A B S T R A C T PurposeThis multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of decitabine with treatment choice (TC) in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and poor-or intermediate-risk cytogenetics. Patients and MethodsPatients (N ϭ 485) age Ն 65 years were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive decitabine 20 mg/m 2 per day as a 1-hour intravenous infusion for five consecutive days every 4 weeks or TC (supportive care or cytarabine 20 mg/m 2 per day as a subcutaneous injection for 10 consecutive days every 4 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival (OS); the secondary end point was the complete remission (CR) rate plus the CR rate without platelet recovery (CRp). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded. ResultsThe primary analysis with 396 deaths (81.6%) showed a nonsignificant increase in median OS with decitabine (7.7 months; 95% CI, 6.2 to 9.2) versus TC (5.0 months; 95% CI, 4.3 to 6.3; P ϭ .108; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.04). An unplanned analysis with 446 deaths (92%) indicated the same median OS (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99; nominal P ϭ .037). The CR rate plus CRp was 17.8% with decitabine versus 7.8% with TC (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.8; P ϭ .001). AEs were similar for decitabine and cytarabine, although patients received a median of four cycles of decitabine versus two cycles of TC. The most common drug-related AEs with decitabine were thrombocytopenia (27%) and neutropenia (24%). ConclusionIn older patients with AML, decitabine improved response rates compared with standard therapies without major differences in safety. An unplanned survival analysis showed a benefit for decitabine, which was not observed at the time of the primary analysis.

Summary Background Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO) was the first example of antibody directed chemotherapy in cancer and developed for Acute Myeloid Leukaemia. Its role has been unclear. Five randomised trials where it was combined with standard induction chemotherapy in adults have produced different results. In an effort to clarify the level of benefit, if any, and in which patients outcomes might be improved, an individual patient data meta-analysis of these 5 trials has been undertaken. Methods All randomised trials of GO in adults (age >15), given in conjunction with the first course of intensive induction chemotherapy for AML (excluding APL) were identified. In a collaboration between the groups involved, source data concerning demographics, treatment was requested in May 2013 and collected in 3325 randomised patients (median age 58). All trials were centrally randomised and open-label, with survival as primary endpoint. Analyses are presented by standard techniques, and within standardised risk groups Results Remission rates were not increased, but by significantly reducing the risk of relapse overall survival at 5 years was improved irrespective of patient age (30.7% vs 34.6%; HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.82-0.98), p=0.01). The survival benefit was particularly clear in those with favourable cytogenetics (55.2% vs 76.3%; HR0.47 (0.31-0.73), p=0.0005), but also observed in intermediate risk patients (34.1% vs 39.4%; HR 0.84 (0.75-0.95), p=0.007) Patients with adverse karyotype did not benefit overall or within any trial. Dose levels of 3mg/m2 were associated with less toxicity and equal efficacy. Interpretation GO can be safely added to conventional induction therapy. For patients who do not have adverse cytogenetics there is a significant survival benefit. These data suggest that the use of GO should be re-evaluated and the license status of GO may need to be reviewed. Role of funding source There was no funder for this meta-analysis.

Prognostic factors for response and survival in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients treated with azacitidine (AZA) remain largely unknown. Two hundred eighty-two consecutive high or intermediate-2 risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients received AZA in a compassionate, patient-named program. Diagnosis was RA/RARS/RCMD in 4%, RAEB-1 in 20%, RAEB-2 in 54%, and RAEB-t (AML with 21%-30% marrow blasts) in 22%. Cytogenetic risk was good in 31%, intermediate in 17%, and poor in 47%. Patients received AZA for a median of 6 cycles (1-52). Previous low-dose cytosine arabinoside treatment (P ‫؍‬ .009), bone marrow blasts > 15% (P ‫؍‬ .004), and abnormal karyotype (P ‫؍‬ .03) independently predicted lower response rates. Complex karyotype predicted shorter responses (P ‫؍‬ .0003). Performance status > 2, intermediate-and poor-risk cytogenetics, presence of circulating blasts, and red blood cell transfusion dependency > 4 units/8 weeks (all P < 10 ؊4 ) independently predicted poorer overall survival (OS). A prognostic score based on those factors discriminated 3 risk groups with median OS not reached, 15.0 and 6.1 months, respectively (P < 10 ؊4 ). This prognostic score was validated in an independent set of patients receiving AZA in the AZA-001 trial (P ‫؍‬ .003). Achievement of hematological improvement in patients who did not obtain complete or partial remission was associated with improved OS (P < 10 ؊4 ). In conclusion, routine tests can identify subgroups of patients with distinct prognosis with AZA treatment. (Blood. 2011; 117(2):403-411)