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 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
What does real-world data tell us about frontline therapy with CPX-351 vs venetoclax + azacitidine?
Featured:
During the 63rd ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition, the AML Hub was pleased to speak with Andrew Matthews, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, US. We asked, What does real-world data tell us about frontline therapy with CPX-351 vs venetoclax and azacitidine?
What does real-world data tell us about frontline therapy with CPX-351 vs Ven + Aza?
Matthews begins by outlining the background for this study, presented at ASH, where the primary outcome of overall survival (OS) was directly compared for CPX-351 vs Ven + Aza. He discusses results of the study and various analyses of these results. Matthews highlights that since at this point there are not yet significant differences in OS between the two therapies, adverse events are key in decision making.