MOFFITT.org/ccj Vol. 20, No. 4, October 2013 Supplement
H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER & RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN NCI COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER
Expert Insights Into the
Contemporary Management
of Older Adults With
Acute Myeloid LeukemiaFarhad Ravandi, MD, Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD,
and Daniel A. Pollyea, MD, MS
12902 Magnolia Drive
Tampa FL 33612-9416
Cancer Control is included in
Index Medicus/MEDLINE
Jointly sponsored by:
This activity is supported by an independent educational grant from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement Cancer Control 1
Editorial Board Members
CANCER CONTROL: JOURNAL OF THE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER (ISSN 1073-2748) is published by H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612. Telephone: 813-745-1348. Fax: 813-449-8680. E-mail: [email protected]. Internet address: MOFFITT.org/ccj. Cancer Control is included in Index Medicus ®/MEDLINE® and EMBASE®/Excerpta Medica, Thomson Reuters Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch®) and Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition. Send subscription requests to the publisher. Single copy: $10 US, $15 Canada and foreign. Subscription rates: nonqualified individuals $60 per year US, $75 per year outside US, institutions/libraries $120 per year US ($135 per year foreign). Send change of address to the publisher with old address label and new address. Publisher is not responsible for undelivered copies. Copyright 2013 by H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute. All rights reserved. Printed on acid-free paper.
Cancer Control: Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center is a peer-reviewed journal that is published to enhance the knowledge needed by professionals in oncology to help them minimize the impact of human malignancy. Each issue emphasizes a specific theme relating to the detection or management of cancer. The objectives of Cancer Control are to define the current state of cancer care, to integrate recently generated information with historical practice patterns, and to enlighten readers through critical reviews, commentaries, and analyses of recent research studies.
DISCLAIMER: All articles published in this journal, including editorials and letters, represent the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board, the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Inc, or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated unless clearly specified. The reader is advised to independently verify the effective-ness of all methods of treatment and the accuracy of all drug names, dosages, and schedules. Dosages and methods of administration of pharmaceutical products may not be those listed in the package insert and solely reflect the experience of the author(s) and/or clinical investigator(s).
Conor C. Lynch, PhDAssistant MemberTumor Biology
Amit Mahipal, MDAssistant MemberHematology/OncologyClinical Research Unit
Kenneth L. Meredith, MDAssistant MemberGastrointestinal Oncology
Kristen J. Otto, MDAssistant MemberHead & Neck Oncology
Mary C. Pinder-Schenck, MDAssistant MemberThoracic Oncology
Elizabeth M. Sagatys, MDAssistant MemberPathology - Clinical
Jose E. Sarria, MDAssistant MemberAnesthesiology
Saïd M. Sebti, PhDSenior MemberDrug Discovery
Bijal D. Shah, MDAssistant MemberMalignant Hematology
Lubomir Sokol, MD, PhDAssociate MemberHematology/Oncology
Hatem H. Soliman, MDAssistant MemberBreast Oncology
Jonathan R. Strosberg, MDAssistant MemberGastrointestinal Oncology
Sarah W. Thirlwell, RNClinical Nurse Specialist Ambulatory Nursing Professional Development
Michael B. Tomblyn, MDAssistant MemberRadiation Oncology
Nam D. Tran, MDAssistant MemberNeuro-Oncology
Jonathan S. Zager, MDAssociate MemberSarcoma and Cutaneous Oncology
Editor:
Lodovico Balducci, MDSenior MemberProgram Leader, Senior Adult Oncology ProgramMoffitt Cancer Center
Deputy Editor:
Julio M. Pow-Sang, MDSenior MemberChair, Department of Genitourinary OncologyDirector of Moffitt Robotics ProgramMoffitt Cancer Center
Editor Emeritus:
John Horton, MB, ChBProfessor Emeritus of Medicine & Oncology
Moffitt Cancer Center Journal Advisory Committee:
Matthew C. Biagioli, MDAssistant MemberGenitourinary Oncology
Dung-Tsa Chen, PhDAssociate MemberBiostatistics
Jasreman Dhillon, MDAssistant MemberPathology - Anatomic
Jennifer S. Drukteinis Schwanke, MDAssociate MemberDiagnostic Radiology
Timothy J. George, PharmDPharmacy Residency DirectorClinical Pharmacist - Malignant Hematology
Clement K. Gwede, PhDAssociate MemberHealth Outcomes & Behavior
John V. Kiluk, MDAssistant MemberBreast Oncology
Richard D. Kim, MDAssistant MemberGastrointestinal Oncology
Bela Kis, MD, PhDAssistant MemberDiagnostic Radiology
Rami Komrokji, MDAssociate MemberMalignant Hematology
Production Staff:
Veronica Nemeth Editorial Coordinator
Don Buchanan Graphic Designer
Consultants:
Linda StengleinMedical Copy Editor
Sherri DamloMedical Copy Editor
Susan Reckling, MAMedical Copy Editor
Michele R. SassiArt Coordinator
Associate Editor of Educational Projects
John M. York, PharmDAkita Biomedical Consulting1111 Bailey Drive Paso Robles, CA 93446Phone: 949-489-5570Fax: 949-203-6115E-mail: [email protected]
For Consumer and General Advertising Information:
Veronica NemethEditorial Coordinator Cancer Control: Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center12902 Magnolia Drive – MBC-JRNLTampa, FL 33612Phone: 813-745-1348Fax: 813-449-8680E-mail: [email protected]
Cancer Control is a member of the Medscape Publishers’ Circle®, an alliance of leading medical publishers whose content is featured on Medscape (www.medscape.com).
Most issues and supplements of Cancer Control are available at MOFFITT.org/ccj
2 Cancer Control October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement
Expert Insights Into the Contemporary Management of Older Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Farhad Ravandi, MD, Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, and Daniel A. Pollyea, MD, MS
Introduction 5
What are the clinical outcomes of older vs younger patients with AML? 5
How can prognostic factors guide therapy in older patients with AML? 7
Which emerging molecular and cytogenetic prognostic factors are most 9relevant to the community practitioner?
Are there any prognostic scoring systems that the practicing oncologist 9can use to decide which patients are suitable for intensive therapy and which patients are not?
What are some emerging therapies on the horizon for treating 10older patients with AML?
What are some promising agents with novel MOAs 11currently in clinical development?
When is referral of older patients with AML to a tertiary center warranted? 12
Case Study in Induction Therapy 12
Case Study in Post-Induction Therapy 12
Case Study in Postremission Therapy 14
Table of Contents
Article
Continuing Medical Education Activity
CME Instructions 3
About the art in this issue:
Tenzin Norbu Lama was born in Dolpo, Nepal. At the age of 12, he began painting and training with his father in traditional thangka painting, which usually involves painting on silk with appliqué or embroidery, often depicting a Buddhist deity, scene, or mandala. A well-known artist among the Buddhist and Nepali communities, Norbu mixes the thangka genre with creative and novel images of the Himalayan and Tibetan landscapes and lifestyles. His work has appeared in many international publications as well as the feature film, “Himalaya,” and he is the illustrator of four children’s books.
Norbu’s work is currently held in private collections and museums. His artwork was featured in a major exhibition at the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris in 2002. Norbu currently lives in Kathmandu but returns to Dolpo regularly, where he is turning his talent and creativity to education, helping to create cultural and economic opportunities in his homeland. For more information, the artist or his son can be contacted via e-mail at [email protected].
Cover: Travel by Night.
Page 2: Snow Leopard.
October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement Cancer Control 3
CME accreditation for this activity expires on September 30, 2014.
Instructions for CME Participants
Statement of Need
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is typically a disease of older adults, with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years.1 Patients 60 years and older fare significantly worse than their younger counterparts, with 5-year survival rates of 3% to 8% compared with rates of up to 50% in younger patients.2,3 The poor survival of older adults with AML reflects the higher frequency of adverse prognostic factors and comorbidities in this population, as well as the nihilistic view among some treating physicians that older patients are less likely to benefit from intensive therapies. Advances in genomics technologies have identified AML as a highly heterogeneous disease, and an increasing num-ber of patients can now be classified into distinct clinicopathologic subgroups based on their underly-ing genetic mutations. This has not only raised the promise of targeted treatment approaches that can improve the outcomes of older patients with AML but also engendered questions among community phy-sicians about how to incorporate prognostic factors into clinical decision making and the role of emerging
novel therapies in individualized care.
