All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know AML.
The AML Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your AML Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe AML Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the AML Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The AML Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The AML Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology, Roche, Syndax and Thermo Fisher, and has been supported through a grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
CPX-351 vs FLAG-Ida: Post-hoc subgroup analysis of the UK NCRI AML19 trial
Bookmark this article
|
An exploratory, post-hoc subgroup analysis of the UK NCRI AML19 trial (ISRCTN78449203) compared the efficacy and safety of CPX-351 (n = 30) with FLAG-Ida (n = 29) in patients with ND HR-AML/MDS and MDS-related gene mutations. Results were presented during the 66th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition by Mehta P.1 |
| Key learnings |
| CPX-351 resulted in longer mOS (38.4 vs 16.3 months; p = 0.008), mRFS (33.1 vs 18.3 months; p = 0.024), and mEFS (34.0 vs 5.9 months; p = 0.062) vs FLAG-Ida. |
| The ORR (CR+ CRi) was 50% vs 62% with CPX-351 vs FLAG-Ida after induction C1 and 69% vs 79% after C2. Among patients in first response, CPX-351 led to longer post-HSCT mOS (NR vs 18.1 months; p = 0.042) than FLAG-Ida. |
| CPX-351 was associated with lower Grade ≥3 AEs (70% vs 90%), SAEs (10% vs 76%), and AEs leading to death (7% vs 14%) vs FLAG-Ida. |
| This post-hoc analysis showed that CPX-351 improved mOS, mRFS, and post-HSCT OS. However, the study is limited by its small sample size, exploratory nature, and unadjusted p-values for multiplicity, warranting further validation in larger studies. |
Abbreviations: AE, adverse event; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ASH, American Society of Hematology; C, cycle; CR, complete response; CRi, CR with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery; EFS, event-free survival; FLAG-Ida, fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, and idarubicin; HR, high-risk; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; m, median; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; ND, newly diagnosed; NR, not reached; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival; SAE, serious AE.
- Mehta P. A randomized comparison of CPX-351 and FLAG-Ida in patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML)/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and MDS-related gene mutations: A subgroup analysis of the UK NCRI AML19 trial. Oral abstract #55. 66th American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting and Exposition; Dec 7-10, 2024; San Diego, US.
Your opinion matters
33 votes - 31 days left ...
Related articles
Newsletter
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox