No abstract

BACKGROUND Secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) from an antecedent myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/myeloproliferative neoplasm is associated with a poor prognosis. The authors evaluated predictive factors in patients with secondary AML treated with anthracycline-based induction therapy. METHODS This was a retrospective review of secondary AML patients treated with induction therapy. Age, International Prognostic Scoring System, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, cytogenetics, duration of MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm, and prior MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm treatment were evaluated for their impact on complete response (CR), CR with low platelets, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS The authors evaluated 61 secondary AML patients who received induction chemotherapy; 59% (36 patients) achieved CR/CR with low platelets (95% confidence interval [CI], 46%–71%), and median OS was 6.5 (95% CI, 3.9–8.1) months. Three factors were associated with lower CR/CR with low platelets and OS: poor risk cytogenetics, prior treatment with hypomethylating agents or lenalidomide, and longer time to transformation to AML. Of those treated with hypomethylating agents or lenalidomide, 32% achieved CR/CR with low platelets versus 78% in the group not treated with a hypomethylating agent or lenalidomide (odds ratio [OR], 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04–0.42). Median OS for those treated with a hypomethylating agent or lenalidomide was 3.7 versus 10.5 months for those not treated with a hypomethylating agent or lenalidomide (P < .0001). The CR/CR with low platelets rate for those with intermediate risk cytogenetics was 70% versus 35% for those with poor risk (OR, 4.33; 95% CI, 1.38–13.6). Those with poor risk cytogenetics had a median OS of 2.8 versus 7.5 months for those with intermediate risk (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS Prior treatment with hypomethylating agents or lenalidomide, poor risk cytogenetics, and longer time to transformation to AML are independent negative predictive factors for response and OS in patients with secondary AML after induction therapy.

4973 Background/Rationale: Rituximab is an anti-CD-20 monoclonal antibody used in the management of lymphoproliferative disorders. Rituximab is indicated in maintenance therapy for follicular cell lymphoma and can be administered once every 2 months, once every 3 months, or weekly for 4 weeks every 6 months. The use of maintenance rituximab has improved progression free survival and overall survival in low grade follicular lymphomas. Although rapid rituximab infusions have been studied extensively, there is little data on the use of rapid infusions during maintenance therapy for low grade lymphomas. Herein we report our experience with rapid infusion rituximab in patients receiving maintenance therapy. Methods: All patients who received rapid infusion rituximab as maintenance therapy for low grade lymphoma between December 2007 and June 2011 were included. Patients were considered eligible for rapid infusions if they tolerated previous rituximab infusions and presented with a peripheral lymphocyte count of less than 4.8 k/μl. Rapid rituximab infusions were administered over 90 minutes (150 mL/hr for 30 minutes and then increased to 275 mL/hr until completion). Patients were monitored for signs and symptoms of reactions. In case of an infusion reaction supportive care medications were readily available. Demographic, laboratory and clinical data were collected. Adverse events were assessed through vital signs, symptoms of infusion related reaction and supportive care measures administered and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4. The primary and secondary objectives of this retrospective study were to evaluate the incidence of grade 3/4 and all grade infusion reactions with rapid rituximab infusions during maintenance therapy, respectively. Maintenance schedules were also compared with regards to incidence of infusion reactions. Results: A total of 105 patients received 629 rapid rituximab infusions. Patient demographics, laboratory, and clinical data are summarized in Table 1. All patients were eligible for rapid infusion rituximab according to institutional criteria. Two grade 2 infusion reactions and 4 grade 3 reactions were reported (1 patient experienced a grade 2 and 3 reaction); however none of these patients required hospitalization. All 5 patients received pharmacological and/or supportive care to relieve the symptoms associated with the reaction. Of these 5 patients, 3 patients went on to receive rapid infusions of rituximab; 2 patients were switched to standard infusion per physician request. The sample size was too small to determine if a correlation existed between infusion related reactions and the schedule of maintenance rituximab. Conclusion: The rapid infusion of rituximab in patients receiving maintenance therapy is well tolerated with minimal incidence of infusion-related reactions. Although the sample size was insufficient to assess differences in adverse effects according to the maintenance schedule, the low overall incidence of adverse effects suggests that rapid rituximab infusions are well tolerated regardless of maintenance schedule. Our study concludes rapid infusion rituximab is a safe and feasible option for maintenance therapy. Disclosures: Ho: Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Maintenance Rituximab Therapy in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Cultrera:Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Sotomayor:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wetzstein:Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Patients on systemic glucocorticoids for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after hematopoietic cell transplant are susceptible to invasive fungal infections (IFI), which greatly contribute to morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic treatment options (voriconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole) for IFI by performing a retrospective review of patients on glucocorticoids for GVHD given voriconazole (n = 97), fluconazole (n = 36), or itraconazole (n = 36). IFI developed in 7/72 (10%) patients on fluconazole/itraconazole versus 2/97 (2%) on voriconazole (P = 0.03) within the first 100 days of glucocorticoids. Five patients developed Aspergillus IFI on fluconazole/itraconazole (7%), compared to none on voriconazole (0%) (P = 0.008); Aspergillus IFI resulted in death in all 5 patients. We found that IFI occurred in patients who received an initial dose of at least 2 mg/kg/day of prednisone or equivalent; when the analysis was restricted to these patients, the hazard ratio (0.39; 95% confidence interval: 0.08–1.86) was consistent with a protective effect of voriconazole compared with fluconazole/itraconazole, although this subset analysis did not reach significance. Overall survival at 100 days after start of glucocorticoids was 77% in patients given fluconazole/itraconazole and 85% in those given voriconazole (P = 0.22). Our results suggest that voriconazole is more effective than fluconazole/itraconazole in preventing IFI, especially aspergillosis, in patients receiving glucocorticoids posttransplant.

No abstract