Outcomes of previously untreated elderly patients with AML: a propensity score-matched comparison of clofarabine vs. FLAG

OUP accepted manuscript

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are common complications of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This review provides an up-to-date assessment of the patient and cost burden of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia/FN in the US, and summarizes recommendations for FN prophylaxis, including the interim guidance that was recommended during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review indicates that neutropenia/FN place a significant burden on patients in terms of hospitalizations and mortality. Most patients with neutropenia/FN presenting to the emergency department will be hospitalized, with an average length of stay of 6, 8, and 10 days for elderly, pediatric, and adult patients, respectively. Reported in-hospital mortality rates for neutropenia/FN range from 0.4% to 3.0% for pediatric patients with cancer, 2.6% to 7.0% for adults with solid tumors, and 7.4% for adults with hematologic malignancies. Neutropenia/FN also place a significant cost burden on US healthcare systems, with average costs per neutropenia/FN hospitalization estimated to be up to $40 000 for adult patients and $65 000 for pediatric patients. Evidence-based guidelines recommend prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), which have been shown to reduce FN incidence while improving chemotherapy dose delivery. Availability of biosimilars may improve costs of care. Efforts to decrease hospitalizations by optimizing outpatient care could reduce the burden of neutropenia/FN; this was particularly pertinent during the COVID-19 pandemic since avoidance of hospitalization was needed to reduce exposure to the virus, and resulted in the adaptation of recommendations to prevent FN, which expanded the indications for G-CSF and/or lowered the threshold of use to >10% risk of FN.

Intensive versus less-intensive antileukemic therapy in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review

To compare the effectiveness and safety of intensive antileukemic therapy to less-intensive therapy in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and intermediate or adverse cytogenetics, we searched the literature in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL to identify relevant studies through July 2020. We reported the pooled hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Two randomized trials enrolling 529 patients and 23 observational studies enrolling 7296 patients proved eligible. The most common intensive interventions included cytarabine-based intensive chemotherapy, combination of cytarabine and anthracycline, or daunorubicin/idarubicin, and cytarabine plus idarubicin. The most common less-intensive therapies included low-dose cytarabine alone, or combined with clofarabine, azacitidine, and hypomethylating agent-based chemotherapy. Low certainty evidence suggests that patients who receive intensive versus less-intensive therapy may experience longer survival (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99), a higher probability of receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (RR 6.14; 95% CI, 4.03-9.35), fewer episodes of pneumonia (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.06-0.98), but a greater number of severe, treatment-emergent adverse events (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.75), and a longer duration of intensive care unit hospitalization (MD, 6.84 days longer; 95% CI, 3.44 days longer to 10.24 days longer, very low certainty evidence). Low certainty evidence due to confounding in observational studies suggest superior overall survival without substantial treatment-emergent adverse effect of intensive antileukemic therapy over less-intensive therapy in older adults with AML who are candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy.

Propensity-score Matched Comparison of Salvage Chemotherapy Regimens in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia

BACKGROUND

Relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) confers a poor prognosis, and there is no single standard of care first-line salvage regimen. FLAG (fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) is a common salvage regimen with a favorable toxicity and efficacy profile in poor-risk AML.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis of first relapse/primary refractory patients with AML that received salvage chemotherapy from January 2009 to July 2019. We propensity-score matched patients 1:1 (based on age at diagnosis, cytogenetic risk group, Charlson comorbidity index, de novo vs. secondary AML, and whether or not they received an allogeneic stem cell transplant in first complete remission) into 2 groups, FLAG (Group 1) or non-FLAG (Group 2) as first-line salvage regimen, with 66 patients in each group. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (complete response and complete response with incomplete hematologic recovery).

