Zeidan Amer M, Wang Rong, Wang Xiaoyi, Shallis Rory M, Podoltsev Nikolai A, Bewersdorf Jan P, Huntington Scott F, Neparidze Natalia, Giri Smith, Gore Steven D, Davidoff Amy J, Ma Xiaomei
Department of Internal Medicine.
Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center.
Blood Adv. 2020 May 26;4(10):2192-2201. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001779.
The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine and decitabine have been the de facto standard of care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are unfit for intensive therapy. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we identified 2263 older adults (age ≥66 years) diagnosed with AML during 2005-2015 who received a first-line HMA; 1154 (51%) received azacitidine, and 1109 (49%) received decitabine. Median survival from diagnosis was 7.1 and 8.2 months (P < .01) for azacitidine- and decitabine-treated patients, respectively. Mortality risk was higher with azacitidine vs decitabine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.21; P = .02). The findings were similar when evaluating only patients completing ≥4 cycles (42% of patients treated with either azacitidine or decitabine). These findings lost significance when evaluating those completing a standard 7-day schedule of azacitidine (34%) vs 5-day schedule for decitabine (66%) (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.08; P = .43). Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion independence (TI) was achieved in one-third of patients with no difference between the 2 HMAs. In conclusion, the majority of older AML patients did not receive the minimum of 4 cycles of HMA often needed to elicit clinical benefit. We observed no clinically meaningful differences between azacitidine- and decitabine-treated patients in their achievement of RBC TI or survival.
对于不适合强化治疗的急性髓系白血病(AML)患者,低甲基化药物(HMA)阿扎胞苷和地西他滨一直是实际的标准治疗药物。利用监测、流行病学和最终结果-医疗保险链接数据库,我们确定了2005年至2015年期间被诊断为AML并接受一线HMA治疗的2263名老年人(年龄≥66岁);1154名(51%)接受了阿扎胞苷治疗,1109名(49%)接受了地西他滨治疗。阿扎胞苷和地西他滨治疗的患者从诊断开始的中位生存期分别为7.1个月和8.2个月(P<0.01)。与地西他滨相比,阿扎胞苷的死亡风险更高(风险比[HR],1.11;95%置信区间[CI],1.01-1.21;P=0.02)。仅评估完成≥4个周期的患者时(接受阿扎胞苷或地西他滨治疗的患者中有42%),结果相似。当评估完成阿扎胞苷标准7天疗程(34%)与地西他滨5天疗程(66%)的患者时,这些结果失去了显著性(HR,0.95;95%CI,0.83-1.08;P=0.43)。三分之一的患者实现了红细胞(RBC)输血独立性(TI),两种HMA之间无差异。总之,大多数老年AML患者未接受通常获得临床益处所需的至少4个周期的HMA治疗。我们观察到,在实现RBC TI或生存方面,阿扎胞苷和地西他滨治疗的患者之间没有临床意义上的差异。