Front-Line FLAG-IDA and Nove-HiDAC Chemotherapy Improves Overall Survival (OS) and Complete Remission Rates (CR) for Patients with Secondary or Therapy-Related AML Compared to 3&7
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Therapy for patients (pts) with high risk AML remains unsatisfactory. Retrospective studies have demonstrated activity of fludarabine, cytarabine, GCSF and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA) and of mitoxantrone, etoposide and cytarabine (NOVE-HiDAC) as salvage therapy in pts with relapsed or refractory AML. A recent randomized trial indicated high complete remission (CR) rates with improved relapsed-free survival when FLAG-IDA is administered as frontline induction therapy (Burnett et al. J Clin Oncol 2013). Since 01/2011, we have used FLAG-IDA as a first line therapeutic option in pts with high risk AML (poor risk cytogenetics, antecedent myeloproliferative neoplasm or myelodysplastic syndrome, and/or therapy-related AML) in an attempt to improve CR rates and permit more patients with AML to advance to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). Prior to 2011, either 3&7 or NOVE-HiDAC was used as first line therapy in patients with AML. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive patients with high risk AML treated with front-line (a) FLAG-IDA between 01/2011 to 03/2015, (b) NOVE-HiDAC from 01/2006 to 12/2014, or (c) 3&7 from January 01/2011 to 12/2014 at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, to determine the CR rates and overall survival (OS) associated with the different regimens. Results: Patients characteristics are in Table 1. Fifty-two, 32, and 30 pts received FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC or 3&7 as first induction, respectively. Patients receiving FLAG-IDA had more high-risk features (i.e. complex cytogenetics, more azacytidine failures) compared to those receiving 3&7. Overall CR rate (i.e. CR + [CRi] + [CRp]) with FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC, and 3&7 respectively was 86% (n=42/49), 84% (n=21/25) and 50% (n=13/26), respectively. Median CR duration, censored at time of transplant, for pts receiving FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 was 3 mos (0.5-15), 3.5 mos (1-9) and 5.5 mos (0.5-42), respectively. OS at 1 year with FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 was 61% (95% CI, 41% -75%), 55% (95% CI, 34%-72%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 7.4%-40.7%), respectively (log-rank test p-value=0.0076). On subgroup analysis, there was no statistical difference in OS for pts ≥70 years. Of those with a donor identified, 35% (n=13/37), 73% (n=11/15) and 29% (n=5/17) of pts who were treated with FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 underwent an alloSCT, respectively. Pts with sAML may have had a higher transplant rate due to donor searches initiated earlier. Probable and possible invasive aspergillosis infections in pts receiving FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 were 50%, 34% and 33% respectively. Institution of earlier bronchoscopies led to increased fungal detection in the FLAG-IDA group. Median length of stay and ICU transfers were similar between groups. Induction deaths were secondary to sepsis, respiratory failure, invasive aspergillosis, and hemorrhage; these were similar across groups. Two pts receiving NOVE-HiDAC, with prior MPN, died of progressive splenomegaly and liver failure. Conclusions: Toxicities associated with frontline FLAG-IDA and NOVE-HIDAC induction are acceptable. FLAG-IDA and NOVE-HiDAC induction can result in durable CR, permitting patients with high risk AML to proceed to alloSCT and providing more favourable survival rates than frontline 3&7. Randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings for pts with poor-risk sAML and tAML. Table 1. Patient Characteristics FLAG-IDA(2013-2015) NOVE-HiDAC(2006-2014) 3&7(2011-2014) N=52 N=32 N=30 Median Age,y (range) Age <70 Age ≥ 70 Sex (M:F) 59.5 (21-76) 47 (90%) 5 (10%) 25:27 54.5 (24-74) 31 (97%) 1 (3%) 18:14 61.5 (20-78) 21 (70%) 9 (30%) 23:7 Cytogenetics by MRC Classification Good Intermediate Poor Not available 0 (0%) 25 (48%) 23 (44%) 4 (8%) 0 (0%) 18 (56%) 9 (28%) 5 (16%) 0 (0%) 20 (67%) 6 (20%) 4 (13%) Molecular (Pts ≤70 y with normal karyotype) FLT3-NPM1+ FLT3+ NPM1+ FLT3+ NPM1- FLT3-NPM1- 1/11 (9%) 5/11 (45%) 2/11 (18%) 3/11 (27%) 0/7 (0%) 2/7 (29%) 1/7 (14%) 4/7 (57%) 0/7 (0%) 1/7 (14%) 0/7 (0%) 6/7 (86%) WBC (x 109/L) (range) 5.15 (0.6 -239) 13 (1.3-182.4) 3.2 (0.7-164) sAML IBMFS MPN MDS Prior AZA 27 (52%) 0/27 (0%) 10/27 (37%) 17/27 (63%) 9/17 (53%) 29 (91%) 1/29 (4%) 15/29 (51%) 13/29 (45%) 2/13 (15%) 20 (67%) 2/20 (10%) 0/20 (0%) 18/20 (90%) 5/18 (28%) Therapy-Related (%) 14 (27%) 6 (19%) 15 (50%) De Novo AML with Complex Cytogenetics FLT3+ Other (ie MLL) 15 (29%) 7/15 (47%) 5/15 (33%) 3/15 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Donor Identified (%) 37(71%) 16(50%) 17(57%) Disclosures Gupta: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".