MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2983230949 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-124552

Efficacy and Safety of CPX-351 Versus 7+3 in a Phase 3 Exploratory Analysis in Patients with High-Risk/Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) with Prior Hypomethylating Agent Exposure Who Achieved Remission

2019· article· en· W2983230949 sur OpenAlexaff
Tara L. Lin, Daniel H. Ryan, Ellen K. Ritchie, Stephen A. Strickland, Donna E. Hogge, Scott R. Solomon, Jonathan E. Kolitz, Gary J. Schiller, Matthew J. Wieduwilt, Robert J. Ryan, Stefan Faderl, Jörge E. Cortes

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHypomethylating agentMedicineAzacitidineMyeloid leukemiaOncologyInternal medicineDecitabineLeukemiaPhases of clinical researchClinical trialBiologyDNA methylation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Patients (pts) with newly diagnosed, secondary AML (sAML) may have previously received hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy for an antecedent hematologic malignancy (eg, myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS]). Outcomes for pts with MDS who progress following HMA therapy are typically poor, with remission rates <30% and median overall survival (OS) of ~6 months (Prébet T, et al. J ClinOncol. 2011; Jabbour E, et al. Cancer 2010). CPX-351 (Vyxeos®; daunorubicin and cytarabine liposome for injection), a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine [C] and daunorubicin [D] at a synergistic 5:1 molar ratio, is approved by the US FDA and the EMA for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes. In a large randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT01696084) in older pts with newly diagnosed, high-risk/sAML, induction followed by consolidation with CPX-351 significantly improved OS (9.56 vs 5.95 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69; 1-sided P = 0.003) versus conventional 7+3, with a safety profile comparable to that of 7+3. An exploratory subgroup analysis of the phase 3 study was performed to compare outcomes in pts with any prior HMA exposure who achieved complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery (CRi) with CPX-351 versus 7+3. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive 1-2 induction cycles with CPX-351 (100 units/m2 [C 100 mg/m2 + D 44 mg/m2] as a 90-minute infusion on Days 1, 3, and 5 [2nd induction: Days 1 and 3]) or 7+3 (C 100 mg/m2/day continuously for 7 days [2nd induction: 5 days] + D 60 mg/m2 on Days 1-3 [2nd induction: Days 1-2]). Pts achieving CR+CRi could receive up to 2 consolidation cycles with CPX-351 (65 units/m2 [C 65 mg/m2 + D 29 mg/m2] on Days 1 and 3) or 5+2 (as in 2nd induction). Pts could receive hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) at the discretion of the treating physician. This exploratory subgroup analysis included pts with any prior HMA exposure who achieved CR+CRi to study treatment. Results: A total of 309 pts were enrolled in the study, including 133 (43%) pts who had received prior HMA therapy. Among pts with any prior HMA exposure, 23/62 (37%) receiving CPX-351 and 20/71 (28%) receiving 7+3 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.50 [95% CI: 0.73-3.12]) achieved CR+CRi and were included in this analysis. Baseline characteristics for these pts were generally balanced between treatment arms; 9% and 5% of pts in the CPX-351 and 7+3 arms, respectively, were classified as having therapy-related AML, 78% and 90% had antecedent MDS, and 13% and 5% had antecedent chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. In pts with any prior HMA exposure who achieved CR+CRi to CPX-351 or 7+3, median OS was longer with CPX-351 (14.72 vs 10.17 months; HR = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.26-1.15]; Figure 1). More of the pts with prior HMA exposure who achieved CR+CRi and received CPX-351 underwent HCT versus those who received 7+3 (57% vs 35%; relative risk = 1.39 [95% CI: 0.73-2.67]), and OS landmarked from the HCT date was longer with CPX-351 versus 7+3 (not reached vs 14.09 months; HR = 0.43 [95% CI: 0.12-1.51]; Figure 2). In pts without prior HMA exposure, 50/91 (55%) receiving CPX-351 and 32/85 (38%) receiving 7+3 (OR = 2.02 [95% CI: 1.11-3.69]) achieved CR+CRi; among those who achieved CR+CRi to CPX-351 versus 7+3, median OS was also longer with CPX-351 (26.32 vs 10.43 months). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in pts with any prior HMA exposure who achieved CR+CRi were febrile neutropenia (CPX-351: 83%; 7+3: 75%), nausea (48%; 55%), fatigue (48%; 45%), diarrhea (43%; 70%), constipation (43%; 50%), peripheral edema (39%; 65%), and dizziness (13%; 50%). The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were febrile neutropenia (CPX-351: 83%; 7+3: 75%) and fatigue (22%; 0%). The most common serious TEAEs were febrile neutropenia (CPX-351: 13%; 7+3: 10%), ejection fraction decreased (9%; 10%), and subdural hemorrhage (0%; 10%). There was no early mortality by Day 60 in either arm. Conclusions: Pts with prior HMA exposure for an antecedent hematologic malignancy typically have poor outcomes and are a challenging subgroup of AML. Among pts in this study who had any prior HMA exposure and achieved CR+CRi, CPX-351 increased median OS, the rate of HCT, and median OS landmarked from the HCT date versus 7+3. The safety profile for CPX-351 in this subgroup was consistent with the overall study population and the known safety profile of 7+3. Disclosures Lin: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ryan:University of Rochester: Patents & Royalties; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Ritchie:Ariad, Celgene, Incyte, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AStella, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene, Novartis: Other: travel support; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisory board; Tolero: Other: Advisory board; agios: Other: Advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Advisory board, travel support; Celgene: Other: Advisory board; Celgene, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer: Consultancy. Strickland:Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kolitz:Astellas: Research Funding; Boeringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Schiller:Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Other, Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Sangamo Therapeutics: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding. Wieduwilt:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Amgen, Leadiant, Merck, Servier: Research Funding. Ryan:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Faderl:Jazz Pharmaceutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cortes:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merus: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BiolineRx: Consultancy; Sun Pharma: Research Funding; Biopath Holdings: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, 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)0,001
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 enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,012

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · 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

Citations3
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207