References
1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Can-cer J Clin. 2012;62(1):10-29. 2. Juliusson G, Antunovic P, Derolf A, et al. Age and acute myeloid leu-kemia: real world data on decision to treat and outcomes from the Swedish Acute Leukemia Registry. Blood. 2009;113(18):4179-4187. 3. Alibhai SM, Leach M, Minden MD, et al. Outcomes and quality of care in acute myeloid leukemia over 40 years. Cancer. 2009;115(13): 2903-2911.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this activity, participants should be able to:
• Assess methods to classify and determine the prognosis of older adults with AML
• Explain how patient characteristics and risk stratification affect treatment selection
• Differentiate emerging and evolving efficacy and safety data on novel therapies for older adults with AML
• Outline supportive care strategies that can help older adults with AML achieve the goals of
treatment
Target Audience
Hematology/oncology physicians, pathologists, and other health care professionals involved in the treat-ment of AML.
Joint Sponsorship
This CME activity was developed through the joint sponsorship of the University of Cincinnati and i3 Health.
Release Date: October 1, 2013Expiration Date: September 30, 2014
Accreditation Information
The University of Cincinnati is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
Credit Designation
ACCME
The University of Cincinnati designates this enduring material for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s) TM. Physicians should only claim credit com-mensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
The University of Cincinnati, as a provider accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, and i3 Health must ensure balance, inde-pendence, objectivity, and scientific rigor in all its ac-tivities. All course directors, faculty, planners, and any other individual in a position to control the content of this educational activity are required to disclose to the audience any relevant financial relationships with any commercial interest. The University of Cin-cinnati and i3 Health must determine if the faculty’s relationships may influence the educational content with regard to exposition or conclusion and resolve any conflicts of interest prior to the commencement of the educational activity.
4 Cancer Control October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement
All individuals in a position to control content have disclosed the following:
Faculty
Farhad Ravandi, MD (Chairperson), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, served as an author and discloses relationships with Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Amgen, Inc, and Seattle Genetics, Inc (advisory boards), and has received grant money from Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Merck & Co, Inc, Celgene Corp, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham, served as an author and discloses re-lationships with Novartis Corp (consultant) and Cel-gene Corp, Incyte Corp, and Novartis Corp (speaker’s bureaus). He has also received grants from Celator Pharmaceutical, Inc, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Seattle Genetics, Inc.
Daniel A. Pollyea, MD, MS, University of Colorado School of Medicine, served as an author and discloses relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Celgene Corp, and Agios Pharmaceuticals (advisory boards) and is on the speaker’s bureau and received grant money from Celgene Corp.
Planning Committee Members
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
CME Accreditation: Susan P. Tyler, MEd, CMP, CCMEP,has no relevant financial relationships with commer-cial interests to disclose.
Physician Reviewer: Rick Ricer, MD, has no relevantfinancial relationships with commercial interests to disclose.
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute,
Tampa, Florida
Independent Reviewer: Lodovico Balducci, MD, has no relevant financial relationships with commercial inter-ests to disclose.
Independent Reviewer: Bijal Shah, MD, serves as a consultant for Celgene Corp.
Activity planner and Independent Reviewer: John M. York, PharmD, Akita Biomedical Consulting, has no relevant financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose.
i3 Health Staff Members and the Peer/Content
Reviewers for this activity have no relevant financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose.
Discussion of Off-Label Use
Because this activity is meant to educate physicians and nursing professionals with what is currently in
use and what may be available in the future, “off-label” drugs are discussed in the presentation. Authors have been requested to inform the audience when off-label use is being discussed and a statement has been in-cluded in the course materials.
