MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417011663 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-790

Low-dose oral decitabine and cedazuridine among patients with low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes

2025· article· en· W4417011663 sur OpenAlexaff
Guillermo Garcia‐Manero, Lalit Saini, Amer M. Zeidan, Abdulraheem Yacoub, Lori J. Maness, Elie Traer, James M. Foran, Sanjay Mohan, Michael Lübbert, Tom Lodewyck, Blanca Xicoy, Harshad Amin, Kimo Bachiashvili, Habte Yimer, Nancy Zhu, Haifa Kathrin Al‐Ali, Guillermo Sanz, Valeria Santini, Jesús G. Berdeja, Victor Priego, Olatoyosi Odenike, Bert Heyrman, David Valcárcel, Winny Chan, Aram Oganesian, Yuri Sano, Harold Keer, Elizabeth A. Griffiths

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of AlbertaLondon Health Sciences Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDecitabineCytopeniaMyelodysplastic syndromesAzacitidineRegimenClinical endpointPhases of clinical researchDosingPharmacodynamicsNeutropenia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Parenteral DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) such as azacitidine and decitabine (DEC), including an attenuated 3-day regimen, are recommended in the NCCN Guidelines for patients (pts) with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) with clinically significant cytopenias. However, parenteral administration requires frequent clinic visits, which imposes a substantial burden on pts, particularly those requiring long-term therapy. Oral DMTIs offer more flexible dosing and maintenance of pts' autonomy. Oral DEC-cedazuridine (DEC-C) is a fixed-dose combination tablet containing DEC (35 mg) and cedazuridine (100 mg). ASTX727-03 (NCT03502668) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 1/2 clinical trial evaluating safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of various DEC-C doses and regimens in pts with LR-MDS. Phase 1 identified a 5-day regimen of DEC 10 mg/cedazuridine 100 mg as the optimized low-dose (LD) regimen. Phase 2 compares this LD regimen with the attenuated standard-dose (SD) regimen. Here, we report phase 2 results on efficacy, safety, PK, and pharmacodynamic (PD) data. Methods: Adults (aged ≥18 years) with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) low-risk or Intermediate-1 MDS, ECOG PS 0−2, and ≥1 cytopenia or red blood cell (RBC) transfusion dependence were randomized 1:1 to receive oral DEC-C LD (10 mg x 5 days) or SD (35 mg x 3 days). The primary endpoint was hematologic response. Secondary endpoints included PK, PD (by LINE-1 demethylation), time to bone marrow blasts >5%, leukemia-free survival (LFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: As of October 31, 2024, 81 pts were treated (LD arm: n=40; SD arm: n=41) and completed a median of 8.8 months on treatment. At cutoff, 17 (42.5%) and 12 (28.6%) LD and SD pts, respectively, were still continuing the study; 9 (22.5%) and 6 (14.6%) pts respectively, had discontinued treatment due to hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Median age was 70 (LD) and 75 (SD) years; 75.0% (LD) and 68.3% (SD) had IPSS Int-1 risk MDS and 60.0% vs 41.5% had IPSS-Molecular Lower-Risk MDS (very low, low, or moderate-low). Low-risk prognostic scoring system risk distribution was similar: Category 1 (2.5% vs 4.9%), Category 2 (47.5% vs 46.3%), and Category 3 (50.0% vs 48.8%). After a median follow-up of 29.3 months, median OS was 23.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.0, not estimable [NE]) in the LD arm vs 26.0 months (95% CI: 19.4, 28.5) in the SD arm. Median LFS was 23.8 months (95% CI: 13.0, NE) and 25.7 months (95% CI: 17.8, 26.5), respectively. Hematologic improvement per International Working Group 2006 criteria was achieved in 27.5% (LD) and 26.8% (SD) of pts. Among RBC transfusion–dependent pts, 52.4% (LD) and 37.5% (SD) achieved ≥56-day independence and 47.6% (LD) and 20.8% (SD) achieved ≥112-day independence. Pts received a median of 10 (LD) and 9 (SD) cycles. Delayed cycles occurred in 72.5% (LD) vs 82.9% (SD) of pts; dose reductions occurred in 40.0% (LD) and 46.3% (SD) of pts. Both treatment regimens caused a decrease in blood counts, reaching a nadir before recovering in each cycle. Neutropenia was more pronounced during early cycles and was more severe in the SD arm. Blood counts across all lineages remained stable or improved through ≥12 cycles with the LD arm, suggesting a more favorable safety and tolerability profile. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 85.0% and 90.2% of pts in the LD and SD arms, respectively; treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 2.5% and 17.1% of pts, respectively. Most commonly reported treatment-emergent AEs were anemia (42.5% LD, 39.0% SD), fatigue (32.5% LD, 43.9% SD), and thrombocytopenia (37.5% LD, 39.0% SD). Three deaths occurred in the trial: 2 in the LD arm, which were both unrelated to study treatment, and 1 in the SD arm (Pseudomonal bacteremia in Cycle 1), which was treatment related. Total AUC0–24 was 199 ng*h/mL in the LD arm and 465 ng*h/mL in the SD arm; AUC for all cycles of the LD arm was approximately half of the SD arm. Maximal % LINE-1 demethylation rate was lower with LD than SD, but narrowed by Cycle 3. Conclusion: LD oral DEC-C demonstrated comparable clinical benefit to SD oral DEC-C, with improved safety and tolerability, including fewer dose modifications and less severe myelosuppression. These findings support LD DEC-C as a potential optimal regimen for pts with LR-MDS. Clinical trial registration: NCT03502668

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)0,000
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 enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,239
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · 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

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→