Gemtuzumab ozogamicin for treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionAcute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is a type of cancer in which the bone marrow makes abnormal myeloblasts (a type of white blood cell), red blood cells or platelets. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) holds promise as a new agent that also could be efficacious in newly diagnosed AML with acceptable toxicity. This paper describes the design of a protocol to conduct a systematic review of published studies assessing GO for the treatment of AML.Method and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that investigate the effect and safety of GO for the treatment of patients with AML. We will search for any eligible articles from selected electronic databases. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis for study selection and reporting. We will use The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Meta-Analysis as guidance to select eligible studies. All data will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form.Ethics and disseminationThere was no patient involved in this study, therefore no ethical consideration is needed. The findings of this study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and any relevant conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019123286.

Download Full-text

Efficacy outcomes in the treatment of older or medically unfit patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Leukemia Research ◽

10.1016/j.leukres.2019.05.007 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 82 ◽

pp. 36-42 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

A. Stone ◽

Tsila Zukerman ◽

Liat Flaishon ◽

Ruth Ben Yakar ◽

Jacob M. Rowe

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Acute Myeloid Leukaemia ◽

Myeloid Leukaemia ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Unfit Patients ◽

Acute Myeloid

Download Full-text

Use of Azacitidine or Decitabine for the Up-Front Setting in Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers13225677 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (22) ◽

pp. 5677

Author(s):

Miriam Saiz-Rodríguez ◽

Jorge Labrador ◽

Beatriz Cuevas ◽

David Martínez-Cuadrón ◽

Verónica Campuzano ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Acute Myeloid Leukaemia ◽

Myeloid Leukaemia ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Response Rates ◽

Randomised Clinical Trial ◽

Treatment Schedule ◽

Similar Response ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Acute Myeloid

Irruption of decitabine and azacitidine has led to profound changes in the upfront management of older acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). However, they have not been directly compared in a randomised clinical trial. In addition, there are no studies comparing the optimal treatment schedule of each drug in AML. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of decitabine and azacitidine monotherapy in newly diagnosed AML was conducted. Randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies were included. A total of 2743 patients from 23 cohorts were analysed (10 cohorts of azacitidine and 13 of decitabine). Similar response rates were observed for azacitidine (38%, 95% CI: 30–47%) compared to decitabine (40%, 95% CI: 32–48%) (p = 0.825). Overall survival (OS) between azacitidine (10.04 months, 95% CI: 8.36–11.72) and decitabine (8.79 months, 95% CI: 7.62–9.96) was also similar (p = 0.386). Patients treated with azacitidine showed a lower median OS when azacitidine was administered for 5 days (6.28 months, 95% CI: 4.23–8.32) compared to the standard 7-day schedule (10.83 months, 95% CI: 9.07–12.59, p = 0.002). Among patients treated with decitabine, response rates and OS were not significantly different between 5-day and 10-day decitabine regimens. Despite heterogeneity between studies, we found no differences in response rates and OS in AML patients treated with azacitidine or decitabine.

Download Full-text