The Impact of Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation on Survival: An Exploratory Analysis of a Phase 3 Study of CPX-351 Versus 7+3 in Older Patients with Newly Diagnosed, High-Risk/Secondary AML
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Outcomes for the treatment of AML with conventional induction chemotherapy (eg, 7+3 cytarabine/daunorubicin regimen) are poor for older adults and those with high-risk/secondary AML. CPX-351 (Vyxeos®), a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin in a synergistic ratio, was approved by the US FDA in 2017 for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed, therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes and is currently under review by the EMA. A large randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01696084) evaluated the efficacy and safety of CPX-351 versus conventional 7+3 chemotherapy in adults aged 60-75 y with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML (Lancet JE, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018). In this study, CPX-351 significantly improved median overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) versus 7+3 (9.56 vs 5.95 mo; HR = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.52-0.90]; 1-sided P = 0.003), as well as event-free survival (EFS; 2.53 vs 1.31 mo; HR = 0.74 [95% CI: 0.58-0.96]; 2-sided P = 0.021). CPX-351 was also associated with higher rates of complete remission (CR; 37.3% vs 25.6%; 2-sided P = 0.040) and CR or CR with incomplete platelet or neutrophil recovery (CR+CRi; 47.7% vs 33.3%; 2-sided P = 0.016) versus 7+3, which likely contributed to the higher rate of patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) with CPX-351 (34.0% vs 25.0%; 2-sided P = 0.098). HCT is a potentially curative therapy, and the higher rate of HCT observed in the CPX-351 arm could therefore have an impact on long-term survival outcomes. To better understand the contribution of HCT and treatment with CPX-351 versus 7+3 to survival, exploratory analyses using a time-dependent proportional hazards model were performed to evaluate survival in patients who underwent HCT and assess the impact of treatment with CPX-351 versus 7+3 on survival independent of HCT status. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive up to 2 induction cycles with CPX-351 (100 units/m2 [cytarabine 100 mg/m2 + daunorubicin 44 mg/m2] on Days 1, 3, and 5 [2nd induction: Days 1 and 3]) or 7+3 (cytarabine 100 mg/m2/d continuously for 7 d [2nd induction: 5 d] + daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 on Days 1-3 [2nd induction: Days 1-2]). Patients achieving CR or CRi could receive up to 2 consolidations with CPX-351 (65 units/m2 [cytarabine 65 mg/m2 + daunorubicin 29 mg/m2] on Days 1 and 3) or 5+2 (as in 2nd induction). Patients could receive HCT at the discretion of the treating physician. Results: A total of 309 patients were enrolled in the study (CPX-351: n = 153; 7+3: n = 156), and baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. A total of 52 (34.0%) patients in the CPX-351 arm and 39 (25.0%) in the 7+3 arm underwent HCT; most were 60-69 y of age (CPX-351: 69.2%; 7+3: 84.6%), had ECOG performance status ≤1 (CPX-351: 92.3%; 7+3: 94.9%), and were in CR (CPX-351: 57.7%; 7+3: 48.7%) or CRi (CPX-351: 19.2%; 7+3: 12.8%). Median time to HCT from first study dose was similar with CPX-351 (114.5 d) and 7+3 (113.0 d). Similar to the primary endpoint analysis, median OS landmarked from the time of HCT was significantly improved with CPX-351 versus 7+3 (not reached vs 10.25 mo; HR = 0.46 [95% CI: 0.24-0.89]). Further, in the current exploratory analyses in which HCT was treated as a time-dependent covariate, the HRs remained strongly in favor of CPX-351 versus 7+3 for OS (HR = 0.71) and EFS (HR = 0.74), with the upper bounds of the 95% CIs below 1.0 (Table). These results suggest CPX-351 may be associated with prolonged OS and EFS that is independent of HCT. The adverse event profile of CPX-351 was generally consistent with the known safety profile of conventional 7+3. Grade 3-5 adverse events reported in ≥10% of patients in the CPX-351 or 7+3 cohorts included febrile neutropenia (68.0% vs 70.9%), pneumonia (19.6% vs 14.6%), and hypoxia (13.1% vs 15.2%). Early mortality rates with CPX-351 and 7+3, respectively, were 5.9% and 10.6% at Day 30 and 13.7% and 21.2% at Day 60. Conclusions: Treatment with CPX-351 was associated with significantly longer median OS and EFS, as well as a higher proportion of patients achieving remission and undergoing HCT, compared with conventional 7+3 chemotherapy in this population of older patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML. Further, while it is expected that HCT had a positive impact on survival in this study, exploratory analyses suggest that CPX-351 produced positive OS and EFS outcomes independent of HCT. Disclosures Lin: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Cortes:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding. Ritchie:NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stuart:Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Bayer AG: Research Funding; Celator/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Strickland:Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxalta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bixby:GlycoMimetics: Research Funding. Kolitz:Magellan Health: Consultancy, Honoraria. Schiller:bluebird bio: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Wieduwilt:Leadiant: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Merck: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ryan:University of Rochester: Patents & Royalties; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Ryan:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Other: Stock and stock options. Chiarella:Celator/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Louie:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: 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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».