User login
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: AML May 2021
Two recently published studies added to our knowledge on the clinical benefit of gemtuzumab in patients with AML. The first study by Bouvier A et al demonstrated no survival benefit with the addition of gemtuzumab in patients with intermediate risk AML. The second study by Duncan et al was a retrospective study by the CIBMTR. That study demonstrated increased risk of VOD in pediatric patients who received gemtuzmab. However, overall survival and event free survival was similar in both groups. These results highlight the need for increased awareness post-transplant for the possibility of VOD, and also reduces concern regarding overall survival for patients receiving gemtuzumab.
Another study by the EBMT (Debaja et al) evaluated factors affecting the outcome of patients with AML receiving a second allogeneic HCT. Outcome was worse for patients not in CR and those with a short time from allo-HCT. Overall survival was similar for patients receiving a MUD or haploidentical donor. Two year overall survival was 31% vs. 29% for patients receiving MUD vs. haploidentical allo-HCT. This study clearly expands options for patients receiving a second allo-HCT. In addition, a prior study by EBMT demonstrated no difference in overall survival between patients receiving same vs. different vs. haplo donor.
Finally, a large study by the CIBMTR (Percival et al) demonstrated that in AML patients, achieving CRi and having persistent MRD prior to transplantation were associated with worse outcome compared to CR with no evidence of MRD. The adjusted 5 year survival for patient with CR/MRD-ve, CR/MRD+ve, CRi/MRD-ve and CRi/MRD+ve was 52%, 37%, 44% and 34% respectively.
Two recently published studies added to our knowledge on the clinical benefit of gemtuzumab in patients with AML. The first study by Bouvier A et al demonstrated no survival benefit with the addition of gemtuzumab in patients with intermediate risk AML. The second study by Duncan et al was a retrospective study by the CIBMTR. That study demonstrated increased risk of VOD in pediatric patients who received gemtuzmab. However, overall survival and event free survival was similar in both groups. These results highlight the need for increased awareness post-transplant for the possibility of VOD, and also reduces concern regarding overall survival for patients receiving gemtuzumab.
Another study by the EBMT (Debaja et al) evaluated factors affecting the outcome of patients with AML receiving a second allogeneic HCT. Outcome was worse for patients not in CR and those with a short time from allo-HCT. Overall survival was similar for patients receiving a MUD or haploidentical donor. Two year overall survival was 31% vs. 29% for patients receiving MUD vs. haploidentical allo-HCT. This study clearly expands options for patients receiving a second allo-HCT. In addition, a prior study by EBMT demonstrated no difference in overall survival between patients receiving same vs. different vs. haplo donor.
Finally, a large study by the CIBMTR (Percival et al) demonstrated that in AML patients, achieving CRi and having persistent MRD prior to transplantation were associated with worse outcome compared to CR with no evidence of MRD. The adjusted 5 year survival for patient with CR/MRD-ve, CR/MRD+ve, CRi/MRD-ve and CRi/MRD+ve was 52%, 37%, 44% and 34% respectively.
Two recently published studies added to our knowledge on the clinical benefit of gemtuzumab in patients with AML. The first study by Bouvier A et al demonstrated no survival benefit with the addition of gemtuzumab in patients with intermediate risk AML. The second study by Duncan et al was a retrospective study by the CIBMTR. That study demonstrated increased risk of VOD in pediatric patients who received gemtuzmab. However, overall survival and event free survival was similar in both groups. These results highlight the need for increased awareness post-transplant for the possibility of VOD, and also reduces concern regarding overall survival for patients receiving gemtuzumab.
Another study by the EBMT (Debaja et al) evaluated factors affecting the outcome of patients with AML receiving a second allogeneic HCT. Outcome was worse for patients not in CR and those with a short time from allo-HCT. Overall survival was similar for patients receiving a MUD or haploidentical donor. Two year overall survival was 31% vs. 29% for patients receiving MUD vs. haploidentical allo-HCT. This study clearly expands options for patients receiving a second allo-HCT. In addition, a prior study by EBMT demonstrated no difference in overall survival between patients receiving same vs. different vs. haplo donor.
Finally, a large study by the CIBMTR (Percival et al) demonstrated that in AML patients, achieving CRi and having persistent MRD prior to transplantation were associated with worse outcome compared to CR with no evidence of MRD. The adjusted 5 year survival for patient with CR/MRD-ve, CR/MRD+ve, CRi/MRD-ve and CRi/MRD+ve was 52%, 37%, 44% and 34% respectively.
Clinical Edge Commentary: AML April 2021
In a study by Trembely et al. sponsored by Pfizer, an indirect comparison of both studies was performed using a simulated treatment comparison to account for differences in patient characteristics. As expected, the overall response rates were higher in the venetoclax study compared to the glasdegib study (48% vs. 24%), but overall survival was similar (hazard ratio 0.75 vs. HR 0.46). This study demonstrates again that CR/CRi cannot be used as a surrogate endpoint for survival in AML. In addition, with the negative study of V-LDAC vs. LDAC and the improved overall survival of the combination of azacytidine + venetoclax (Aza-ven) vs. azacitdine, the current standard of care of newly diagnosed patients with AML unbale to tolerate intensive chemotherapy is Aza-ven and V-LDAC is rarely used.
The success of Aza-ven is not without side effects. This was demonstrated recently in a retrospective study by Feld et al. In that study 72 patients with newly diagnosed AML (26), relapsed refractory AML (39) and MDS (7) received azacitdine + venetoclax. The main side effect was myelosuppression with only 15% of patients who were transfusion dependent become transfusion independent. In addition, 46% of patients had a neutropenic fever and 43.7% of patients requiring admission. Most patients (54.9%) required treatment interruption and 35.2% stopped venetoclax for toxicity.
This study highlighted that the optimal dose and frequency of venetoclax remains unclear. A shorted duration or lower dose of venetoclax maybe more ideal, however that may lead to less efficacy. In addition, bone marrow evaluation to assess for cellularity on D21 to D28 of the first cycle may help guide dose adjustments. Finally with the high CR/CRi rates in AML and short duration of response further studies are ongoing to further define molecular abnormalities that may refine prognosis or guide therapy. Two of those studies recently reported identified a prognostic and possible therapeutic role for both EZH2 and the PI3 kinase mTOR pathway.
In a study by Trembely et al. sponsored by Pfizer, an indirect comparison of both studies was performed using a simulated treatment comparison to account for differences in patient characteristics. As expected, the overall response rates were higher in the venetoclax study compared to the glasdegib study (48% vs. 24%), but overall survival was similar (hazard ratio 0.75 vs. HR 0.46). This study demonstrates again that CR/CRi cannot be used as a surrogate endpoint for survival in AML. In addition, with the negative study of V-LDAC vs. LDAC and the improved overall survival of the combination of azacytidine + venetoclax (Aza-ven) vs. azacitdine, the current standard of care of newly diagnosed patients with AML unbale to tolerate intensive chemotherapy is Aza-ven and V-LDAC is rarely used.
The success of Aza-ven is not without side effects. This was demonstrated recently in a retrospective study by Feld et al. In that study 72 patients with newly diagnosed AML (26), relapsed refractory AML (39) and MDS (7) received azacitdine + venetoclax. The main side effect was myelosuppression with only 15% of patients who were transfusion dependent become transfusion independent. In addition, 46% of patients had a neutropenic fever and 43.7% of patients requiring admission. Most patients (54.9%) required treatment interruption and 35.2% stopped venetoclax for toxicity.
This study highlighted that the optimal dose and frequency of venetoclax remains unclear. A shorted duration or lower dose of venetoclax maybe more ideal, however that may lead to less efficacy. In addition, bone marrow evaluation to assess for cellularity on D21 to D28 of the first cycle may help guide dose adjustments. Finally with the high CR/CRi rates in AML and short duration of response further studies are ongoing to further define molecular abnormalities that may refine prognosis or guide therapy. Two of those studies recently reported identified a prognostic and possible therapeutic role for both EZH2 and the PI3 kinase mTOR pathway.
In a study by Trembely et al. sponsored by Pfizer, an indirect comparison of both studies was performed using a simulated treatment comparison to account for differences in patient characteristics. As expected, the overall response rates were higher in the venetoclax study compared to the glasdegib study (48% vs. 24%), but overall survival was similar (hazard ratio 0.75 vs. HR 0.46). This study demonstrates again that CR/CRi cannot be used as a surrogate endpoint for survival in AML. In addition, with the negative study of V-LDAC vs. LDAC and the improved overall survival of the combination of azacytidine + venetoclax (Aza-ven) vs. azacitdine, the current standard of care of newly diagnosed patients with AML unbale to tolerate intensive chemotherapy is Aza-ven and V-LDAC is rarely used.
The success of Aza-ven is not without side effects. This was demonstrated recently in a retrospective study by Feld et al. In that study 72 patients with newly diagnosed AML (26), relapsed refractory AML (39) and MDS (7) received azacitdine + venetoclax. The main side effect was myelosuppression with only 15% of patients who were transfusion dependent become transfusion independent. In addition, 46% of patients had a neutropenic fever and 43.7% of patients requiring admission. Most patients (54.9%) required treatment interruption and 35.2% stopped venetoclax for toxicity.
This study highlighted that the optimal dose and frequency of venetoclax remains unclear. A shorted duration or lower dose of venetoclax maybe more ideal, however that may lead to less efficacy. In addition, bone marrow evaluation to assess for cellularity on D21 to D28 of the first cycle may help guide dose adjustments. Finally with the high CR/CRi rates in AML and short duration of response further studies are ongoing to further define molecular abnormalities that may refine prognosis or guide therapy. Two of those studies recently reported identified a prognostic and possible therapeutic role for both EZH2 and the PI3 kinase mTOR pathway.
Myelodysplastic Syndromes
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a spectrum of clonal myeloid disorders characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis, cytopenias, qualitative disorders of blood cells, clonal chromosomal abnormalities, and the potential for clonal evolution to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this review, we discuss the various pathogenic conditions included in the spectrum of MDS and the associated risk stratification for these conditions. We further discuss the treatment recommendations based on the risk status and the expected prognosis.
To read the full article in PDF:
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a spectrum of clonal myeloid disorders characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis, cytopenias, qualitative disorders of blood cells, clonal chromosomal abnormalities, and the potential for clonal evolution to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this review, we discuss the various pathogenic conditions included in the spectrum of MDS and the associated risk stratification for these conditions. We further discuss the treatment recommendations based on the risk status and the expected prognosis.
To read the full article in PDF:
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a spectrum of clonal myeloid disorders characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis, cytopenias, qualitative disorders of blood cells, clonal chromosomal abnormalities, and the potential for clonal evolution to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this review, we discuss the various pathogenic conditions included in the spectrum of MDS and the associated risk stratification for these conditions. We further discuss the treatment recommendations based on the risk status and the expected prognosis.
To read the full article in PDF: