MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2595323673 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.904.904

Long Term Survival and Clinical Complete Responses of Various Prognostic Subgroups in 103 Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (r/r AML) Patients Treated with Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in Phase 2 Studies

2016· article· en· W2595323673 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Naval Daver, Hagop M. Kantarjian, Gail J. Roboz, Patricia Kropf, Karen Yee, Casey L. O’Connell, Elizabeth A. Griffiths, Elias Jabbour, Wendy Stock, Katherine Walsh, David A. Rizzieri, Jesús G. Berdeja, Xiang Yao Su, Mohammad Azab, Jean‐Pierre J. Issa

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineTolerabilityRegimenClinical endpointGastroenterologyNeutropeniaPhases of clinical researchDecitabineAdverse effectChemotherapy regimenFebrile neutropeniaSurgeryClinical trialChemotherapyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Guadecitabine (SGI-110) is a novel next-generation hypomethylating agent (HMA) administered as a small volume subcutaneous (SC) injection which results in extended decitabine exposure. Phase 2 study has been conducted in r/r AML patients using two different doses and schedules of guadecitabine. We report here long term survival and clinical complete response rates in various prognostic subgroups of r/r AML patients Methods: r/r AML patients who were either refractory to or relapsed after induction chemotherapy were enrolled in this Phase 2 study. In the first cohort, patients were randomized (1:1) to either 60 mg/m2/d or 90 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 (5-day regimen). In the second cohort, patients were assigned to treatment with 60 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 and Days 8-12 (10-day regimen) for up to 4 cycles, followed by 60 mg/m2/d Days 1-5 in subsequent cycles. Cycles were scheduled every 28 days for both regimens with dose reductions/delays allowed based on response and tolerability. Patients remained on treatment as long as they continued to benefit without unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the composite Complete Response (CRc) rate: CR + CR with incomplete platelet recovery and normal neutrophils count (CRp) + CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery (CRi) using modified International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson et al, 2003). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), and safety as measured by Adverse Events (AEs) using CTCAE v4.0, and early 30 and 60-day all-cause mortality. Individual dose and schedule results were previously reported (Roboz et al, European Society of Medical Oncology, 2014) where there was no difference between the 2 doses of 60 and 90 mg/m2/d and a trend of higher CRc and CR for the 10-day initial intensification regimen. We report here long tem survival and CRc data in various prognostic subgroups in the overall r/r AML patient population treated with guadecitabine. Results: 103 r/r AML patients were treated with guadecitabine (50 with 5-day regimen and 53 with the initial 10-day intensification regimen). Eight six patients (84%) received prior standard 7+3 induction; 15 patients (14%) received other prior induction chemotherapy regimens mostly with high dose cytarabine; clofarabine or cladribine with or without cytarabine; and only 2 patients (2%) received HMA as prior front line induction treatment. Median age was 60y (range 22-82y); male 60%; PS 2 in 14%; poor risk cytogenetics 41%; prior Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (HCT) 18%, and median number of 2 prior regimens (range 1-10) including 11% with prior HMA treatment. CRc was achieved in 24 patients (23%). After a median follow up of 29 months, the median OS was 6.6 months with 1-y and 2-y survival rates of 28 and 19% respectively. CRc was associated with statistically significant longer survival; median OS not reached for patients in CRc and was 5.6 months for patients with no CRc (p<0.01). Table 1 shows CRc rates and Median OS in some of the standard prognostic subgroups. Clinical activity in terms of CRc was observed in all subgroups with no statistically significant difference between any of the prognostic subgroups examined based on age; PS; cytogenetics risk; prior HCT; and time from last therapy. However OS was significantly worse in patients with PS 2 (p<0.001); patient with poor risk cytogenetics (p<0.001); and those with <6 months from last therapy (p=0.015). Safety was acceptable in all doses and schedules, the most common Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to therapy were febrile neutropenia (60%), pneumonia and thrombocytopenia (36% each), and anemia (31%). All-cause early mortality was relatively low for this patient population with 3.8% at 30 days and 11.6% at 60 days in all guadecitabine treated patients with no higher mortality with the 10-day initial intensification regimen. Conclusions: Guadecitabine showed good clinically activity in terms of CRc with acceptable safety profile in r/r AML patients with various standard poor prognostic factors. CRc with guadecitabine was associated with longer survival. While CRc was observed in all subgroups, patients with poor PS; poor risk cytogenetics; or with short time from last therapy had significantly worse survival. A randomized phase 3 study is being initiated with guadecitabine using the 10-day initial intensification regimen vs Treatment Choice in r/r AML patients. Disclosures Daver: Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kantarjian:Amgen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Kropf:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Yee:Novartis Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jabbour:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Berdeja:Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen, Bluebird, BMS, Calithera, Celgene, Constellation, Curis, Epizyme, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kesios, Novartis, Onyx, Takeda, Tragara: Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Issa:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy.

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)0,002
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: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,000

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,343
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations11
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207