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 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 Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, Syndax, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Kura Oncology, AbbVie, and has been supported through an educational grant from 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 more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View AML content recommended for you
NCRI AML18: CPX-351 vs DAGO2 in older patients with non-adverse risk AML
Results from the phase II/III National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) AML18 version 2 trial (NCT02272478) comparing outcomes of CPX-351 vs daunorubicin (D) + cytarabine (A) + and gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) in 439 patients aged ≥60 years with non-adverse risk cytogenetics acute myeloid leukemia (AML; 81% de novo, 7% secondary) or myelodysplasia (MDS; 12%) were published by Knapper et al. in Blood. Patients were randomized 1:2 to receive DA + two doses of GO (DAGO2) or CPX-351. Outcomes assessed included complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity, overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS).
Key data: Post course-1 CR + CRi rates were higher with DAGO2 compared with CPX-351 (60.0% vs 47.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–0.91; p = 0.016). A higher proportion of patients attained CR/CRi with MRD <0.1% post course-1 in the DAGO2 arm vs the CPX-351 arm (47.3% vs 29.3%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29–0.73; p = 0.004). DAGO2 was associated with improved 3-year EFS (34% vs 27%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.93; p = 0.012) and OS (52% vs 35%; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46–0.83; p = 0.001) vs CPX-351. CPX-351 did not benefit those with MDS-related mutations (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.97–2.03) and was associated with poorer survival in patients with NPM1 (HR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.17–6.82) and FLT3 mutations (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 0.98–4.68) compared with DAGO2.
Key learning: In fit older patients with AML without adverse-risk cytogenetics, DAGO2 resulted in deeper early responses and superior EFS and OS compared with CPX-351, supporting DAGO2 as the preferred intensive induction option in this population.
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
Your opinion matters
On average, how many patients with acute myeloid leukemia do you see in a month?
