Dataset Information

Use of Azacitidine or Decitabine for the Up-Front Setting in Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Irruption of decitabine and azacitidine has led to profound changes in the upfront management of older acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). However, they have not been directly compared in a randomised clinical trial. In addition, there are no studies comparing the optimal treatment schedule of each drug in AML. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of decitabine and azacitidine monotherapy in newly diagnosed AML was conducted. Randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies were included. A total of 2743 patients from 23 cohorts were analysed (10 cohorts of azacitidine and 13 of decitabine). Similar response rates were observed for azacitidine (38%, 95% CI: 30-47%) compared to decitabine (40%, 95% CI: 32-48%) (p = 0.825). Overall survival (OS) between azacitidine (10.04 months, 95% CI: 8.36-11.72) and decitabine (8.79 months, 95% CI: 7.62-9.96) was also similar (p = 0.386). Patients treated with azacitidine showed a lower median OS when azacitidine was administered for 5 days (6.28 months, 95% CI: 4.23-8.32) compared to the standard 7-day schedule (10.83 months, 95% CI: 9.07-12.59, p = 0.002). Among patients treated with decitabine, response rates and OS were not significantly different between 5-day and 10-day decitabine regimens. Despite heterogeneity between studies, we found no differences in response rates and OS in AML patients treated with azacitidine or decitabine.

SUBMITTER: Saiz-Rodriguez M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8616518 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of Azacitidine or Decitabine for the Up-Front Setting in Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Saiz-Rodríguez Miriam M Labrador Jorge J Cuevas Beatriz B Martínez-Cuadrón David D Campuzano Verónica V Alcaraz Raquel R Cano Isabel I Sanz Miguel A MA Montesinos Pau P

Cancers 20211112 22

Irruption of decitabine and azacitidine has led to profound changes in the upfront management of older acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). However, they have not been directly compared in a randomised clinical trial. In addition, there are no studies comparing the optimal treatment schedule of each drug in AML. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of decitabine and azacitidine monotherapy in newly diagnosed AML was conducted. Randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies wer ...[more]

PMID: 34830832

Similar Datasets

Project description:FUS-ERG is a chimeric gene with a poor prognosis, found in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). It remains unclear whether DNA hypomethylating agents, including azacitidine (Aza), are effective in FUS-ERG-harbouring AML and how FUS-ERG induces chemoresistance. Stable Ba/F3 transfectants with FUS-ERG were repeatedly exposed to Aza for 7 days of treatment and at 21-day intervals to investigate Aza sensitivity. Stable FUS-ERG transfectants acquired resistance acquired resistance after three courses of Aza exposure. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed when Aza susceptibility began to change; genes with altered expression or transcript variants were identified. Molecular signatures of these genes were analysed using gene ontology. RNA-seq analyses identified 74 upregulated and 320 downregulated genes involved in cell motility, cytokine production, and kinase activity. Additionally, 1321 genes with altered transcript variants were identified, revealing their involvement in chromatin organisation. In a clinical case of AML with FUS-ERG, we compared whole-genome alterations between the initial MDS diagnosis and AML recurrence after Aza treatment. Genes with non-synonymous or near mutations in transcription regulatory areas (TRAs), additionally detected in AML recurrence, were collated with the gene list from RNA-seq to identify genes involved in acquiring Aza resistance in the presence of FUS-ERG. Whole-genome sequencing of clinical specimens identified 29 genes with non-synonymous mutations, including BCOR, and 48 genes located within 20 kb of 54 TRA mutations in AML recurrence. These genes were involved in chromatin organisation and included NCOR2 as an overlapping gene with RNA-seq data. Transcription regulators involved in mutated TRAs were skewed and included RCOR1 in AML recurrence. We tested the efficacy of BH3 mimetics, including venetoclax and S63845, in primary Aza-resistant AML cells treated with FUS-ERG. Primary FUS-ERG-harbouring AML cells acquiring Aza resistance affected the myeloid cell leukaemia-1 (MCL1) inhibitor S63845 but not while using venetoclax, despite no mutations in BCL2. FUS-ERG promoted Aza resistance after several treatments. The disturbance of chromatin organisation might induce this by co-repressors, including BCOR, NCOR2, and RCOR1. MCL1 inhibition could partially overcome Aza resistance in FUS-ERG-harbouring AML cells.

Project description:BackgroundThe MDS-IWG and NCCN currently endorse both FAB and WHO classifications of MDS and AML, thus allowing patients with 20-30 % bone marrow blasts (AML20-30, formerly MDS-RAEB-t) to be categorised and treated as either MDS or AML. In addition, an artificial distinction between AML20-30 and AML30+ was made by regulatory agencies by initially restricting approval of azacitidine to AML20-30. Thus, uncertainty prevails regarding the diagnosis, prognosis and optimal treatment timing and strategy for patients with AML20-30. Here, we aim to provide clarification for patients treated with azacitidine front-line.MethodsThe Austrian Azacitidine Registry is a multicentre database (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01595295). For this analysis, we selected 339 patients treated with azacitidine front-line. According to the WHO classification 53, 96 and 190 patients had MDS-RAEB-I, MDS-RAEB-II and AML (AML20-30: n = 79; AML30+: n = 111), respectively. According to the FAB classification, 131, 101 and 111 patients had MDS-RAEB, MDS-RAEB-t and AML, respectively.ResultsThe median ages of patients with MDS and AML were 72 (range 37-87) and 77 (range 23-93) years, respectively. Overall, 80 % of classifiable patients (≤30 % bone marrow blasts) had intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS scores. Most other baseline, treatment and response characteristics were similar between patients diagnosed with MDS or AML. WHO-classified patients with AML20-30 had significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB-II (13.1 vs 18.9 months; p = 0.010), but similar OS to patients with AML30+ (10.9 vs 13.1 months; p = 0.238). AML patients that showed MDS-related features did not have worse outcomes compared with patients who did not (13.2 vs 8.9 months; p = 0.104). FAB-classified patients with MDS-RAEB-t had similar survival to patients with AML30+ (12.8 vs 10.9 months; p = 0.376), but significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB (10.9 vs 24.4 months; p < 0.001).ConclusionsOur data demonstrate the validity of the WHO classification of MDS and AML, and its superiority over the former FAB classification, for patients treated with azacitidine front-line. Neither bone marrow blast count nor presence of MDS-related features had an adverse prognostic impact on survival. Patients with AML20-30 should therefore be regarded as having 'true AML' and in our opinion treatment should be initiated without delay.

