Current treatment preferences in acute myeloid leukemia: a survey in Brazil

Toxicity and outcome of adults with acute myeloid leukemia receiving consolidation with high-dose cytarabine

INTRODUCTION

High-dose cytarabine is considered standard of care as consolidation chemotherapy in adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are not eligible for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation, but may be associated with significant toxicity. We evaluated the toxicity associated with high-dose cytarabine given as consolidation in AML patients treated at a Brazilian public hospital.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients with AML treated between 2008 and 2020 who obtained complete remission (CR) after one cycle of induction chemotherapy and received consolidation with at least one cycle of high-dose cytarabine (defined as 3 g/m2 every 12 h days 1, 3 and 5).

RESULTS

Among 61 patients who received induction remission, 32 obtained CR and 28 received at least one cycle of high-dose cytarabine, for a total of 67 cycles (median 2 cycles per patient, range 1 - 4). In 45 cycles (67.2%) the patient was discharged after the end of chemotherapy, with a median of 6 days at home (range 3 - 8). Readmission occurred in 31 of the 45 cycles (68.9%). The most frequent toxicities were febrile neutropenia (56.7%), nausea and vomiting (23.9%), oral mucositis (14.9%) and diarrhea (11.9%). Bacteremia was documented in 13 cycles (34.2%). There were three cases of typhlitis and two of invasive fungal disease (aspergillosis and candidemia). Four patients died (14.3%), with two deaths considered treatment-related (candidemia and typhlitis).

CONCLUSION

In the setting of a Brazilian public hospital, high-dose cytarabine as consolidation therapy is feasible, with manageable toxicity profile.

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.

Improving awareness of several combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia among oncology and hematology team members in Colorado, USA

INTRODUCTION

Although several combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have emerged recently, there has been a lack of published surveys and educational projects focused on these important treatment options. We aimed to improve the oncology team members' knowledge and awareness of several FDA approved combination therapies for AML, including glasdegib (DAURISMO®), venetoclax (VENCLEXTA®), GO (MYOLOTARG®),CPX-351 (VYXEOS®), and midostaurin (RYDAPT®). Additionally, we aimed to examine these teams' perspectives, views, and attitudes towards these topics and finally identify barriers to the implementationof such therapies in clinical practice.

METHOD

Initially, we developed booklets and then distributed them to each participating oncology and hematology office. Subsequently, all participating oncology and hematology team members were asked to complete an anonymous online survey to test their knowledge of and attitudes toward the subjects.

MAIN RESULTS

There was a total of 52 survey respondents. The correct answer regarding various combination therapies for AML was identified by nearly 70% or more of survey takers. The level of awareness of project subjects significantly improved after reading our printing materials. Many survey respondents were motivated to learn more about combination therapies for AML as well as discuss these topics with others.

CONCLUSIONS

Our booklets effectively improved understanding and awareness of combination therapies for AML. Future studies should explore awareness, knowledge, and perception of other new and emerging combination therapies for AML among oncology and hematology team members in other areas.