MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2618501159 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.2818.2818

Efficacy and Safety of Azacitidine (AZA) Versus Conventional Care Regimens (CCR) in Patients Aged ≥75 Years with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in the Phase 3 AZA-AML-001 Study

2016· article· en· W2618501159 sur OpenAlexaff
John F. Seymour, Rena Buckstein, Valeria Santini, Hartmut Döhner, Richard M. Stone, Mark D. Minden, Ching‐Yuan Kuo, Dina Ben‐Yehuda, Joan Bargay, Stephen Songer, Jerry Weaver, C.L. Beach, Hervé Dombret

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineAzacitidineChemotherapy regimenPediatricsChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) aged >65 years (yrs) with AML have a median overall survival (OS) of ~3 months (mos), with worsening OS as age increases: median OS for pts ages 66-75 yrs is ~6 mos, but is only ~2.5 mos for pts ages 76-89 yrs (Walter, Leukemia, 2015). Treatment (Tx) options are limited for these pts, who often have disease features associated with Tx resistance, such as prior hematologic disorders, and a greater risk of Tx-related mortality. With current Tx options, in this setting many physicians or pts do not pursue active AML Tx. The phase 3, randomized AZA-AML-001 study compared AZA and CCR in older pts with AML (Dombret, Blood, 2015). Aims: Assess outcomes with AZA vs CCR in elderly pts (age ≥75 yrs) with AML in the AZA-AML-001 study overall and in the subset of pts with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC), and descriptively compare them with outcomes for pts aged 65-74 yrs. Methods: Pts aged ≥65 yrs with newly diagnosed AML (>30% bone marrow blasts), ECOG performance status ≤2, intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics, and WBC counts ≤15x109/L were eligible. Pts were randomized to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/day [d] x7d/28d) or CCR: low-dose ara-C (20mg SC BID x10d/28d), intensive chemotherapy (7+3), or best supportive care only. These analyses evaluated outcomes in pts aged 65-74 yrs ("<75 yrs") and pts aged ≥75 yrs. WHO-defined AML-MRC was centrally confirmed. OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) methods, with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model and P values from log-rank test. Survival at 3, 6, 9, and 12 mos was estimated using KM methods. Overall response rate (ORR) included complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi). Incidence rates (IRs; ie, rate normalized for Tx exposure) of grade 3-4 Tx-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and infections leading to death per 100 pt-years of Tx exposure are reported for safety-evaluable pts (those who received ≥1 dose of study drug [at randomization for BSC only] and had ≥1 safety assessment post-dose). Results: In all, 223 pts were aged <75 yrs (AZA n=103; CCR n=120) and 265 were aged ≥75 yrs (AZA n=138; CCR n=127), including 27 pts aged >85 yrs (AZA n=14; CCR n=13). Median age in the <75 yrs cohort was 71 yrs, and in the ≥75 yrs cohort was 78 and 79 yrs for the AZA and CCR groups, respectively (Table 1). Median OS was meaningfully prolonged with AZA vs CCR in pts aged <75 yrs (14.2 vs 9.6 mos; HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.54, 0.99; P=0.0420). OS was also prolonged with AZA in pts aged ≥75 yrs vs CCR, but was not statistically different (median 7.0 vs 4.9 mos; HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.69, 1.2; P=0.46). Higher proportions of AZA-treated pts were alive at each 3-mo landmark in both age cohorts (Table 2). ORR was similar with AZA and CCR in pts ages <75 yrs (32% and 30% respectively) and ≥75 yrs (25% and 21%), with a trend for a higher rate of CRi in AZA-treated pts aged ≥75 yrs (8% vs 2%; P=0.054). In the AML-MRC subgroup (n=262), median OS in pts aged <75 yrs was meaningfully prolonged with AZA (n=52) vs CCR (n=64) (14.2 vs 7.3 mos, respectively; HR 0.64, 95%CI 0.42, 0.97) and nominally so with AZA (n=77) vs CCR (n=69) in pts ≥75 yrs (5.9 vs 3.8 mos; HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.54, 1.09). IRs of the most frequent grade 3-4 hematological TEAEs were lower with AZA vs CCR in the both age cohorts (Table 3), except the IR for grade 3-4 pneumonia in pts aged ≥75 yrs was higher with AZA. IRs of infections leading to death in the AZA and CCR groups were 14.9 and 38.2 per 100 pt-yrs, respectively, for pts aged <75 yrs, and 33.3 and 28.0 per 100 pt-yrs in pts aged ≥75 yrs. Conclusions: As expected, OS and response rates were lower in elderly pts in both Tx arms than in younger pts. Median OS was meaningfully prolonged with AZA (+4.6 mos) vs CCR in pts aged 65-74 yrs. Higher proportions of AZA-treated pts remained alive at each 3-month landmark than CCR-treated pts, mainly in the younger age group, although 1-year survival was also higher in pts aged ≥75 yrs. Given the higher IR of infections, prophylactic use of antimicrobials or growth factors might be considered for elderly pts treated with AZA. Pts with AML-MRC retained the relative OS benefits of AZA vs CCR. While OS for AML-MRC pts aged ≥75 yrs was longer with AZA (+2.1 mos) vs CCR, pts with AML-MRC aged ≥75 yrs in both treatment groups had decreased OS compared with the median OS for all pts aged ≥75 yrs, consistent with reports that AML-MRC is more difficult to treat than AML not otherwise specified (Weinberg, Blood, 2009). Disclosures Seymour: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Santini:Astex: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stone:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy. Songer:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Weaver:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Beach:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dombret:Agios: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Ambit (Daiichi Sankyo): Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Kite Pharma.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Menarini: Honoraria; Menarini: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: 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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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 randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · 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 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

Citations2
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207