Discussion of Off-Label/Investigational Uses of Commercial Products
This activity contains information about experimental and other uses of drugs or devices that are not cur-rently approved by the FDA and/or other national regulatory agencies in the United States and other countries. Participants in the United States are encour-aged to consult the FDA-approved product labeling for any drug or device mentioned in this program before use. Participants from other countries should consult with their respective regulatory authorities.
Sponsorship
Funding for this monograph has been provided through an unrestricted educational grant from Boeh-ringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sponsorship of this monograph does not imply the sponsor’s agree-ment with the views expressed herein.
Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to ensure that drug us-age and other information are presented accurately; however, the ultimate responsibility rests with the prescribing physician. The University of Cincinnati, i3 Health, Cancer Control, Farhad Ravandi, MD, Daniel A. Pollyea, MD, MS, and Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, shall not be held responsible for errors or for any conse-quences arising from the use of information contained herein. Readers are strongly urged to consult any rel-evant primary literature. No claims or endorsements are made for any drug or compound at present under clinical investigation.
How to Claim CME/CE Credit
1. Read this supplement in its entirety
2. To claim CME credit, please enter the following URL into your Web browser address bar: http://www.i3Health.com/AML
3. Complete and submit the posttest and activity Evaluation
4. Print your Certificate of Credit
This activity is provided free of charge to participants.
Contact Information
Please direct any questions regarding this activity to [email protected].
October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement Cancer Control 5
factors and comorbidities in older patients, as well as
a preference among some physicians not to treat older
patients as aggressively because of the expectation that
they are less likely to benefit from intensive therapies.
The following report presents highlights from
a roundtable discussion among three leading AML
investigators: Farhad Ravandi, MD, from the Uni-
versity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Harry
P. Erba, MD, PhD, from the University of Alabama at
Birmingham, and Daniel A. Pollyea, MD, MS, from
the University of Colorado. These experts share in-
sights into how they manage AML in older adults
and provide answers to frequently asked questions
regarding the use of cytogenetic and molecular test-
ing in treatment planning, emerging novel therapies
with the potential to improve patient outcomes, and
the referral of patients to tertiary cancer centers. In
addition, case studies are used to illustrate selected
therapeutic strategies for induction, postinduction,
and postremission therapy.
What are the clinical outcomes of older vs younger patients with AML?
Dr Ravandi: AML is a disease of the elderly, and a
great proportion of patients are older than 60 years
of age. The traditional intensive cytarabine- and an-
thracycline-based regimen “3 + 7” (eg, daunorubicin
45 to 60 mg/m2 per day intravenously for 3 days and
IntroductionAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a clonal, malignant
disease of hematopoietic tissues characterized by the
accumulation of abnormal blast cells, principally in
bone marrow, and impaired production of normal
blood cells. In 2013, an estimated 14,590 new cases
will be diagnosed and 10,370 people will die of the
disease.1 AML is typically a disease of older adults,
with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years.1 Patients
60 years of age and older fare significantly worse than
their younger counterparts, with 5-year survival rates
of 3% to 8% in older patients compared with rates of
up to 50% in younger patients.2,3 This poor survival
reflects the higher frequency of adverse prognostic
From the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (FR), the University of Alabama at Birmingham (HPE), and the Univer-sity of Colorado (DAP).
Address correspondence to Farhad Ravandi, MD, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 428, Room FC4.3000, Houston, TX 77030. E-mail: fravandi@ mdanderson.org
Dr Ravandi is on advisory boards for Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Amgen, Inc, and Seattle Genetics, Inc, and has received grant money from Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Merck & Co, Inc, Cel-gene Corp, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Dr Erba is a consultant with Novartis Corp and is on the speaker’s bureau for Celgene Corp, Incyte Corp, and Novartis Corp. He has also received grant funding from Celator Pharmaceuticals Inc, Millennium Pharma-ceuticals Inc, and Seattle Genetics Inc. Dr Pollyea has served on advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Celgene Corp, and Agios Pharmaceuticals, and is on the speaker’s bureau and has received grant funding from Celgene Corp.