Project description:BackgroundFront-line therapy for elderly or unfit patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) remains unsatisfactory with poor outcomes and excessive toxicity. We studied a new low-intensity regimen of cladribine combined with low-dose cytarabine alternating with decitabine, aimed at improving outcomes in this population. Based on our previous experience, we hypothesised that this combination would be safe and more effective than current approaches with hypomethylating agents.MethodsIn this single-arm, open-label, single-centre phase 2 study, we enrolled patients aged 60 years or older with previously untreated AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome who had adequate organ function and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients were treated with cladribine plus low-dose cytarabine for two 28-day cycles alternating with decitabine for two 28-day cycles, for up to 18 cycles. Induction therapy (cycle 1) consisted of cladribine 5 mg/m2 intravenously over 1-2 h on days 1-5 and cytarabine 20 mg subcutaneously twice daily on days 1-10. Patients who had remission during this induction regimen moved on to consolidation therapy (cladribine 5 mg/m2 intravenously over 1-2 h on days 1-3 and cytarabine 20 mg twice daily on days 1-10, alternating with decitabine 20 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-5). The primary outcome measure was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were overall survival, proportion of patients achieving complete response, proportion of patients achieving response, toxicity, and induction mortality. All treated patients were included in the analyses. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515527.FindingsBetween Feb 17, 2012, and July 6, 2017, 118 patients were enrolled and treated, among whom 48 (41%) had an adverse karyotype, 20 (17%) had therapy-related AML, 18 (15%) had treated secondary AML, and 20 (17%) had TP53 mutations. Median disease-free survival was 10·8 months (IQR 5·4-25·9). 80 (68%) patients achieved objective response: 69 (58%) achieved a complete response and 11 (9%) patients had complete response with incomplete count recovery. The median overall survival was 13·8 months (6·9-28·6). The regimen was well tolerated, with one (1%) death within the first 4 weeks and eight (7%) deaths within the first 8 weeks. The most common non-haematological adverse events of grade 3 or worse were infection (88 [75%] patients), elevated total bilirubin (26 [22%] patients), rash (13 [11%] patients), and nausea (13 [11%] patients).InterpretationThe combination of cladribine and low-dose cytarabine alternating with decitabine appears to be a safe and highly effective regimen for the treatment of elderly or unfit patients with newly diagnosed AML. Further testing of this regimen is warranted, and could help to provide a new, effective option for reduced-intensity therapy in this population.FundingPart supported by the National Institutes of Health.

Project description:Background: The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DAC) have been widely used in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (HR-MDS). However, few direct clinical trials have been carried out to compare the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) between these two agents. The clinical choice between them is controversial. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the efficacy, safety, and survival of DAC and AZA in AML and HR-MDS patients. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library through March 15, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on AML or HR-MDS patients comparing the efficacy and safety between DAC and AZA or comparing one of HMAs to conventional care regimens (CCR) were selected. Results: Eight RCTs (n = 2,184) were identified in the NMA. Four trials compared AZA to CCR, and four compared DAC to CCR. Direct comparisons indicated that, compared to CCR, both AZA and DAC were associated with higher overall response (OR) rate (AZA vs. CCR: relative risk (RR) = 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.1; DAC vs. CCR: RR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.21-3.79) and longer overall survival (OS) (AZA vs. CCR: HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82; DAC vs. CCR: HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98), and AZA showed higher rate of complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) (HR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.27-5). For the indirect method, DAC showed a higher complete remission (CR) rate than AZA in patients with both AML (RR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.12-4.65) and MDS (RR = 7.57, 95% CI 1.26-45.54). Additionally, DAC significantly increased the risk of 3/4 grade anemia (RR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.03-2.51), febrile neutropenia (RR = 4.03, 95% CI: 1.41-11.52), and leukopenia (RR = 3.43, 95% CI 1.64-7.16) compared with AZA. No statistical significance was found for the other studied outcomes. Conclusion: Compared to CCR, both AZA and DAC can promote outcomes in patients with AML and HR-MDS. DAC showed higher efficacy especially CR rate than AZA (low-certainty evidence), while AZA experienced lower frequent grade 3/4 cytopenia than patients receiving DAC treatment.

Dataset Information

Use of Azacitidine or Decitabine for the Up-Front Setting in Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Use of Azacitidine or Decitabine for the Up-Front Setting in Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets