G-CSF plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: academic, open label, randomized trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Trial registration
GA trial is registered under EudraCT#: 2013-001639-38.
SUBMITTER: Stopka T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9262924 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
G-CSF plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: academic, open label, randomized trial.
Stopka Tomáš T Minařík Lubomír L Dusilková Nina N Pešta Michal M Kulvait Vojtěch V Špaček Martin M Zemanová Zuzana Z Kalousová Marta M Jonášová Anna A
Blood cancer journal 20220707 7
<h4>Trial registration</h4>GA trial is registered under EudraCT#: 2013-001639-38. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The AGILE trial compared ivosidenib and azacitidine versus azacitidine for IDH1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in elderly patients who were ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy. While the results of this trial appear encouraging, various concerns become evident from the study design and methodology. First, the AGILE trial did not use post-protocol therapy that met the current standard of care. Second, researchers continued patient enrollment despite knowledge of the survival benefit of azacitidine plus venetoclax shown in the VIALE-A trial, resulting in an inferior control arm. Third, the primary endpoint of AGILE was changed from overall survival (OS) to event-free survival (EFS), and the sample size was reduced to expedite the results. Finally, the trial was halted early based on a non-primary endpoint, which likely led to exaggerated effect size or misleading results. We discuss these limitations and continue to advocate for careful analysis of study design to ensure that appropriate and accurate outcomes are implemented in future studies.
| S-EPMC9460510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematopoietic disorders characterized by dysplasia, ineffective hematopoiesis, and predisposition to secondary acute myeloid leukemias (sAML). Azacitidine (AZA) is the standard care for high-risk MDS patients not eligible for allogenic bone marrow transplantation. However, only half of the patients respond to AZA and eventually all patients relapse. Response-predicting biomarkers and combinatorial drugs targets enhancing therapy response and its duration are needed. Here, we have taken a dual approach. First, we have evaluated genes encoding chromatin regulators for their capacity to modulate AZA response. We were able to validate several genes, whose genetic inhibition affected the cellular AZA response, including 4 genes encoding components of Imitation SWItch chromatin remodeling complex pointing toward a specific function and co-vulnerability. Second, we have used a classical cohort analysis approach measuring the expression of a gene panel in bone marrow samples from 36 MDS patients subsequently receiving AZA. The gene panel included the identified AZA modulators, genes known to be involved in AZA metabolism and previously identified candidate modulators. In addition to confirming a number of previously made observations, we were able to identify several new associations, such as NSUN3 that correlated with increased overall survival. Taken together, we have identified a number of genes associated with AZA response in vitro and in patients. These groups of genes are largely nonoverlapping suggesting that different gene sets need to be exploited for the development of combinatorial drug targets and response-predicting biomarkers.
| S-EPMC9605795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.MethodsIn this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m2) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment.FindingsBetween Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis.InterpretationTo our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting.FundingUS National Cancer Institute.
| S-EPMC8023719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLate treatment failures after artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) for falciparum malaria have increased in the Greater Mekong subregion in southeast Asia. Addition of amodiaquine to artemether-lumefantrine could provide an efficacious treatment for multidrug-resistant infections.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, randomised trial at five hospitals or health centres in three locations (western Cambodia, eastern Cambodia, and Vietnam). Eligible participants were male and female patients aged 2-65 years with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 in blocks of eight to 12) to either artemether-lumefantrine alone (dosed according to WHO guidelines) or artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine (10 mg base per kg/day), both given orally as six doses over 3 days. All received a single dose of primaquine (0·25 mg/kg) 24 h after the start of study treatment to limit transmission of the parasite. Parasites were genotyped, identifying artemisinin resistance. The primary outcome was Kaplan-Meier 42-day PCR-corrected efficacy against recrudescence of the original parasite, assessed by intent-to-treat. Safety was a secondary outcome. This completed trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03355664).FindingsBetween March 18, 2018, and Jan 30, 2020, 310 patients received randomly allocated treatment; 154 received artemether-lumefantrine alone and 156 received artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine. Parasites from 305 of these patients were genotyped. 42-day PCR-corrected treatment efficacy was noted in 151 (97%, 95% CI 92-99) of 156 patients with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine versus 146 (95%, 89-97) of 154 patients with artemether-lumefantrine alone; hazard ratio (HR) for recrudescence 0·6 (95% CI 0·2-1·9, p=0·38). Of the 13 recrudescences, 12 were in 174 (57%) of 305 infections with pfkelch13 mutations indicating artemisinin resistance, for which 42-day efficacy was noted in 89 (96%) of 93 infections with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine versus 73 (90%) of 81 infections with artemether-lumefantrine alone; HR for recrudescence 0·44 (95% CI 0·14-1·40, p=0·17). Artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine was generally well tolerated, but the number of mild (grade 1-2) adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, was greater in this group compared with artemether-lumefantrine alone (vomiting, 12 [8%] with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine vs three [2%] with artemether-lumefantrine alone, p=0·03; and nausea, 11 [7%] with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine vs three [2%] with artemether-lumefantrine alone, p=0·05). Early vomiting within 1 h of treatment, requiring retreatment, occurred in no patients of 154 with artemether-lumefantrine alone versus five (3%) of 156 with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine, p=0·06. Bradycardia (≤54 beats/min) of any grade was noted in 59 (38%) of 154 patients with artemether-lumefantrine alone and 95 (61%) of 156 with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine, p=0·0001.InterpretationArtemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine provides an alternative to artemether-lumefantrine alone as first-line treatment for multidrug-resistant P falciparum malaria in the Greater Mekong subregion, and could prolong the therapeutic lifetime of artemether-lumefantrine in malaria-endemic populations.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust.
