GRASPA-AML 2012-01 study (NCT01810705): A multicenter, open, randomized phase 2b trial evaluating ERY001 (L-asparaginase encapsulated in red blood cells) plus low-dose cytarabine vs low-dose cytarabine alone, in treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) elderly patients, unfit for intensive chemotherapy.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS7099-TPS7099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier G. Thomas ◽  
Emmanuelle Tavernier Tardy ◽  
Romain Guieze ◽  
Patrice Chevallier ◽  
Jean pierre Marolleau ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 2016009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maël Heiblig ◽  
Mohamed Elhamri ◽  
Isabelle Tigaud ◽  
Adriana Plesa ◽  
Fiorenza Barraco ◽  
...  

Objectives: Low-dose cytarabine (LD-AraC) is still regarded as the standard of care in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ‘unfit’ for intensive chemotherapy. In this study, we compared the efficacy of LD-AraC, in patients ≥ 70 years old, with that of intensive chemotherapy, best supportive care (BSC), or hypomethylating agents in a single institution experience.Methods: Between 2000 and 2014, 60 patients received LD-AraC at 20 mg once or twice daily by subcutaneous injection for 10 consecutive days every 4-6 weeks. 85 patients were treated by intensive chemotherapy, 34 patients by hypomethylating agents, and 43 patients only by BSC.Results: Complete remission rate with LD-AraC was 7% versus 56% with intensive chemotherapy and 21% with hypomethylating agents. Median overall survival (OS) of patients treated with LD-AraC was 9.6 months with 3-year OS of 12%. Survival with LD-AraC was better than with BSC only (P = 0.001). Although not statistically significant, intensive chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents tended to be better than LD-AraC in terms of OS (median: 12.4 months and 16.1 months, respectively). There was no clear evidence that a beneficial effect of LD-AraC was restricted to any particular subtype of patients, except for cytogenetics.Conclusions: Despite a trend in favor of intensive chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents over LD-AraC, no real significant advantage could be demonstrated, while LD-AraC showed a significant advantage comparatively to BSC. This tends to confirm that LD-AraC can still represent a baseline against which new promising agents may be compared either alone or in combination.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1338-1338
Author(s):  
Seung-Hwan Shin ◽  
Seung-Ah Yahng ◽  
Jae-Ho Yoon ◽  
Byung-Sik Cho ◽  
Hee-Je Kim ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: For elderly patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), low-dose cytarabine (LDAC; 20 mg SQ BID for 10 days) still remains to be the standard treatment, despite its unsatisfactory complete response (CR) rate of 18% and median overall survival (OS) of < 6 months (Burnett, 2007). Recently, there have been huge efforts to develop more effective and less-toxic therapies, such as decitabine, azacitidine, clofarabine, or gemtuzumab ozogamicin, but their benefits were not concrete, even though they were compared to the classical LDAC. To improve outcomes of the classical LDAC, we modified it by giving a higher dose of cytarabine for an extended duration in combination with oral etoposide. Herein, we present the results. Methods: Between 2002 and 2014, 93 consecutive older (≥ 60 years) patients with AML, who were unfit for intensive chemotherapy, received 1st cycle of modified LDAC (mLDAC) regimen consisting of cytarabine (20 mg/m2 SQ BID) and oral etoposide (50 mg PO BID) for 14 days. Thereafter, they received additional subsequent cycles (for a maximum of 7 cycles) for 10 days every 6 to 8 weeks. We retrospectively analyzed their overall response (OR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) rates. In this analysis, OR was defined as CR plus CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) or blood count recovery (CRi). Results: The median age of patients in our cohort, including 69 (74.2%) with poor performance status (ECOG ≥ 2), 15 (16.1%) with AML with myelodysplastic-related changes or secondary AML, and 13 (14.0%) with poor cytogenetic risk, was 68 years (range, 60-83). The median number of mLDAC regimen cycles which they received was 2 (range, 1-8). Clinically relevant toxicities of grade III-IV including nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia and neutropenic fever were observed in 4 (4.3%) patients, 6 (6.5%), 3 (3.2%), and 42 (45.2%), respectively, which were comparable with those of classical LDAC (Burnett, 2007). The early mortality rates at 30 and 60 days were 11.8% and 15.0%, respectively. The OR was observed in 45 (48.4%) patients, including 34 (36.6%) CR, 7 (7.5%) CRp, and 4 (4.3%) CRi, within two cycles of mLDAC. With median follow-up duration of 26.1 months, the median DFS and OS were 6.2 and 15.8 months, respectively. For patients who achieved OR, they were 14.5 and 36.9 months, respectively. The OR of patients who had poor cytogenetic risk was not significantly different compared to others (57.1%, 46.2%, and 38.5% for favorable, intermediate, and poor cytogenetics, respectively; P=0.50). However, they showed significantly shorter median DFS (9.8, 6.6, and 5.1 months, respectively; P=0.01) and OS (NR, 1.4, and 5.1 months, respectively; P=0.01) with significantly shorter OR duration (30.6, 19.1, and 8.6 months, respectively; P=0.01). Between 2009 and 2014, among 17 patients treated with hypomethylating agents (HMA; 14 decitabine and 3 azacitidine), 1 CR and 3 partial response were achieved with a median survival of 5.5 months, and 5 patients after HMA treatment failure received subsequent mLDAC, and 3 achieved additional CR (n=2) and CRp (n=1). Conclusions: These results suggest that the outcomes of classical LDAC in elderly patients with AML can be improved by modifying it, with improved response and survival rates without increasing toxicities, even in patients with poor cytogenetics. Additionally, mLDAC could induce clinical responses in patients with HMA failure. Our mLDAC regimen may become another therapeutic option with emerging novel agents for elderly patients with AML, and these should be confirmed by large randomized trials. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Leukemia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Florian H. Heidel ◽  
Andrzej Hellmann ◽  
Walter Fiedler ◽  
B. Douglas Smith ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 290-299.e3
Author(s):  
Eun-Ji Choi ◽  
Je-Hwan Lee ◽  
Han-Seung Park ◽  
Jung-Hee Lee ◽  
Miee Seol ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7067-7067
Author(s):  
S. Qian ◽  
J. Li ◽  
S. Zhang

