. Unsatisfactory efficacy in randomized study of reduced-dose CPX-351 for medically less fit adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia or other high-grade myeloid neoplasm. Haematologica. 2017; 102:xxx doi:10.3324/haematol.2017.182642 Publisher's Disclaimer.
E-publishing ahead of print is increasingly important for the rapid dissemination of science. Haematologica is, therefore, E-publishing PDF files of an early version of manuscripts that have completed a regular peer review and have been accepted for publication. E-publishing of this PDF file has been approved by the authors. After having E-published Ahead of Print, manuscripts will then undergo technical and English editing, typesetting, proof correction and be presented for the authors' final approval; the final version of the manuscript will then appear in print on a regular issue of the journal. All legal disclaimers that apply to the journal also pertain to this production process.
LETTER TO THE EDITORThe need for new therapies for medically less-fit adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is unquestioned. 1 CPX-351, a liposomal formulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, 2 may be an attractive option. In patients with relapsed/refractory leukemia, in whom CPX-351 was administered on days 1, 3, and 5 of a treatment cycle, a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 101 units/m 2 was identified, but responses were seen with doses as low as 32 units/m 2 . 3 In a subsequent study in fit adults age 60-75 years with newly diagnosed AML who were randomized 2:1 between CPX-351 (100 units/m 2 ) and 7+3, 60-day mortality was lower with CPX-351 (4.7% vs. 14.6%, p=0.053) while response rates were higher (66.7% vs. 51.2%, p=0.07). 4 Pre-planned subset analyses indicated improved survival in patients with secondary leukemias. 4 These observations prompted us to conduct a randomized phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: Because of the small sample size, randomization was stratified using a dynamic allocation scheme 11 based on: 1) TRM score (13.1-22.8 vs. >22.8); 2) cytogenetic risk (monosomal karyotype vs. other unfavorable vs. intermediate/favorable); and 3) presence/absence of secondary disease. For each dose, we used a Bayesian design that adaptively monitored response (CR achievement) and toxicity (death by day 28, excluding deaths due to progressive disease and no treatment-related toxicity). 12 Prior probabilities of response and toxicity for standard (historical) treatment and the experimental (CPX-351) treatment were defined using a beta distribution. For standard, we used β(30, 70) for response and toxicity, corresponding to CR and TRM rates of 30% in 100 patients. For CPX-351, we used β(0.6, 1.4) for response and toxicity, corresponding to CR and TRM rates of 30% in 2 patients. This non-informative distribution allows the current ("posterior") probability distributions to be dominated by the trial data. In each arm of this trial, patients were treated in cohorts of size 5. A minimum number of 20 patients were randomized before an arm was considered for ea...