The Role of Anti-CD33 for the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia – Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1521-1521
Author(s):  
Ronit Gurion ◽  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Ron Ram ◽  
Liat Vidal ◽  
Pia Raanani ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1521 The treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has not changed dramatically for the last 20 years. Anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody therapy, the most prominent of which is gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO), has been used over the last decade, in order to improve the results of patients with AML. It has been studied in a variety of contexts; at induction, consolidation and as re-induction after disease relapse. Several randomized controlled trials have evaluated the addition of anti-CD33 to chemotherapy as compared to chemotherapy alone for the treatment of AML. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing addition of anti-CD33 to chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in patients with AML, for either induction or post-remission therapy. Patients under 18 years old or those with acute promyelocytic leukemia were excluded. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings and references were searched until July 2012. Two reviewers appraised the quality of trials and extracted data. Outcomes assessed were: all-cause mortality at 30 days, all-cause mortality at the end of follow up, complete response and relapse rate. Relative risks (RR) were estimated and pooled. Our search yielded 11 included trials, five of them published as abstracts, including 5239 patients. Most trials assessed GO and two trials assessed lintuzumab as the anti-CD33 agent. Dose and schedule differed between trials. Eight trials examined the effect of anti-CD33 in the induction setting: six assessed the addition of anti-CD33 to intensive induction (daunorubicin and cytarabine based) and two used low dose cytarabine in elderly patients. Three trials examined the addition of anti-CD33 in the post remission setting (one as consolidation, one as maintenance and one after relapse). When analyzing the addition of anti-CD33 in all settings together, there was no difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days or at the end of follow up between chemotherapy with anti-CD33 and chemotherapy alone (RR 1.15 [95% CI, 0.96–1.37, 7 trials], RR 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92–1.00, 8 trials] respectively). In the subgroup of favorable and intermediate risk AML, the addition of anti-CD33 had no effect on all-cause mortality, RR 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87–1.02, 3 trials)], however when analyzing the subgroup of favorable risk patients only, mortality was significantly reduced with the use of anti-CD33 (RR 0.60, 95% CI, 0.42–0.85, 2 trials). Treatment with anti-CD33 had no effect on complete remission rate, RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.96–1.14, 7 trials). Yet, it significantly reduced relapse rate, RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.84–0.96, 4 trials). There was not enough data to evaluate the incidence of veno-occlusive disease. In conclusion, the addition of anti-CD33 to chemotherapy significantly decreased relapse rate, with no effect on all cause mortality. Yet, in the favorable risk subgroup, the use of anti-CD33 significantly reduced mortality. Further research is needed to confirm the beneficial effect in the favorable risk AML patients. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanzhi Song ◽  
Zhichao Yin ◽  
Jie Ding ◽  
Tong Wu

BackgroundReduced intensity conditioning (RIC) before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) has been reported to have the same overall survival (OS) as myeloablative conditioning (MAC) for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in complete remission (CR) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). However, results from different studies are conflicting. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis guided by PRISMA 2009 to confirm the efficacy and safety of RIC vs. MAC for AML in CR and MDS.MethodsWe search PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane central, clinical trial registries and related websites, major conference proceedings, and field-related journals from January 1, 1980, to July 1, 2020, for studies comparing RIC with MAC before the first allo-HSCT in patients with AML in CR or MDS. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. OS was the primary endpoint and generic inverse variance method was used to combine hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI.ResultsWe retrieved 7,770 records. Six RCTs with 1,413 participants (711 in RIC, 702 in MAC) were included. RIC had the same OS (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.64–1.4, p = 0.80) and cumulative incidence of relapse as MAC (HR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.88–1.59, p = 0.28). Furthermore, RIC significantly reduced non-relapse mortality more than total body irradiation/busulfan-based MAC (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.36–0.80, p = 0.002) and had similar long-term OS and graft failure as MAC.ConclusionRIC conditioning regimens are recommended as an adequate option of preparative treatment before allo-HSCT for patients with AML in CR or MDS.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=185436.


2021 ◽  
pp. 152660282110235
Author(s):  
Krystal Dinh ◽  
Alexandra M. Limmer ◽  
Andy Z. L. Chen ◽  
Shannon D. Thomas ◽  
Andrew Holden ◽  
...  

Purpose: A late increased mortality risk has been reported in a summary level meta-analysis of patients with femoropopliteal artery occlusive disease treated with paclitaxel-coated angioplasty balloons and stents. However, at the longer follow up timepoints that analysis was limited by small trial numbers and few participants. The aim of this study was to report an updated summary level risk of all-cause mortality after treatment with paclitaxel-coated devices in that same patient group. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the mortality outcomes associated with paclitaxel-coated devices used to treat patients with occlusive disease of femoropopliteal arteries (last search date December 10, 2020). The single primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results: We identified 34 randomized controlled trials (7654 patients; 84% intermittent claudication). There were 622 deaths among 4147 (15.0%) subjects in the paclitaxel device group and 475 deaths among 3507 (13.5%) subjects in the noncoated control group [relative risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.20, p=0.20, I2=0%). All-cause mortality was similar between groups at 12 months (34 studies, 7654 patients; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22, p=0.94, I2=0%), 24 months (20 studies, 3799 patients; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.55, p=0.31, I2=0%), and 60 months (9 studies, 2288 patients; RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.45, p=0.08, I2=0%). Conclusion: This updated meta-analysis with included additional trials and larger patient numbers shows no evidence of increased risk of all-cause mortality in patients treated with paclitaxel-coated devices, compared with uncoated devices for femoropopliteal disease at all time points to 60 months. There is therefore no justification to limit their use, or alter regulatory body follow-up recommendations in this patient population. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42020216140.


2010 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Heuser ◽  
Antonia Zapf ◽  
Michael Morgan ◽  
Jürgen Krauter ◽  
Arnold Ganser

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 2045-2045
Author(s):  
Ronit Gurion ◽  
Yulia Belnik-Plitman ◽  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Mical Paul ◽  
Liat Vidal ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2045 Poster Board II-22 Myeloid colony-stimulating factors (M-CSFs) are recommended as primary prophylaxis for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients who are at high risk for developing it. Since acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells express functional growth factor receptors on their surface, concerns have been raised regarding the effect of M-CSFs on these cells. We assessed the safety of M-CSFs in AML patients. Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials that compared the addition of M-CSFs during and following chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone in patients with AML was conducted. Trials evaluating the role of M-CSFs administered for the purpose of stem cell collection and/or priming e.g., before and/ or only for the duration of chemotherapy, were excluded. Both patients with and without neutropenia and/ or fever on admission were included. Two reviewers appraised the quality of trials and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at defined points in time. Secondary outcomes included complete remission (CR), disease free survival (DFS), relapse and infection rates. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and pooled. The search yielded 17 trials including 4800 patients (range 53-803 per trial). 14 trials included patients undergoing induction chemotherapy, two trials included patients undergoing consolidation and one trial included patients undergoing salvage chemotherapy. The addition of M-CSFs to chemotherapy yielded no difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year and at the end of follow-up [RR 1.00 (95% CI.0.82-1.22), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97-1.19) and RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.98-1.05), respectively] (Fig.1). There was no difference with regard to CR [RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.98-1.07)], relapse [RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.91-1.08)] and DFS [HR 1.00 (95% CI 0.90-1.13)]. M-CSFs did not decrease the occurrence of bacteremias, RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.82-1.12) or invasive fungal infections, RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.90-2.19). The addition of M-CSFs to chemotherapy does not affect all-cause mortality and leukemia associated clinical end points, e.g. CR, relapse rate and DFS. Hence, the use of M-CSFs for prevention of FN in patients with AML is safe. However, since prevention of neutropenia does not result in improved survival, they should not be used on a routine basis. Their use in the individual patient can be considered according to the clinical situation. Fig. 1: All Cause Mortality Fig. 1:. All Cause Mortality Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
V Colamesta ◽  
M Breccia ◽  
S D’Aguanno ◽  
S Bruffa ◽  
C Cartoni ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document