MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389247626 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-173092

Oral Decitabine/Cedazuridine Vs Intravenous Decitabine for Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Final Results of a Randomized, Crossover, Registration-Enabling, Pharmacokinetics Study

2023· article· en· W4389247626 on OpenAlexaffabout
Klaus Geißler, Zdeněk Kořı́stek, Jan Novák, Gabriela Rodríguez Macias, Stephan Metzelder, Árpád Illés, Ágnes Nagy, Jiřı́ Mayer, Montserrat Arnán Sangerman, Mary‐Margaret Keating, Jürgen Krauter, Monia Lunghi, Nicola Fracchiolla, Uwe Platzbecker, Valeria Santini, Danna Chan, Beloo Mirakhur, Yuri Sano, Aram Oganesian, Harold Keer, Michael Lübbert

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecitabineMedicineAzacitidineDiscontinuationInternal medicineOncologyPharmacologyAdverse effectPharmacokineticsMyeloid leukemiaPopulationDosing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Parenterally administered hypomethylating agents (HMAs), decitabine (DEC) and azacitidine (AZA), are approved in Europe for adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are not candidates for standard induction chemotherapy as single agent or in combination with venetoclax. Cedazuridine(C) is a novel, potent, and safe inhibitor of cytidine deaminase (CDA) and when given in combination with decitabine, cedazuridine enables efficient oral availability of decitabine.ASTX727 (DEC-C) is a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet of 35 mg DEC and 100 mg cedazuridine, DEC-C has been approved for MDS in the US, Canada, and Australia. Here we present final results using DEC-C in an AML population appropriate for single-agent decitabine treatment. Aims: Describe the final clinical outcomes of patients with AML with additional analysis of genetic profiles. Methods: The ASCERTAIN study used a randomized two-period, two-sequence, two-treatment, crossover study design. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either Sequence A: DEC-C (35 mg DEC/100 mg cedazuridine) in Cycle 1 followed by IV-DEC at 20 mg/m 2 in Cycle 2, or Sequence B: receiving IV-DEC in Cycle 1 followed by DEC-C on Cycle 2 to compare pharmacokinetics (PK) [primary endpoint Area Under the Curve (AUC) equivalence over 5 days of dosing]. All patients received DEC-C from Cycle 3 until treatment discontinuation to assess safety and clinical efficacy. Patients were eligible as per the EMA-approved decitabine label (newly diagnosed AML who are not candidates for standard induction chemotherapy). Clinical responses were assessed according to modified International Working Group (IWG) 2003 response criteria. Pre-treatment peripheral blood was used for DNA isolation from leukocytes, and molecular abnormalities identified using a NGS hematologic malignancy panel. Cox-regression analysis on the various factors (eg binary mutational status, CR, etc.) was used for analyses of risk-factors for overall survival (OS). Results: 89 patients were randomized, of whom 87 were treated. The median age of patients was 78.0 years (range, 61 to 92) with 31 (35.6%) males and 56 (64.4%) females. Cytogenetic risk classification was poor-risk in 33 (37.9%), intermediate-risk in 45 (51.7%), and 9 (10.4%) not evaluated patients. For the primary endpoint, preliminary PK data was available from 69 patients who successfully completed PK assessments for both IV-DEC and DEC-C cycles, and the DEC AUC 0-24 (h*ng/mL) 5-Day geometric mean estimate was 904 for DEC-C and 907 for IV-DEC resulting in an oral/IV geometric LSM AUC ratio of 99.64% (90% CI of 91.23-108.8%). Safety findings were consistent with those anticipated for IV-DEC (related Grade ≥ 3 AEs in more than 10% were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anaemia, and febrile neutropenia). As of the database lock (25May2023), median follow up was 24.5 (20.2, 25.0) months (25% of 19.7 and 75% of 25.2 months). The best response was complete response (CR) in 19/87 (21.8%, 95% CI: 13.7, 32.0%); CR with incomplete blood cell count recovery (CRi) in 5 patients (5.7%); and CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) in 2 (2.3%); resulting in composite response rate [CR + CRi] of 27.6%. The median overall survival was approximately 8.9 months (95% CI: 6.0, 13.1).These results obtained with DEC-C are consistent with those observed for IV-DEC. Multiple genes, including ASXL1, TP53, RUNX1, and SRSF2 genes were present in more than 20% of the AML patients. TP53 mutation was associated with worse survival. Summary/Conclusion: This randomized phase 3 study in AML patients not candidates for standard induction chemotherapy demonstrates that Daily X 5 dosing of the oral FDC of DEC-C resulted in an equivalent DEC AUC exposure to IV-DEC at 20 mg/m 2 over 5 days. Pharmacodynamic data showed similar demethylation rates (≤1.1% difference). In addition, safety findings and observed clinical activity (response rates and OS) are consistent with published data from IV-DEC, suggesting that DEC-C has the potential to be an oral alternative to the standard IV-DEC Daily×5 regimen. These findings support the use of DEC-C in patients with AML who are not candidates for standard induction chemotherapy.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207