MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy and Safety of Azacitidine (AZA) Versus Conventional Care Regimens (CCR) in Patients Aged ≥75 Years with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in the Phase 3 AZA-AML-001 Study

2016· article· en· W2618501159 on OpenAlexaff
John F. Seymour, Rena Buckstein, Valeria Santini, Hartmut Döhner, Richard M. Stone, Mark D. Minden, Ching‐Yuan Kuo, Dina Ben‐Yehuda, Joan Bargay, Stephen Songer, Jerry Weaver, C.L. Beach, Hervé Dombret

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAzacitidineChemotherapy regimenPediatricsChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) aged >65 years (yrs) with AML have a median overall survival (OS) of ~3 months (mos), with worsening OS as age increases: median OS for pts ages 66-75 yrs is ~6 mos, but is only ~2.5 mos for pts ages 76-89 yrs (Walter, Leukemia, 2015). Treatment (Tx) options are limited for these pts, who often have disease features associated with Tx resistance, such as prior hematologic disorders, and a greater risk of Tx-related mortality. With current Tx options, in this setting many physicians or pts do not pursue active AML Tx. The phase 3, randomized AZA-AML-001 study compared AZA and CCR in older pts with AML (Dombret, Blood, 2015). Aims: Assess outcomes with AZA vs CCR in elderly pts (age ≥75 yrs) with AML in the AZA-AML-001 study overall and in the subset of pts with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC), and descriptively compare them with outcomes for pts aged 65-74 yrs. Methods: Pts aged ≥65 yrs with newly diagnosed AML (>30% bone marrow blasts), ECOG performance status ≤2, intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics, and WBC counts ≤15x109/L were eligible. Pts were randomized to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/day [d] x7d/28d) or CCR: low-dose ara-C (20mg SC BID x10d/28d), intensive chemotherapy (7+3), or best supportive care only. These analyses evaluated outcomes in pts aged 65-74 yrs ("<75 yrs") and pts aged ≥75 yrs. WHO-defined AML-MRC was centrally confirmed. OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) methods, with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model and P values from log-rank test. Survival at 3, 6, 9, and 12 mos was estimated using KM methods. Overall response rate (ORR) included complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi). Incidence rates (IRs; ie, rate normalized for Tx exposure) of grade 3-4 Tx-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and infections leading to death per 100 pt-years of Tx exposure are reported for safety-evaluable pts (those who received ≥1 dose of study drug [at randomization for BSC only] and had ≥1 safety assessment post-dose). Results: In all, 223 pts were aged <75 yrs (AZA n=103; CCR n=120) and 265 were aged ≥75 yrs (AZA n=138; CCR n=127), including 27 pts aged >85 yrs (AZA n=14; CCR n=13). Median age in the <75 yrs cohort was 71 yrs, and in the ≥75 yrs cohort was 78 and 79 yrs for the AZA and CCR groups, respectively (Table 1). Median OS was meaningfully prolonged with AZA vs CCR in pts aged <75 yrs (14.2 vs 9.6 mos; HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.54, 0.99; P=0.0420). OS was also prolonged with AZA in pts aged ≥75 yrs vs CCR, but was not statistically different (median 7.0 vs 4.9 mos; HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.69, 1.2; P=0.46). Higher proportions of AZA-treated pts were alive at each 3-mo landmark in both age cohorts (Table 2). ORR was similar with AZA and CCR in pts ages <75 yrs (32% and 30% respectively) and ≥75 yrs (25% and 21%), with a trend for a higher rate of CRi in AZA-treated pts aged ≥75 yrs (8% vs 2%; P=0.054). In the AML-MRC subgroup (n=262), median OS in pts aged <75 yrs was meaningfully prolonged with AZA (n=52) vs CCR (n=64) (14.2 vs 7.3 mos, respectively; HR 0.64, 95%CI 0.42, 0.97) and nominally so with AZA (n=77) vs CCR (n=69) in pts ≥75 yrs (5.9 vs 3.8 mos; HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.54, 1.09). IRs of the most frequent grade 3-4 hematological TEAEs were lower with AZA vs CCR in the both age cohorts (Table 3), except the IR for grade 3-4 pneumonia in pts aged ≥75 yrs was higher with AZA. IRs of infections leading to death in the AZA and CCR groups were 14.9 and 38.2 per 100 pt-yrs, respectively, for pts aged <75 yrs, and 33.3 and 28.0 per 100 pt-yrs in pts aged ≥75 yrs. Conclusions: As expected, OS and response rates were lower in elderly pts in both Tx arms than in younger pts. Median OS was meaningfully prolonged with AZA (+4.6 mos) vs CCR in pts aged 65-74 yrs. Higher proportions of AZA-treated pts remained alive at each 3-month landmark than CCR-treated pts, mainly in the younger age group, although 1-year survival was also higher in pts aged ≥75 yrs. Given the higher IR of infections, prophylactic use of antimicrobials or growth factors might be considered for elderly pts treated with AZA. Pts with AML-MRC retained the relative OS benefits of AZA vs CCR. While OS for AML-MRC pts aged ≥75 yrs was longer with AZA (+2.1 mos) vs CCR, pts with AML-MRC aged ≥75 yrs in both treatment groups had decreased OS compared with the median OS for all pts aged ≥75 yrs, consistent with reports that AML-MRC is more difficult to treat than AML not otherwise specified (Weinberg, Blood, 2009). Disclosures Seymour: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Santini:Astex: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stone:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy. Songer:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Weaver:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Beach:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dombret:Agios: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Ambit (Daiichi Sankyo): Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Kite Pharma.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Menarini: Honoraria; Menarini: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207