Leading investigators discuss the
management of AML in older patients,
the use of cytogenetic and molecular
testing in treatment planning,
and emerging novel therapies.
Expert Insights Into the Contemporary Management of Older Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Farhad Ravandi, MD, Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, and Daniel A. Pollyea, MD, MS
Tenzin Norbu Lama. Snow Leopard.
6 Cancer Control October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement
cytarabine 100 mg/m2 by continuous infusion for 7
days) has been very effective in producing remissions
in younger patients, typically those younger than age
60, and about half of the patients 60 years of age and
older (Table 1).
Dr Pollyea: Nevertheless, the outcomes of elderly
patients with AML are suboptimal compared with their
younger counterparts (Fig 1). In addition, the lack of
significant improvement despite 30 years of research
is quite humbling.4,5 However, I think we are now
on the threshold of significant change: we will soon
be able to better prognosticate those patients who
would tolerate and respond to some of our more
conventional therapies, we are learning more about
the biology of this disease, and we have multiple
promising novel therapies on the horizon that will
expand the pool of patients who will have clinically
significant responses and better outcomes than we
have seen historically.
Dr Erba: What we’ve learned over the past several
decades about the treatment of older patients with
AML is that in general they do not tolerate chemo-
therapy as well as younger patients do, remission
rates are lower, and event-free and overall survival are
inferior. However, we do need to keep in mind that
cytarabine and anthracycline still form the backbone
of treatment. Some older patients will achieve long-
lasting remissions and can potentially be cured of
their disease with traditional intensive chemotherapy.
What’s important for the practicing clinician is to iden-
tify those patients who may benefit from intensive
chemotherapy and not to avoid it solely on the basis
of age. Conversely, for patients with an antecedent
hematologic disorder or complex karyotypes who we
know do less well with chemotherapy, I think it is
reasonable to consider alternative options, preferably
in clinical trials. A number of agents in the pipeline
now are less intensive than standard chemotherapy,
which we’ll discuss later.
Dr Ravandi: It is important to remind treating prac-
titioners not to be nihilistic about older patients. An
analysis of the SEER registry by Meyers et al6 revealed
that more than half of elderly patients did not receive
any chemotherapy. However, a lot of data are now
available to suggest that any form of therapy, even
simple treatments such as low-dose cytarabine (Ara-
C), may be beneficial to older patients. For example,
Juliusson et al2 looked at six different regions in Swe-
den that varied with regard to treating AML in the
elderly. In those regions where intensive induction
therapy was more common, better outcomes were
Table 1. — Common Induction Regimens Used in the Treatment of Older Patients With AML
Regimen Outcomes of Selected Studies Comments
Standard “3 + 7” induction with cytarabine (100-200 mg/m² infusion × 7d) and anthracycline (daunorubicin, idarubicin, or mitoxantrone × 3d)
3 + 7 vs supportive care: OS was longer and CR rate was higher (58% vs 0%); hospitalization rate similar.8
Swedish study: Standard intensive treatment in older pts improves early death rates and long-term survival compared with palliation.2
A subset of older adults — those with intact functional status, minimal comorbidity, and favorable cytogenetic/molecular mutations — can thus benefit from intensive chemotherapy.
3 + 7 regimen with intensified-dose daunorubicin (90 mg/m² daily)
The higher dose was associated with increased CR, 2-yr EFS, and 2-yr OS in pts aged 60 to 65 yrs.42
There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of hematologic toxic effects, 30-day mortality, or the incidence of adverse events.
LDAC (20 mg twice daily for 10 days, at 4- to 6-wk intervals)
LDAC vs best supportive care/hydroxyurea: 18% of older pts given LDAC achieved CR vs 1% receiving supportive care.43
The survival advantage was not seen in pts with adverse cytogenetics. Toxicity scores and sup-portive care requirements did not differ between the treatment arms. Induction death occurred in 26% of pts.
Azacitidine (75 mg/m2 per day) Azacitidine vs conventional care regimens: CR rate was similar but median survival (24.5 vs 16 mos) and 2-yr OS (50% vs 16%) were significantly better.30
Azacytidine was better tolerated than conventional regimens, with fewer infections and fewer incidences of hospitalization.
