Steven D. Gore

PURPOSE: In a phase III randomized trial, azacitidine significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) compared with conventional care regimens (CCRs) in patients with intermediate-2- and high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Approximately one third of these patients were classified as having acute myeloid leukemia (AML) under current WHO criteria. This analysis compared the effects of azacitidine versus CCR on OS in this subgroup. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m(2)/d or CCR (best supportive care [BSC] only, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), or intensive chemotherapy [IC]). RESULTS: Of the 113 elderly patients (median age, 70 years) randomly assigned to receive azacitidine (n = 55) or CCR (n = 58; 47% BSC, 34% LDAC, 19% IC), 86% were considered unfit for IC. At a median follow-up of 20.1 months, median OS for azacitidine-treated patients was 24.5 months compared with 16.0 months for CCR-treated patients (hazard ratio = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.79; P = .005), and 2-year OS rates were 50% and 16%, respectively (P = .001). Two-year OS rates were higher with azacitidine versus CCR in patients considered unfit for IC (P = .0003). Azacitidine was associated with fewer total days in hospital (P < .0001) than CCR. CONCLUSION: In older adult patients with low marrow blast count (20% to 30%) WHO-defined AML, azacitidine significantly prolongs OS and significantly improves several patient morbidity measures compared with CCR.

Standardized criteria for assessing response are essential to ensure comparability among clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). An international working group of experienced clinicians involved in the management of patients with MDS reviewed currently used response definitions and developed a uniform set of guidelines for future clinical trials in MDS. The MDS differ from many other hematologic malignancies in their chronicity and the morbidity and mortality caused by chronic cytopenias, often without disease progression to acute myeloid leukemia. Whereas response rates may be an important endpoint for phase 2 studies of new agents and may assist regulatory agencies in their evaluation and approval processes, an important goal of clinical trials in MDS should be to prolong patient survival. Therefore, these response criteria reflected 2 sets of goals in MDS: altering the natural history of the disease and alleviating disease-related complications with improved quality of life. It is anticipated that the recommendations presented will require modification as more is learned about the molecular biology and genetics of these disorders. Until then, it is hoped these guidelines will serve to improve communication among investigators and to ensure comparability among clinical trials. (Blood. 2000;96:3671-3674)

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common form of acute leukemia among adults and accounts for the largest number of annual deaths due to leukemias in the United States. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines for AML focuses on management and provides recommendations on the workup, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment options for younger (age <60 years) and older (age ≥60 years) adult patients.

PURPOSE: Azacitidine (AZA) is the current standard of care for high-risk (ie, International Prognostic Scoring System high or intermediate 2) myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), but most patients will experience primary or secondary treatment failure. The outcome of these patients has not yet been described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 435 patients with high-risk MDS and former refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation (RAEB-T) were evaluated for outcome after AZA failure. The cohort of patients included four data sets (ie, AZA001, J9950, and J0443 trials and the French compassionate use program). RESULTS: The median follow-up after AZA failure was 15 months. The median overall survival was 5.6 months, and the 2-year survival probability was 15%. Increasing age, male sex, high-risk cytogenetics, higher bone marrow blast count, and the absence of prior hematologic response to AZA were associated with significantly worse survival in multivariate analysis. Data on treatment administered after AZA failure were available for 270 patients. Allogeneic stem-cell transplantation and investigational agents were associated with a better outcome when compared with conventional clinical care. CONCLUSION: Outcome after AZA failure is poor. Our results should serve as a basis for designing second-line clinical trials in this population.