7067 Background: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of low-dose cytarabine and aclarubicin in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) protocol in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Methods: A total of fifty-two elderly patients were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients were male, and 24 were female, with ages ranging from 60 to 81 years (median, 65 years). Complete remission (CR) had not been achieved in five patients after 2 courses of a standard induction regimen including daunorubicin and cytarabine or an equivalent anthracycline-based regimen. Cytogenetic analysis was performed in 40 patients, and unfavourable cytogenetic aberrations were showed in 10 patients. All patients were treated with CAG regimen including low-dose cytarabine (10 mg/m2 per 12 hours, days 1 to 14), aclarubicin (10 mg per day, days 1 to 8), and G-CSF priming (200 μg/m2 per day, days 1 to 14). Results: The overall response rate was 69.2%, and 29 of 52 (55.8%) patients achieved CR, including 23 of 35 (65.8%) patients with previously untreated AML, 6 of 17 (35.2% ) patients with refractory, relapsed and secondary AML, 4 of 9 (44.4%) patients aged over 70 years, 4 of 10 (40.0%) patients with unfavourable cytogenetic aberrations. The early death rate was 7.6%. The median overall survival duration 14 months. Myelosuppression was mild to moderate, severe nonhematologic toxicity was not observed. Conclusions: CAG priming regimen as the induction therapy is well tolerable and effective in elderly patients with AML. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 4640-4640
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Mettivier ◽  
Luca Pezzullo ◽  
Stefano Rocco ◽  
Olimpia Finizio ◽  
Lucia Bene ◽  
...  

Abstract The treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in elderly with age > 65 years is still debated. Various reported studies have valued the feasibility of intensive chemotherapy in these setting of patients. The aim of the our study is to value the difference in DFS and OS among 2 groups of elderly patients with AML treated with intensive chemotherapy (IC) or maintenance (M). From June 2001 to May 2005 we have accepted in our Division 45 patients affected by AML aged up to 65 years. 25 were male and 20 were female, with a median age of 75 years (range 67–86 years). 22 patients (12 M and 10 F, median age: 71 years) received intensive chemotherapy (I.C. Flag and MICE) and 23 (13 M and 10 F, median age: 78 years) received or maintenance therapy (low dose cytarabine) or only support. In IC group 11 patients (50%) have obtained to complete remission (CR) with a DSF and OS media of 7,5 and 6,3 months respectively, and a TRM rate of 27%. In the M group the CR has been documented in 6 patients (35%) treated with low dose of cytarabine, with a DFS and OS media of 6,9 and 4,4 months respectively (graph 1–2). This results have shown, as expected, a better CR rate in the IC group, but without any advantage in terms of OS and DFS when compared with the M group. Difference is not statistically significant between the two groups (p: 0.5). Despite a good CR rate, Intensive chemotherapy do not improves survival in elderly patients. This is probably due to the combination of either a high TRM in patients treated with intensive chemotherapy or a high relapse rate. New therapeutics strategies are needed to improve DFS and OS in these patients. Interesting is the use of specific monoclonal antibodies (anti CD33) in this poor risk disease especially in maintenance after a CR obtainable with a low intensive or low dose chemotherapy. Figure Figure


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document