RESULTS

The median patient age was 59 years (range, 19-80 years). Patients treated with FLAG had a higher overall response rate (complete response/complete response with incomplete hematologic recovery) (71.2% vs. 50.0%; odds ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-5.08; P = .013), longer event-free survival (8.9 vs. 2.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86; P = .005), and longer overall survival (14.2 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93; P = .019). Patients who received FLAG had a shorter median duration of neutropenia (22 vs. 34 days; HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29-0.64; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This analysis supports the FLAG regimen as an effective and well-tolerated salvage therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory AML.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for treating newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in older adults

BACKGROUND

Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represent a vulnerable population in whom disease-based and clinical risk factors, patient goals, prognosis, and practitioner- and patient-perceived treatment risks and benefits influence treatment recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of AML in older adults.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included specialists in myeloid leukemia, geriatric oncology, patient-reported outcomes and decision-making, frailty, epidemiology, and methodology, as well as patients. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 24 May 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to patients, as judged by the panel. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE's Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 6 critical questions in managing older adults with AML, mirroring real-time practitioner-patient conversations: the decision to pursue antileukemic treatment vs best supportive management, the intensity of therapy, the role and duration of postremission therapy, combination vs monotherapy for induction and beyond, duration of less-intensive therapy, and the role of transfusion support for patients no longer receiving antileukemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment is recommended over best supportive management. More-intensive therapy is recommended over less-intensive therapy when deemed tolerable. However, these recommendations are guided by the principle that throughout a patient's disease course, optimal care involves ongoing discussions between clinicians and patients, continuously addressing goals of care and the relative risk-benefit balance of treatment.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Breakthrough Invasive Mold Infections in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Receiving Remission Induction Chemotherapy

Background

Despite fungal prophylaxis, invasive mold infections (IMIs) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving remission induction chemotherapy. The choice of antifungal prophylaxis agent remains controversial, especially in the era of novel targeted therapies. We conducted a retrospective case–control study to determine the incidence of fungal infections and to identify risk factors associated with IMI.

Methods

Adult patients with AML receiving anti-Aspergillus prophylaxis were included to determine the incidence of IMI per 1000 prophylaxis-days. Patients without and with IMI were matched 2:1 based on the day of IMI diagnosis, and multivariable models using logistic regression were constructed to identify risk factors for IMI.

Results

Of the 162 included patients, 28 patients had a possible (n = 22), probable, or proven (n = 6) diagnosis of IMI. The incidence of proven or probable IMI per 1000 prophylaxis-days was not statistically different between anti-Aspergillus azoles and micafungin (1.6 vs 5.4, P = .11). The duration of prophylaxis with each agent did not predict IMI occurrence on regression analysis. Older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.004–1.081; P = .03) and relapsed/refractory AML diagnosis (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 1.56–12.64; P = .003) were associated with IMI on multivariable analysis.

Conclusions

In cases that preclude use of anti-Aspergillus azoles for prophylaxis, micafungin 100 mg once daily may be considered; however, in older patients and those with relapsed/refractory disease, diligent monitoring for IMI is required, irrespective of the agent used for antifungal prophylaxis.

A retrospective study evaluating treatment patterns and survival outcomes in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated in the United States with either 7+3 or a hypomethylating agent

Intensive treatment for newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia (ND-AML) patients are reserved for "fit" patients. While guidelines recommend evaluation of age, performance status and comorbidities, there is no consensus on the definition of "fitness" or optimal therapy for elderly AML patients. This retrospective study evaluated characteristics and survival outcomes of 274 patients (age ≥60 years) with ND-AML treated with 7 + 3 (cytarabine + an anthracycline) vs. hypomethylating agents (HMAs). Most patients received 7 + 3 (60.2%) vs. HMAs (39.8%) in first-line therapy (1 L T); more HMA patients were ≥75 years old and had more comorbidities. Median progression-free survival (PFS) following 1 L T was longer for patients who received 7 + 3 vs. HMAs (6.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 4.9, 11.1) vs. 4.1 months (95% CI: 2.8, 4.9, respectively). Median overall survival (OS) following 1 L T was also longer for patients who received 7 + 3 vs. HMAs (14.7 months [95% CI: 11.0, not estimated] vs. 4.3 months [95% CI: 3.2, 5.8], respectively). An age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score of ≥4 vs. < 4 negatively affected PFS and OS irrespective of treatment. Overall, choosing an HMA over 7 + 3 in elderly patients with ND-AML may be influenced by age and comorbidities; patients receiving 7 + 3 had longer survival than those on an HMA.