Decitabine (20 mg/m2 daily for 5 days, repeated monthly)
Decitabine monotherapy: CR was 24%, with a median EFS and OS of 6 and 8 mos, respectively.44
Decitabine vs LDAC or BSC: Decitabine increased CR rate (18% vs 8%) but had little effect on OS.28
The 30-day mortality rate was 7%, and the most common toxicities were myelosuppression, febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and fatigue.
CR = complete remission, EFS = event-free survival, pts = patients, ORR = overall response rate, LDAC = low-dose Ara-C, OS = overall survival, BSC = best supportive care
October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement Cancer Control 7
reported: higher responses and longer survival. Of
course, not everyone in those regions was cured, but
I think it’s important to highlight that even the older
population can often tolerate intensive therapy. As Dr
Erba mentioned, in some of these patients, traditional
Ara-C and anthracycline can be very effective.
Dr Pollyea: I think that the power of the Swedish
study is that it takes some element of selection bias
out of the equation, which is one of the problems
when you review the literature trying to decide what’s
best for your patients. I think selection bias plays a
huge role in some clinical trials, so population-based
studies, such as the Swedish one, are really useful to
get a different perspective. I think we all agree that
age is a very important factor in making some of these
decisions, but like Dr Erba said, I think it is clear that
age is not the most powerful predictor of outcomes.
How can prognostic factors guide therapy in older patients with AML?
Dr Pollyea: We all appreciate how powerful cyto-
genetics can be for prognosis, but how does that
influence your upfront treatment of elderly patients
with AML when you may not have the data at the
time of diagnosis? Do you wait or do you typically
treat before having the results of cytogenetic testing?
Dr Erba: Cytogenetic and molecular data can help
us identify patients who can benefit from standard
chemotherapy and those who won’t benefit and who
should be considered for alternative approaches (Ta-
ble 2). I agree with Dr Ravandi in that some treatment
is likely better than no treatment. However, there are
only two randomized clinical trials that address this
issue. Twenty years ago, French researchers looked
at low-dose Ara-C vs an anthracycline- and cytarabine-
based regimen and found a higher remission rate with
anthracycline and cytarabine but more toxicity and no
difference in overall survival.7 Another study, from
Löwenberg et al,8 showed that when the 3 + 7 regimen
(or a 3 + 7-like approach) was compared to pallia-
tive treatment with hydroxyurea, there was a survival
benefit. No studies in the modern era have looked at
low-intensity regimens compared with more intensive
therapy. However, a retrospective analysis9 showed
that the survival of older patients is not impaired if
you begin treating them with a less intensive therapy
such as hypomethylating agents compared with an
intensive cytarabine-based regimen.
The reason why I think cytogenetic and molecular
data are important is that there is some information
— for example, core-binding factor (CBF) transloca-
tions, mutant nucleophosmin (NPM1) without Fms-
like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3)-activating mutations, or
mutations in CCAAT/enhancer binding protein-alpha
(CEBPA) — that potentially confers higher response
AML (non-APL) Dx 1997-2006
10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Years From Diagnosis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
rop
ort
ion
Su
rviv
ing
16–29 yrs, n = 76
30–39 yrs, n = 116
40–49 yrs, n = 200
50–59 yrs, n = 405
60–69 yrs, n = 642
70–79 yrs, n = 998
80–89 yrs, n = 682
90–99 yrs, n = 86
Fig 1. — Overall survival of patients with AML irrespective of management. From Juliusson G. Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia benefit from intensive chemotherapy: an update from the Swedish Acute Leukemia Registry. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011;11(suppl 1):S54-S59. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.
8 Cancer Control October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement
rates and superior event-free and overall survival com-
pared with older patients who do not have those
characteristics, when treated with standard induc-
tion chemotherapy (Fig 2). So I primarily use cyto-
genetic and molecular data to select patients that I
want to approach in a curative fashion. Conversely,
if the cytogenetic or molecular
data suggest that the patient will
not be cured by the standard an-
thracycline/cytarabine approach,
then I would consider alternative,
less intensive therapies that are
commercially available, such as
hypomethylating agents, or an
appropriate clinical trial.
My final point on this issue
is that if the patient is 60 years
old and has high-risk cytogenet-
ics or poor-risk molecular mark-
ers, I’m not certain that it matters
how you get that patient into a
remission. However, if you get
a remission and you still want
to consider a curative option in
that genetic subset, all roads lead
to an allogeneic transplant with
a reduced-intensity conditioning
regimen. For an older patient
with poor-risk cytogenetics or
a history of antecedent hema-
tologic disorders, I think it’s ap-
propriate to consider less inten-
sive therapies. However, if the
patient responds and his or her
performance status and organ
function are good, don’t forget
that you can still consider poten-
tially curative options for those
older adults.
Dr Ravandi: It is important to
obtain cytogenetic and molecular
data whenever possible. Sekeres
et al10 looked at patients from MD
Anderson and the Cleveland Clin-
ic with a white blood cell count
of < 50,000/mm3 and found that
there was no worsening of out-
come if you waited 5 days to get
the molecular and genetic data in
the elderly population compared
to if you went ahead and treated
straight away. I don’t think physi-
cians would lose anything in older
AML patients without proliferative
disease to wait a few days to get
the cytogenetic and molecular
data and use them exactly as Dr
Erba suggested.
Table 2. — AML Risk Groups Based on Cytogenetic and Molecular Factors
Risk Profile Cytogenetic Subgroup Molecular Genetic Subgroup
Favorable t(15;17)(q22;q21) PML-RARA
t(8;21)(q22;q22)* RUNX1-RUNX1T1*
inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22)* CBFB-MYH11*
Normal karyotype Mutated NPM1 without FLT3-ITD
Normal karyotype Mutated CEBPA without FLT3-ITD
Intermediate Other normal karyotypes
t(9;11)(q22;q23) MLLT3-MLL
Other normal karyotypes
Adverse t(6;9)(p23;q34) DEK-NUP214
inv(3)(q21q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21;q26.2) RPN1-EVI1
t(v;11q23) MLL rearranged
Monosomy 5, del(5q), monosomy 7
Complex karyotype†
* Patients in this category have core-binding factor AML.
† Patients in this category have three or more chromosome abnormalities in the absence of one of the recurring translocations or inversions.
From Dombret H, Gardin C. An old AML drug revisited. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(13):1301-1303. Copyright © 2009. Reprinted with permission by Massachusetts Medical Society.
0 2 4 6 8
Years
Favorable risk (n = 190; median = 7.6)
Intermediate risk (n = 686; median = 1.3)
Adverse risk (n = 248; median = 0.5)
10 12 14
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
po
rtio
n
Fig 2. — Overall survival in AML patients categorized into favorable, intermediate, and adverse cytogenetic risk groups using the CALGB criteria. From Byrd JC, Mrózek K, Dodge RK, et al. Pretreatment cytogenetic abnormalities are predictive of induction success, cumulative incidence of relapse, and overall survival in adult patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 8461). Blood. 2002;100(13):4325-4336. Blood: Journal of the American Society of Hematology by Amer-ican Society of Hematology; HighWire Press Copyright 2002. Reproduced with permission of AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEMATOLOGY (ASH) in the format republish in a journal via Copyright Clearance Center.
October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement Cancer Control 9
Dr Pollyea: I think that’s an important point: prac-
titioners who see patients with AML in the commu-
nity should appreciate that cytogenetic and molecu-
lar information can guide treatment decisions in the
first-line setting. It’s no longer an “over-the-shoulder”
look to decide whether or not a patient should get
consolidated with a transplant. It actually does have
implications for upfront treatment strategies, not only
in the experimental realm for purposes of clinical
trials, but also for making real treatment decisions
in the clinic. I agree with Dr Erba that for a patient
over age 60, the key to long-term survival or cure is
getting that patient through an allogeneic stem-cell
transplant. Those with antecedent hematologic dis-
ease or complex karyotype have less of an ability to
respond to intensive regimens, so these are the issues
that need to be considered upfront in order to select
the optimal therapy for the patient.
