MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2986130636 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-124516

Outcomes in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Myelodysplasia-Related Changes (AML-MRC) Who Achieved Remission with CPX-351 Versus 7+3: Phase 3 Exploratory Analysis

2019· article· en· W2986130636 sur OpenAlexaff
Daniel Ryan, Laura F. Newell, Ellen K. Ritchie, Stephen A. Strickland, Donna E. Hogge, Scott R. Solomon, Richard M. Stone, 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-clésMedicineInternal medicineCytarabineHazard ratioChemotherapy regimenGastroenterologyInduction chemotherapyNeutropeniaOncologyMyeloid leukemiaSurgeryChemotherapyConfidence interval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: The WHO 2016 AML-MRC designation applies to AML patients (pts) with: (1) a history of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm, (2) a MDS-related cytogenetic abnormality, or (3) multilineage dysplasia in >50% of ≥2 cell lineages in the absence of NPM1 or biallelic CEBPA mutations. Pts with AML-MRC typically have a poor prognosis with a low complete remission (CR) rate and short overall survival (OS) after induction chemotherapy. CPX-351 (Vyxeos®; daunorubicin and cytarabine liposome for injection) is a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine [C] and daunorubicin [D] at a synergistic ratio. A large randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT01696084) in older pts with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML found that treatment with CPX-351 significantly improved median OS (9.56 vs 5.95 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69; 1-sided P = 0.003) vs conventional 7+3, with a safety profile comparable to that of 7+3. Based on results of this study, CPX-351 was approved by the FDA and EMA for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed, therapy-related AML or AML-MRC. An exploratory subgroup analysis of the phase 3 study was performed to compare outcomes in pts with AML-MRC who achieved CR or CR with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery (CRi). Methods: Pts aged 60-75 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML 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 or 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 for 2nd induction). Pts could receive hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) at the treating physician's discretion. This exploratory analysis compared outcomes for CPX-351 vs 7+3 in pts who met the WHO 2008 AML-MRC criteria and achieved CR+CRi. Results: Of 309 enrolled pts, 246 (80%) were diagnosed with AML-MRC (123 pts in each arm). Baseline characteristics of pts with AML-MRC who achieved CR+CRi were generally balanced between arms; 31% and 45% of pts in the CPX-351 and 7+3 arms had antecedent MDS with prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy, 24% and 18% had antecedent MDS without prior HMAs, 7% and 8% had antecedent chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, and 39% and 30% had de novo AML with MDS karyotype. More pts with AML-MRC achieved CR+CRi with CPX-351 (59/123 [48%]) vs 7+3 (40/123 [33%]; odds ratio = 1.83 [95% CI: 1.09-3.09]). Median OS in pts with AML-MRC who achieved CR+CRi was longer with CPX-351 vs 7+3 (19.15 vs 11.58 months; HR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.24-0.96]; Figure 1). The HCT rate in AML-MRC pts with CR+CRi was greater with CPX-351 vs 7+3 (54% vs 43%; relative risk = 1.18 [95% CI: 0.79-1.76]), and OS landmarked from the HCT date was longer with CPX-351 (not reached vs 14.09 months; HR = 0.61 [95% CI: 0.27-1.50]; Figure 2). Among pts with de novo AML with MDS karyotype, median OS was 25.43 vs 14.03 months and the HCT rates were 57% vs 50% with CPX-351 and 7+3, respectively, while in pts with antecedent MDS, median OS was 18.53 vs 10.87 months and the HCT rates were 53% vs 44% with CPX-351 and 7+3, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in pts with AML-MRC who achieved CR+CRi were febrile neutropenia (CPX-351: 78%; 7+3: 80%), constipation (58%; 55%), nausea (53%; 53%), peripheral edema (49%; 65%), fatigue (47%; 50%), and diarrhea (37%; 78%). A cardiac TEAE was experienced by 29 (49%) pts with CPX-351 and 20 (50%) pts with 7+3; the most common events were tachycardia (20%; 18%) and atrial fibrillation (7%; 18%). The most common serious TEAEs were febrile neutropenia (CPX-351: 10%; 7+3: 13%) and ejection fraction decreased (8%; 10%). One pt in each arm discontinued treatment due to a TEAE. There was no early mortality by Day 60 in either arm. CPX-351 was associated with a longer median time to recovery of neutrophils to ≥500/μL (35 vs 29 days) and platelets to ≥50,000/μL (37 vs 28 days) vs 7+3 in pts who received 1 induction cycle. Conclusions: CPX-351 improved median OS overall and OS landmarked from the date of HCT vs 7+3 chemotherapy in the subgroup of AML-MRC pts who achieved CR+CRi. 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 Ryan: AbbVie: Equity Ownership; University of Rochester: Patents & Royalties. Ritchie:AStella, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene, Novartis: Other: travel support; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Advisory board, travel support; agios: Other: Advisory board; Tolero: Other: Advisory board; Genentech: Other: Advisory board; Celgene, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad, Celgene, Incyte, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Strickland:Kite: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Stone:Novartis, Agios, Arog: Research Funding; Argenx, Celgene, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee: ; AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Argenx, Arog, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biolinerx, Celgene, Cornerstone Biopharma, Fujifilm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Ono, Orsenix, Otsuka, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo, Trovagene: Consultancy. Schiller:Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Other, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; FujiFilm: 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; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Wieduwilt:Amgen, Leadiant, Merck, Servier: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ryan:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Faderl:Jazz Pharmaceutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cortes:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merus: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Biopath Holdings: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BiolineRx: Consultancy; Sun Pharma: 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: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: aucune
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
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · 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'étudeMéta-analyse
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
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207