Treatment patterns and comparative analysis of non-intensive regimens in elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients-a real-world experience from India

Outcomes and survival predictors of Latin American older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: Data from a single center

INTRODUCTION

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is most commonly presented in older adults; however, it appears 10 years earlier in Latin American countries. Clinical evolution in older adults from this populations has not been characterized. We analyzed outcomes and survival predictors.

METHODS

Patients ≥ 55 years old diagnosed with AML at a hematology referral center from 2005 to 2020 receiving intensive chemotherapy (IC), low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) and best supportive care (BSC) were included. Survival analysis included the Kaplan-Meier and Cox models and the cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR).

RESULTS

Seventy-five adults were included and the overall survival (OS) was 4.87, 1.67 and 1.16 months, using IC, LDAC and BSC, respectively. The IC led to a higher OS (p < 0.001) and was a protective factor for early death, at a cost of more days spent hospitalized and more non-fatal treatment complications; non-significant differences were found between the LDAC and BSC. Eight (10.7%) patients underwent hematopoietic cell transplantation, with a higher OS (p = 0.013). Twenty (26.7%) patients achieved complete remission; 12 (60%) relapsed with a 6-month CIR of 57.9% in those < 70 years old vs. 86.5% in those ≥ 70 years old, p = 0.034. Multivariate analysis showed the white blood cell count (WBC) and IC had a significant impact on the patient survival, whereas chronological age and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) did not.

CONCLUSION

AML in low-middle income countries demands a different approach; the IC improves survival, even with a high incidence of relapse, and should be offered as first-line treatment. Eligibility criteria should include WBC and a multidimensional evaluation. The age per se and the CCI should not be exclusion criteria to consider IC.

Less intensive antileukemic therapies (monotherapy and/or combination) for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia who are not candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia not eligible for intensive antileukemic therapy are treated with less intensive therapies, uncertainty remains regarding their relative merits.

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness and safety of less intensive antileukemic therapies for older adults with newly diagnosed AML not candidates for intensive therapies.

Methods

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) comparing less intensive therapies in adults over 55 years with newly diagnosed AML. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to August 2021. We assessed risk of bias of RCTs with a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and NRS with the Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I). We calculated pooled hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

We included 27 studies (17 RCTs, 10 NRS; n = 5,698), which reported 9 comparisons. Patients were treated with azacitidine, decitabine, and low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), as monotherapies or in combination with other agents. Moderate certainty of evidence suggests no convincing difference in overall survival of patients who receive azacitidine monotherapy compared to LDAC monotherapy (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.31–1.53), fewer febrile neutropenia events occurred between azacitidine monotherapy to azacitidine combination (RR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31–0.65), and, fewer neutropenia events occurred between LDAC monotherapy to decitabine monotherapy (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44–0.86). All other comparisons and outcomes had low or very low certainty of evidence.

Conclusion

There is no convincing superiority in OS when comparing less intensive therapies. Azacitidine monotherapy is likely to have fewer adverse events than azacitidine combination (febrile neutropenia), and LDAC monotherapy is likely to have fewer adverse events than decitabine monotherapy (neutropenia).

Patterns of undertreatment among patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML): considerations for patients eligible for non-intensive chemotherapy (NIC)

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a life-threatening malignancy that is more prevalent in the elderly. Because the patient population is heterogenous and advanced in age, choosing the optimal therapy can be challenging. There is strong evidence supporting antileukemic therapy, including standard intensive induction chemotherapy (IC) and non-intensive chemotherapy (NIC), for older patients with AML, and guidelines recommend treatment selection based on a patient’s individual and disease characteristics as opposed to age alone. Nonetheless, historic evidence indicates that a high proportion of patients who may be candidates for NIC receive no active antileukemic treatment (NAAT), instead receiving only best supportive care (BSC). We conducted a focused literature review to assess current real-world patterns of undertreatment in AML. From a total of 25 identified studies reporting the proportion of patients with AML receiving NAAT, the proportion of patients treated with NAAT varied widely, ranging from 10 to 61.4% in the US and 24.1 to 35% in Europe. Characteristics associated with receipt of NAAT included clinical factors such as age, poor performance status, comorbidities, and uncontrolled concomitant conditions, as well as sociodemographic factors such as female sex, unmarried status, and lower income. Survival was diminished among patients receiving NAAT, with reported median overall survival values ranging from 1.2 to 4.8 months compared to 5 to 14.4 months with NIC. These findings suggest a proportion of patients who are candidates for NIC receive NAAT, potentially forfeiting the survival benefit of active antileukemic treatment.

Access to Therapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in the Developing World: Barriers and Solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a costly disease, and its impact is greater in developing countries (DC). We will review the current concept of what are DC, compare the differences in the epidemiology and economic burden of this disease between developed and DC, and finally, analyze the barriers and possible solutions that DC should implement to achieve better results.

RECENT FINDINGS

DC is a frequently misunderstood name. The way we use to measure human development is changing, and multidimension metrics better define what are DC. With this in mind, we show the differences in the AML epidemiology and the impact of economic burden in DC. We analyze the barriers to access therapy from a clinician point of view, to show that most DC shared similar challenges but with a diverse healthcare structure. Finally, we provide several possible solutions for a more integrated and timely treatment that allows better results not only in terms of survival but with a better quality of life. The economic burden of AML treatment in DC is high, and the results are poor. It is crucial to face this challenge and propose new treatment approaches to achieve better results.

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.

Comparison of Hypomethylator Monotherapy with Hypomethylator plus Chemotherapy for Intermediate/High-Risk MDS or AML: A Meta-Analysis

Aim: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy, survival benefit and safety of hypomethylating agents (HMA) monotherapy and combination with chemotherapy in patients with intermediate/high-risk MDS or AML.

Methods: Related articles published between January 2009 and April 2019 were selected and patients were separated as monotherapy group and combination group for meta-analysis. Studies on HMA combination therapy were further divided into two subgroups according to the intensity of combined chemotherapy. Meanwhile, subgroups with similar patients' baseline characteristics were selected for further analysis. Complete response (CR) rate, overall response (ORR) rate, two-year overall survival (OS) rate, one-month and 24-month death rate and the proportion of adverse events (AE) were pooled and compared.

Results: 21 RCT or cohort studies with 1764 patients (1266 patients for monotherapy group and 498 patients for HMA combination group) were selected for meta-analysis. For the pooled data, the age of patients was significantly younger and the percentage of patients with favorable/intermediate cytogenetic risk was significantly higher in the HMA combination group than that in the HMA monotherapy group. Combination therapy group had a significantly higher CR and ORR rate (55% vs 22%, P=0.000 for CR and 67% vs 42%, P=0.000 for ORR), and a higher two-year OS rate (37% vs 21%, P=0.000). However, the incidence of infection and gastrointestinal disorder was significantly higher (51% vs 23% for infection, P=0.000; 21% vs 0% for gastrointestinal disorder, P=0.000) in combination group. In subgroups with different intensity of combined chemotherapy, all baseline characteristics were compatible except that the percentage of patients with favorable/intermediate cytogenetic risk was significantly lower (63% vs 88%, P=0.000) in the HMA + high-intensity chemotherapy subgroup, and this group presented with a lower CR and ORR rate (46% vs 65% for CR, P=0.000; 57% vs 79% for ORR, P=0.000), but a compatible two-month to 24-month death rate compared with HMA + low-intensity chemotherapy subgroup (9% vs 14% for 2-month death rate, P=0.060; 58% vs 65% for 24-month death rate, P=0.242). In subgroup with similar patients' baseline characteristics, 208 and 205 patients were included in combination group and HMA monotherapy group, respectively. Although combination group had a significantly higher CR rate (62% vs 24%, P=0.000) and ORR rate (68% vs 48%, P=0.000), it finally had a lower two-year OS (30% vs 45%, P=0.001) compared with monotherapy group, and the death rate was significantly higher since the ninth month in combination therapy group than that in the monotherapy group (42% vs 31%, P=0.032). In this subgroup, patients with HMA+ high-intensity chemotherapy had a compatible CR, ORR and 1.5-year OS rate as compared with baseline-compatible patients with HMA + low-intensity chemotherapy.

Conclusions: HMA combined with chemotherapy could increase CR rate and ORR rate in all patients. HMA combined with high-intensity chemotherapy can rescue the 2-year OS with less favorable cytogenetic stratification to some extent. For patients with similar older age and risk stratification, combination therapy even had a lower long-term OS regardless of the intensity of combined chemotherapy.