupression in 35/56 (63%) of pts 49 patients ended the study, because of progression (n=20), death (n=14), investigator or patient decision (n= 8), toxicities (n= 6) and pt withdrawal (n=1). Median OS from inclusion was 6.7 months (IC95% [5.6-11.8]). 33 pts had died, because of MDS progression in 14 (42%), infection in 13 (39.3%), bleeding in 1 (3%), and other causes in 5 (15%) pts (2 UK, 2 general deterioration, 1 heart attack). No significant prognostic factor of response to GDAC, including age, sex, ECOG, TD, baseline Hb, platelet, ANC, marrow blast %, cytogenetics, IPSS, IPSS-R, type of AZA failure (primary or secondary), LINE1 baseline methylation or demethylation rate was found. OS was significantly shorter in pts with high IPSS (HR=2.1, 95%CI, 1.04-4.20, p=0.04), and with very poor IPSS-R cytogenetics (HR=4.3, 95%CI, 2.0-9.1, p=0.0015), the latter remaining prognostic in multivariate analysis. Using the recent prognostic model for MDS pts having failed HMA (Nazha et al, hematologica 2016), that includes ECOG>1, very poor cytogenetics, age, marrow blasts >20%, TD, platelets <30 G/L, 21/49 pts were classified as low risk and 28 as high risk, with a median OS of 9.2 vs 5.7 months, (HR= 1.7, 95%CI, 0.8-3.8, p= 0.16) Conclusion: Response rates with GDAC, in this population of higher risk MDS, CMML or low blast count AML with failure to AZA (and often with IWG 2006 progression) were modest. Tolerance was similar to that of conventional HMA treatment. Disclosures Beyne-Rauzy: Celgene, Novartis: Honoraria. Park:Novartis: Research Funding. Jueliger:astex: Employment. Bevan:astex: Employment. Ades:Celgene, Takeda, Novartis, Astex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207