Comparison of 60 and 80 mg/m2 of daunorubicin in induction therapy of acute myeloid leukaemia

Daunorubicin and cytarabine for certain types of poor-prognosis acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Induction chemotherapy based on anthracyclines and cytarabine (Ara-C) combination remains the standard of care for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients who are considered candidate for intensive and curative approaches. However, the toxicity of this regimen is high, with disappointing clinical outcomes among the so-called poor-prognosis AML subsets, which generally refer to patients with adverse cytogenetic risk, secondary AML including therapy-related AML, poor-prognosis mutations, especially FLT3-ITD, and relapse/refractory AML. Areas covered: To the best of our knowledge, the role and efficacy of 7 + 3 schedules containing daunorubicin (DNR) and Ara-C for certain types of poor-prognosis AML has not been systematically assessed. A critical approach to the role of DNR and Ara-C induction could be relevant to establish which patients should be enrolled in clinical trials using novel therapies. Expert commentary: In this regard, a recent randomized clinical trial (RCT) showed improved results in older patients with sAML or high-risk cytogenetics who received CPX-351 compared with standard 7 + 3 combination. We perform a systematic literature review to analyze the clinical outcomes reported with DNR plus Ara-C regimens in adult patients with poor-prognosis AML, the use of liposomal formulations of DNR and Ara-C and the RCTs which compared standard 7 + 3 with the addition of a third drug.