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
This month, in Haematologica, Bruno C. Medeiros from Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA, and colleagues published results of their randomized open-label phase II study (NCT01358734) which compared the safety and efficacy of continuous high-dose lenalidomide (LEN), sequential azacitidine (AZA) and LEN or AZA alone in patients aged ≥ 65 years with newly diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML).
Overall, 88 newly diagnosed AML patients were randomized to receive either high-dose continuous LEN (n = 15, median age = 80 years), sequential AZA and LEN (n = 39, median age = 76 years) or AZA alone (n = 34, median age 75 years).
In summary, high-dose continuous LEN was not well tolerated and led to a high rate of discontinuation and an increased hazard of death compared to sequential AZA and LEN or AZA alone in patients aged ≥ 65 years with newly diagnosed AML.
Medeiros et al., suggested that based on the early HR for death observed in their study, their data does not support the use of continuous high-dose LEN or sequential AZA plus LEN over AZA alone in patients aged ≥ 65 years with newly diagnosed AML.
Therapy of acute myeloid leukemia in older persons is associated with poor outcomes because of intolerance to intensive therapy, resistant disease and co-morbidities. This multi-center, randomized, open-label, phase-2 trial compared safety and efficacy of three therapeutic strategies in persons ≥65 years with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: (1) continuous high-dose lenalidomide (N=15); (2) sequential azacitidine and lenalidomide (N=39); and (3) azacitidine (N=34) only. The efficacy endpoint was 1-year survival. Median age was 76 years (range, 66-87 years). Thirteen subjects (15%) had prior myelodysplastic syndrome and 41 (47%), adverse cytogenetics. One-year survival was 21% (95% confidence interval, 0, 43%) with high-dose lenalidomide, 44% (28, 60%) with sequential azacitidine and lenalidomide, and 52% (35, 70%) with azacitidine only. Lenalidomide at a continuous high-dose schedule was poorly-tolerated resulting in a high rate of early-therapy discontinuations. Hazard of death in the 1st 4 months was greatest in subjects receiving continuous high-dose lenalidomide; hazards of death thereafter were similar. These data do not favor use of continuous high-dose lenalidomide or sequential lenalidomide and azacitidine over the conventional dose and schedule of azacitidine only in persons aged ≥65 years with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01358734).
References