International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts

Hervé Dombret(Université Paris Cité), John F. Seymour(The University of Melbourne), Aleksandra Butrym(Wroclaw Medical University), Agnieszka Wierzbowska(Medical University of Lodz), Dominik Selleslag(AZ Sint-Jan), Jun Ho Jang(Samsung Medical Center), Rajat Kumar(CancerCare Manitoba), James D. Cavenagh(National Health Service), Andre C. Schuh(Princess Margaret Cancer Centre), Anna Candoni(Ospedale Santa Maria della Misericordia di Udine), Christian Récher(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse), Irwindeep Sandhu(Alberta Hospital Edmonton), Teresa Bernal del Castillo(Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias), Haifa Kathrin Al‐Ali(University Hospital Leipzig), Giovanni Martinelli(Istituto Oncologico Romagnolo), José Falantes(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Richard Noppeney(Essen University Hospital), Richard M. Stone(Harvard University), Mark D. Minden(Princess Margaret Cancer Centre), Heidi McIntyre, S. Songer, Lela M. Lucy, C. L. Beach, Hartmut Döhner(University Hospital Ulm)
Cited by 1,144Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated azacitidine efficacy and safety vs conventional care regimens (CCRs) in 488 patients age ≥65 years with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with >30% bone marrow blasts. Before randomization, a CCR (standard induction chemotherapy, low-dose ara-c, or supportive care only) was preselected for each patient. Patients then were assigned 1:1 to azacitidine (n = 241) or CCR (n = 247). Patients assigned to CCR received their preselected treatment. Median overall survival (OS) was increased with azacitidine vs CCR: 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-12.7 months) vs 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.6 months), respectively (hazard ratio [HR] was 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.03; stratified log-rank P = .1009). One-year survival rates with azacitidine and CCR were 46.5% and 34.2%, respectively (difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 3.5%-21.0%). A prespecified analysis censoring patients who received AML treatment after discontinuing study drug showed median OS with azacitidine vs CCR was 12.1 months (95% CI, 9.2-14.2 months) vs 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.1-9.6 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96; stratified log-rank P = .0190). Univariate analysis showed favorable trends for azacitidine compared with CCR across all subgroups defined by baseline demographic and disease features. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profile of azacitidine. Azacitidine may be an important treatment option for this difficult-to-treat AML population. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01074047.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis