Consolidation Therapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Defining a Benchmark

Flow cytometry-based measurable residual disease (MRD) analysis identifies AML patients who may benefit from allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Measurable residual disease (MRD) monitoring independently predicts long-term outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Of the various modalities available, multiparameter flow cytometry-based MRD analysis is widely used and relevant for patients without molecular targets. In the transplant (HCT) setting, the presence of MRD pre-HCT is associated with adverse outcomes. MRD-negative remission status pre-HCT was also associated with longer overall (OS) and progression-free survival and a lower risk of relapse. We hypothesize that the combination of disease risk and MRD at the time of first complete remission (CR1) could identify patients according to the benefit gained from HCT, especially for intermediate-risk patients. We performed a retrospective analysis comparing the outcomes of HCT versus non-HCT therapies based on MRD status in AML patients who achieved CR1. Time-dependent analysis was applied considering time-to-HCT as a time-dependent covariate and compared HCT versus non-HCT outcomes according to MRD status at CR1. Among 336 patients assessed at CR1, 35.1% were MRD positive (MRDpos) post-induction. MRDpos patients benefitted from HCT with improved OS and relapse-free survival (RFS), while no benefit was observed in MRDneg patients. In adverse-risk patients, HCT improved OS (HR for OS 0.55; p = 0.05). In intermediate-risk patients, HCT benefit was not significant for OS and RFS. Intermediate-risk MRDpos patients were found to have benefit from HCT with improved OS (HR 0.45, p = 0.04), RFS (HR 0.46, p = 0.02), and CIR (HR 0.41, p = 0.02). Our data underscore the benefit of HCT in adverse risk and MRDpos intermediate-risk AML patients.

The Past, Present, and Future of Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine at the Committee for Economic Analyses of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group

Precision medicine in oncology poses unique challenges to the generation of clinical and economic evidence used for cost-effectiveness analyses that can inform health technology assessment. The conduct of randomized controlled trials for biomarker-specific therapies targeted towards small populations has limitations in regard to feasibility, timeliness, and cost. These limitations result in associated challenges for groups involved in the generation of economic evidence to inform treatment-related decision making, including the Committee of Economic Analysis (CEA) at the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). We provide a high-level description and vision about the new paradigm of clinical trial design, generation of economic evidence, and novel approaches to economic evaluations necessary in the space of precision medicine in oncology in Canada. The CEA's previous approach to precision medicine, including master protocol designs and single-arm studies, is reviewed. Methods and approaches currently under consideration by the CEA and national collaborators, such as the role of real-world and clinical trial evidence in enabling life-cycle assessment of therapies, are explored. Finally, future initiatives being planned in the space of precision medicine at CCTG, such as the incorporation of correlative studies to identify and test high-performing biomarkers in trials, are discussed.