In MDS, is higher risk higher reward?

Experiences and Support Needs of Caregivers of Patients with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome via Online Bulletin Board in the USA, Canada and UK

INTRODUCTION

Patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) face considerable challenges in disease management and often require caregiver support. Reports on the burden of caring for patients with advanced cancer suggest that caregivers receive insufficient support. Our research aimed to identify key challenges for caregivers of patients with higher-risk MDS.

METHODS

Online bulletin board is a qualitative research methodology which enables data collection via a web-based platform. A mix of moderator-led discussion guide and interparticipant discussion provides the caregiver insights as online dialogue, which then undergo content analysis to extract key findings.

RESULTS

Sixteen caregivers participated from the USA (n = 5), UK (n = 6) and Canada (n = 5). Content analysis identified the caregiver experience in higher-risk MDS as multifactorial, with seven key categories of caregiver burden: caregiver role and burden, mental health, family dynamics, disease experience, treatment experience, healthcare professional (HCP) interactions and information and education.

CONCLUSION

There is significant impact and burden on caregivers of patients with higher-risk MDS, which varies depending on disease stage, choice (or lack of choice) of treatments, and the personal situation of the caregiver. Emotional stress occurs mostly at diagnosis/prognosis stage and when told to 'watch and wait', which is amplified when HCPs are perceived to lack knowledge/expertise about MDS. There is a need for better education about MDS for HCPs, patients, caregivers and the general community; a need for improved communication between patients/caregivers and HCPs; and a high unmet need for better mental health and emotional support for both patient and caregiver.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Refractory Anemia With Excess Blasts (RAEB) Who Receive Hypomethylating Agents (HMAs)

BACKGROUND

We sought to understand the clinical effectiveness associated with use of hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DEC) for patients with refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB; an established proxy for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms) in contemporary and representative real-world settings.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, a linkage of cancer registry and Medicare claims data, to identify patients aged ≥ 66 years diagnosed with RAEB, between 2009 and 2017 in the United States, and who received AZA or DEC as first-line therapy. Outcomes measured were overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and incidence of progression-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

RESULTS

Of 973 eligible patients, 738 (75.8%) received AZA and 235 (24.2%) received DEC; 6.4% received hematopoietic cell transplantation during follow-up. In the overall population, median OS was 13.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.9-15.0), median EFS was 5.2 months (95% CI: 4.9-5.7), and 38.0% of patients progressed to AML. Incidences of AML progression and death were 25.6% and 29.9%, respectively, at Year 1, and 34.3% and 44.8%, respectively, at Year 2. There were no significant differences in clinical benefits between AZA and DEC.

CONCLUSION

Median OS with both HMAs remained significantly shorter than in the AZA-001 clinical trial, highlighting how patient outcomes vary between clinical and real-world settings. Further research is required to understand why these disparities exist.

The Pyroptotic and Nonpyroptotic Roles of Gasdermins in Modulating Cancer Progression and Their Perspectives on Cancer Therapeutics

Gasdermins (GSDMs) are a protein family encoded by six paralogous genes in humans, including GSDMA, GSDMB, GSDMC, GSDMD, GSDME (also known as DFNA5), and DFNB59 (also known as pejvakin). Structurally, members of the GSDM family possess a C-terminus (an autoinhibitory domain) and a positively charged N-terminus (a pore-forming domain) linked with divergent peptide linkers. Recently, GSDMs have been identified as key executors of pyroptosis (an immunogenic programmed cell death) due to their pore-forming activities on the plasma membrane when proteolytically cleaved by caspases or serine proteases. Accumulating studies suggest that chemoresistance is attributed to dysregulation of apoptotic machinery and that inducing pyroptosis to bypass aberrant apoptosis can potently resensitize apoptosis-resistant cancer to chemotherapeutics. Pyroptosis is initiated by pore formation and culminates with plasma membrane rupture; these processes enable the release of proinflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-1β and IL-18) and damage-associated molecular patterns, which further modulate antitumor immunity within the tumor microenvironment. Although pyroptosis is considered a promising strategy to boost antitumor effects, it is also reported to cause unwanted tissue damage (e.g., gut damage and nephrotoxicity). Intriguingly, mounting evidence has uncovered nonpyroptotic roles of GSDMs in tumorigenesis, such as proliferation, invasion, metastasis, and drug resistance. Thus, this provides a rationale for GSDMs as potential therapeutic targets. Taken together, we shed unbiased light on the pyroptosis-dependent roles of GSDMs in cancer progression and highlighted how GSDMs modulate tumorigenesis in a pyroptosis-independent manner. It is evident that targeting GSDMs seems profound in cancer management; however, several problems require further investigation to target GSDMs from bench to bedside, which is elucidated in the discussion section.

Comparison Between Decitabine and Azacitidine for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DAC) have been widely used in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (HR-MDS). However, few direct clinical trials have been carried out to compare the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) between these two agents. The clinical choice between them is controversial. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the efficacy, safety, and survival of DAC and AZA in AML and HR-MDS patients.

Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library through March 15, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on AML or HR-MDS patients comparing the efficacy and safety between DAC and AZA or comparing one of HMAs to conventional care regimens (CCR) were selected.

Results: Eight RCTs (n = 2,184) were identified in the NMA. Four trials compared AZA to CCR, and four compared DAC to CCR. Direct comparisons indicated that, compared to CCR, both AZA and DAC were associated with higher overall response (OR) rate (AZA vs. CCR: relative risk (RR) = 1.48, 95% CI 1.05–2.1; DAC vs. CCR: RR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.21–3.79) and longer overall survival (OS) (AZA vs. CCR: HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50–0.82; DAC vs. CCR: HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.98), and AZA showed higher rate of complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) (HR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.27–5). For the indirect method, DAC showed a higher complete remission (CR) rate than AZA in patients with both AML (RR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.12–4.65) and MDS (RR = 7.57, 95% CI 1.26–45.54). Additionally, DAC significantly increased the risk of 3/4 grade anemia (RR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.03–2.51), febrile neutropenia (RR = 4.03, 95% CI: 1.41–11.52), and leukopenia (RR = 3.43, 95% CI 1.64–7.16) compared with AZA. No statistical significance was found for the other studied outcomes.

Conclusion: Compared to CCR, both AZA and DAC can promote outcomes in patients with AML and HR-MDS. DAC showed higher efficacy especially CR rate than AZA (low-certainty evidence), while AZA experienced lower frequent grade 3/4 cytopenia than patients receiving DAC treatment.