The 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 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 Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology and Syndax, and has been supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and the Hippocrate Conference Institute, an association of the Servier Group. 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.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View aml content recommended for you
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a progressive, molecularly heterogenous hematologic malignancy originating from a rare population of leukemic stem cells. The use of combination chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents (HMAs) and/or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are the current standard of treatment for AML.1 However, despite the many clinical benefits conferred by treatments for AML, health practitioners are facing challenges in managing associated toxicities that impact on the quality of life of patients. Treatment-related adverse events (TAEs) such as cardiotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, hematologic toxicity, immunological and pulmonary toxicity are common in patients with AML and contribute to treatment discontinuation and failure.2 Read more here.
During the 62nd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition (ASH 2020), Ravandi et al.3 provided updates on the phase III QUAZAR AML-001 trial, with a focus on onset of treatment-related gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) in older patients with AML in first remission receiving oral azacitidine (AZA), along with the toxicity management criteria.
Eligible patients were:
Table 1. Patient baseline characteristics*
AML, acute myeloid leukemia; AZA, azacitidine; CR, complete remission; CRi, CR with incomplete blood count recovery; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; IC, induction chemotherapy; MRD, minimal residual disease; NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network; WHO, World Health Organization. |
||
Characteristic |
Oral AZA |
Placebo |
---|---|---|
Median age, years |
68 |
68 |
ECOG PS score, % |
||
0 |
49.2 |
47.6 |
1 |
41.9 |
45.1 |
2−3 |
8.9 |
7.3 |
de novo AML, % |
89.4 |
92.3 |
WHO AML classification, % |
||
Myelodysplasia-related changes |
20.8 |
18.0 |
Recurrent genetic abnormalities |
16.1 |
19.7 |
Therapy-related |
0.8 |
0 |
Not otherwise specified |
62.3 |
61.8 |
NCCN cytogenetic risk at diagnosis, % |
||
Intermediate |
85.6 |
86.7 |
Poor |
14.4 |
13.3 |
Response after induction, % |
||
CR |
78.4 |
84.5 |
CRi |
21.6 |
15.5 |
Received consolidation, % |
78.0 |
82.0 |
Median time from IC to randomization, months |
3.9 |
4.0 |
Median time from CR/CRi to randomization, days |
84 |
86 |
Median bone marrow blast % |
2 |
2 |
MRD-positive at randomization, % |
43.2 |
49.4 |
Major findings included:
Other details of the phase III QUAZAR AML-001 trial can be found on our hub.
Common TAEs were low grade. Serious events were reported in only 6% of patients in the oral azacitidine arm, at any time on-study (Table 2). Most common Grade 3 events were nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, and only one Grade 4 event was reported.
Table 2. Treatment-related GI AEs in the oral azacitidine cohort (n= 236)*
AE, adverse event; AZA, azacitidine; GI, gastrointestinal; TAE, treatment-related adverse event. |
|||||
GI TAE |
Total, % |
TAE based on grades, % |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
||
Any |
91.1 |
26.7 |
50.0 |
12.7 |
1.7 |
Nausea |
64.8 |
34.3 |
28.0 |
2.5 |
0 |
Vomiting |
59.7 |
34.3 |
22.5 |
3.0 |
0 |
Diarrhea |
50.4 |
26.3 |
19.1 |
4.7 |
0.4 |
Constipation |
38.6 |
22.0 |
15.3 |
1.3 |
0 |
Abdominal pain |
13.1 |
8.1 |
4.2 |
0.8 |
0 |
Upper abdominal pain |
8.9 |
5.9 |
2.1 |
0.8 |
0 |
Flatulence |
5.5 |
3.8 |
1.7 |
0 |
0 |
Most common concomitant GI medications during oral azacitidine treatment that were given to a percentage of patients, were as follows:
Dose modifications due to TAEs were infrequent but some adjustments were made to manage toxicities (Table 3).
Table 3. Toxicity management via dose reduction and treatment discontinuation in AML patients with GI AEs*
AE, adverse event; GI, gastrointestinal. |
|||
GI AE |
Treatment interruption, % |
Dose reduction, % |
Treatment discontinuation, % |
---|---|---|---|
Any |
13.1 |
5.5 |
4.7 |
Nausea |
5.5 |
1.7 |
2.1 |
Diarrhea |
4.2 |
3.4 |
1.7 |
Vomiting |
3.8 |
0.8 |
1.3 |
Constipation |
1.3 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
Abdominal pain |
1.7 |
0 |
0 |
Upper abdominal pain |
0.4 |
0 |
0.8 |
In most patients, after the initial treatment cycles (1−2), there was a reduction in TAEs as well as in the use of GI medications, which suggests progressive tolerance to oral azacitidine with continued therapy. It was suggested that prophylaxis and symptomatic intervention may facilitate treatment adherence to promote better outcomes.
Awareness about the possibility for GI events during early oral azacitidine treatment will facilitate patients and clinicians to pre-plan and introduce prophylaxis and symptomatic interventions, which in turn will increase treatment adherence and better outcomes.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content