| S-EPMC9132777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRetrospective studies suggest that conditioning therapy with busulfan plus melphalan could result in longer progression-free survival compared with melphalan alone in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous haemopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT). We aimed to test this hypothesis in a randomised trial.MethodsThe primary objective of the study was to compare progression-free survival with conditioning of busulfan plus melphalan with melphalan alone in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for cell transplantation, aged 70 years or younger, with at least stable disease, were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment. Patients received either busulfan plus melphalan, with a test dose of busulfan 32 mg/m2 followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days -7, -6, -5, and -4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve (AUC) of 5000 mmol-minute and melphalan 70 mg/m2 per day on days -2 and -1 (total melphalan dose 140 mg/m2), or a melphalan dose of 200 mg/m2 on day -2. Randomisation was performed via a Clinical Trial Conduct Website at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The accrual is complete and final results are presented here. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01413178.FindingsBetween Oct 12, 2011, and March 22, 2017, 205 patients were assessed for eligibility and randomly assigned to treatment. The primary analysis of progression-free survival was measured in 202 patients who received treatment: 104 patients in the busulfan plus melphalan group and 98 patients in the melphalan alone group. 90 days after auto-HCT, 102 (98%) of 104 patients given busulfan plus melphalan and 95 (97%) of 98 patients given melphalan alone achieved partial response or better. The median follow-up in the busulfan plus melphalan group was 22·6 months (IQR 15·2-47·1) and 20·2 months (IQR 8·8-46·6) in the melphalan alone group. Median progression-free survival was 64·7 months (32·9-64·7) with busulfan plus melphalan versus 43·5 months (19·9-not estimated) with melphalan alone (hazard ratio 0·53 [95% CI 0·30-0·91]; p=0·022). There were no treatment-related deaths by day 100 in either group. Grade 2-3 mucositis was observed in 77 (74%) of 104 patients in the busulfan plus melphalan group versus 14 (14%) of 98 patients in the melphalan alone group.InterpretationThese findings, if confirmed in other ongoing studies, suggest that busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the conditioning regimen for auto-HCT in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.FundingThis study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through MD Anderson's Cancer Center Support Grant (CA016672).
| S-EPMC9446704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PANTHER is a global, randomized phase 3 trial of pevonedistat+azacitidine (n = 227) vs azacitidine monotherapy (n = 227) in patients with newly diagnosed higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS; n = 324), higher-risk chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (n = 27), or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with 20% to 30% blasts (n = 103). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). In the intent-to-treat population, the median EFS was 17.7 months with pevonedistat+azacitidine vs 15.7 months with azacitidine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.968; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.757-1.238; P = .557) and in the higher-risk MDS cohort, median EFS was 19.2 vs 15.6 months (HR, 0.887; 95% CI, 0.659-1.193; P = .431). Median overall survival (OS) in the higher-risk MDS cohort was 21.6 vs 17.5 months (HR, 0.785; P = .092), and in patients with AML with 20% to 30% blasts was 14.5 vs 14.7 months (HR, 1.107; P = .664). In a post hoc analysis, median OS in the higher-risk MDS cohort for patients receiving >3 cycles was 23.8 vs 20.6 months (P = .021) and for >6 cycles was 27.1 vs 22.5 months (P = .008). No new safety signals were identified, and the azacitidine dose intensity was maintained. Common hematologic grade ≥3 treatment emergent adverse events were anemia (33% vs 34%), neutropenia (31% vs 33%), and thrombocytopenia (30% vs 30%). These results underscore the importance of large, randomized controlled trials in these heterogeneous myeloid diseases and the value of continuing therapy for >3 cycles. The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03268954.
| S-EPMC9631625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In fit patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is considered standard of care. For mobilization of CD34+ cells for ASCT, combined cytotoxic chemotherapy and G-CSF is commonly used. However, the importance of cytostatic chemotherapy for reliable mobilization remains unclear. This prospective randomized phase II non-inferiority trial compared G-GSF only (G) compared to standard chemotherapy/G-CSF (CG) for CD34+ mobilization. The primary endpoint was a less than 15% difference in successful stem cell collection ( ≥ 5.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg b.w. in a single day collection procedure without additional stimulation with plerixafor) with the G regimen. 136 patients were 1:1 randomized. With an 18% difference in favor of the CG therapy, the non-inferiority margin was not maintained (95% CI 1%, 34%, p = 0.04). The median total CD34+ yield was 9.99 × 106/kg b.w. in CG patients and 7.42 × 106/kg b.w. in patients with G-CSF alone (p < 0.001). Ultimately, 130 (96%) patients proceeded to HDCT with ASCT. There were no differences in adverse events, hematologic engraftment, quality of life, or pain perception between the groups. Our data indicate that G-CSF only is inferior to chemotherapy with G-CSF for peripheral CD34+ stem cell mobilization. Trial registration SNCTP #: SNCTP000002952; Trials.gov #: NCT03442673.
| S-EPMC11893443 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9616883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) defines a group of heterogeneous hematologic malignancies that often progresses to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The leading treatment for high-risk MDS patients is azacitidine (Aza, Vidaza®), but a significant proportion of patients are refractory and all patients eventually relapse after an undefined time period. Therefore, new therapies for MDS are urgently needed. We present here evidence that acadesine (Aca, Acadra®), a nucleoside analog exerts potent anti-leukemic effects in both Aza-sensitive (OCI-M2S) and resistant (OCI-M2R) MDS/AML cell lines in vitro. Aca also exerts potent anti-leukemic effect on bone marrow cells from MDS/AML patients ex-vivo. The effect of Aca on MDS/AML cell line proliferation does not rely on apoptosis induction. It is also noteworthy that Aca is efficient to kill MDS cells in a co-culture model with human medullary stromal cell lines, that mimics better the interaction occurring in the bone marrow. These initial findings led us to initiate a phase I/II clinical trial using Acadra® in 12 Aza refractory MDS/AML patients. Despite a very good response in one out 4 patients, we stopped this trial because the highest Aca dose (210 mg/kg) caused serious renal side effects in several patients. In conclusion, the side effects of high Aca doses preclude its use in patients with strong comorbidities.
| S-EPMC6981810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background5-Azacitidine administered as a 7-day dosing regimen (7-0-0) is approved in high risk IPSS myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients. Alternative regimens such as a 5-day (5-0-0) or 7-day with a weekend break (5-2-2) are commonly used. No randomized controlled trial has been done directly comparing all three dosing regimens. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacies of the 5-0-0, 5-2-2, and 7-0-0 regimens in MDS and AML.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational prospective and retrospective studies. The primary clinical outcomes were Objective Response Rate (ORR) defined as the sum of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and hematological improvement (HI) as defined by the IWG 2006 criteria. A meta-analysis of simple proportions was conducted using a random effects model with weights defined according to Laird and Mosteller. Comparisons between groups were not attempted due to the heterogeneity of study designs.ResultsThe only RCT directly comparing alternative azacitidine regimens showed no difference in ORR between the 5-0-0 and 5-2-2 regimens. All other RCTs compared a dosing regimen to conventional care. The pooled proportion of ORR was 44.8% with 95% CI (42.8%, 45.5%) for 7-0-0, 41.2% with 95% CI (39.2%, 41.9%) for 5-0-0, and 45.8% with 95% CI (42.6%, 46.4%) for 5-2-2.ConclusionsIndirect comparison of alternative azacitidine dosing regimens in MDS and AML shows a benefit for the 7-day regimen in attaining ORR. Additional RCTs are required to definitively address this comparison.
| S-EPMC5793426 | biostudies-literature