Department of Internal Medicine III, University Hospital of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
NCT-Trial Center, National Center of Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Leukemia. 2019 Aug;33(8):1923-1933. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0395-y. Epub 2019 Feb 6.
The aim of this randomized phase-II study was to evaluate the effect of substituting cytarabine by azacitidine in intensive induction therapy of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients were randomized to four induction schedules for two cycles: STANDARD (idarubicin, cytarabine, etoposide); and azacitidine given prior (PRIOR), concurrently (CONCURRENT), or after (AFTER) therapy with idarubicin and etoposide. Consolidation therapy consisted of allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation or three courses of high-dose cytarabine followed by 2-year maintenance therapy with azacitidine in the azacitidine-arms. AML with CBFB-MYH11, RUNX1-RUNX1T1, mutated NPM1, and FLT3-ITD were excluded and accrued to genotype-specific trials. The primary end point was response to induction therapy. The statistical design was based on an optimal two-stage design applied for each arm separately. During the first stage, 104 patients (median age 62.6, range 18-82 years) were randomized; the study arms PRIOR and CONCURRENT were terminated early due to inefficacy. After randomization of 268 patients, all azacitidine-containing arms showed inferior response rates compared to STANDARD. Event-free and overall survival were significantly inferior in the azacitidine-containing arms compared to the standard arm (p < 0.001 and p = 0.03, respectively). The data from this trial do not support the substitution of cytarabine by azacitidine in intensive induction therapy.
本随机二期研究的目的是评估在急性髓系白血病(AML)强化诱导治疗中用阿扎胞苷替代阿糖胞苷的效果。患者被随机分为四个诱导方案进行两个周期:标准方案(伊达比星、阿糖胞苷、依托泊苷);以及在伊达比星和依托泊苷治疗之前(先期)、同时(同期)或之后(后续)给予阿扎胞苷。巩固治疗包括异基因造血细胞移植或三个高剂量阿糖胞苷疗程,然后在阿扎胞苷组中进行 2 年阿扎胞苷维持治疗。排除 CBFB-MYH11、RUNX1-RUNX1T1、突变型 NPM1 和 FLT3-ITD 的 AML,并归入特定基因型试验。主要终点是诱导治疗的反应。统计设计基于分别适用于每个臂的最优两阶段设计。在第一阶段,104 名患者(中位年龄 62.6 岁,范围 18-82 岁)被随机分组;由于无效,先期和同期臂提前终止。在随机分配 268 名患者后,所有包含阿扎胞苷的臂与标准臂相比反应率较低。无事件生存和总生存在包含阿扎胞苷的臂与标准臂相比明显较差(p<0.001 和 p=0.03,分别)。这项试验的数据不支持在强化诱导治疗中用阿扎胞苷替代阿糖胞苷。