Which emerging molecular and cytogenetic prognostic factors are most relevant to the community practitioner?
Dr Ravandi: At the moment, I think the only factors
that are clinically significant are FLT3, NPM1, and CEB-
PA. Those factors have enough data to suggest that
they can affect, at minimum, postremission therapy.
There are other molecular aberrations that are going
to be important — for example, IDH1, IDH2, and MLL
— but the literature is not yet sufficient to recommend
those be tested by the community physician. There
are also some data that suggest that the presence of
mutated c-KIT in patients with core-binding factor
leukemias is associated with an adverse outcome, but
whether these data should lead to a change in therapy
will need to be answered by ongoing clinical trials.
Dr Pollyea: There are going to be some practice-
changing findings coming out in the new molecular
era. Already, in younger patients, DNA methyltrans-
ferase 3A (DNMT3A) status, as well as NPM1 and MLL,
impacts upfront induction chemotherapy treatment
choices.11 Also, inhibiting IDH in patients with an
IDH mutation is certainly on the horizon. Although
it’s premature to make a recommendation that DN-
MT3A, IDH, and MLL testing needs to be part of ev-
eryone’s standard clinical practice pattern, I do feel
strongly that it would be in our patients’ best interests
to have these and other genes tested, if not for mak-
ing frontline treatment decisions, then for treatment
of relapses when they occur. I think we’re right on
the cusp of these tests becoming standard.
Dr Erba: For the practicing hematologist/oncologist
in the community, I think there are some important
points to be made in terms of routine clinical practice.
When you see older patients with cytopenias and
you’re performing a marrow, it’s important to do the
cytogenetic analysis as well as test for the molecular
markers NPM1, FLT3, and CEBPA. Physicians need to
understand that cytogenetics can be done on periph-
eral blood even with few circulating blasts because
those will be the ones that divide in culture. So it is
at least worth an attempt to get those studies done
on peripheral blood when you have a dry tap. At the
end of the day, this testing is important enough that
you should go back and repeat a marrow if you have
to, in order to collect that information. It does help in
prognostication and in choosing the most appropriate
therapies for these patients.
Dr Ravandi: Cytogenetics is obviously imperative, but
it is a work in progress. As whole genome and exome
sequencing becomes cheaper and cheaper, we may in
the near future see a further subclassification of AML
based on various pathways discerned with sequencing.
At the moment, I think cytogenetic testing is critical
and molecular testing for FLT3, NPM1, and CEBPA is
useful. Further, there are novel agents that may be
approved in the next several years that could actually
directly affect these aberrant molecular pathways.
Are there any prognostic scoring systems that the practicing oncologist can use to decide which patients are suitable for inten-sive therapy and which patients are not?
Dr Pollyea: I believe there are some really good scor-
ing systems, particularly the MD Anderson system12
and the online AML-SCORE.13,14 Although I think that
some of the data for the AML-SCORE calculator are
not typically thought of as prognostic for AML, such
as temperature and fibrinogen, I’ve used it as a tool
when subjective analysis is insufficient. We can rely
on experience for a lot of decisions, but since this
disease is infrequently encountered in the community,
it helps to have some validated data points. I would
also like to see these prognostic scores incorporated
more in the reporting of clinical trials.
Dr Erba: I agree that we need to examine prognostic
factors prospectively. It’s not quite clear if the nega-
tive impact of traditional prognostic factors such as
performance status is as important today as it was
in the past. As an example, we know that SWOG
investigators have looked at five clinical trials that
were done — two in patients younger than age 55
and three in patients older than age 55 — and they
found a very clear correlation between early mortal-
ity, age, and performance status.15 Patients with a
10 Cancer Control October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement
performance status of 2 or 3 who were over the age
of 65 had over 30% induction mortality with the 3 +
7 regimen. However, we’ve recently looked at our
data from the 1990s, and it’s not clear that induction
mortality is as dismal as it seems from those older
studies with older patients.16 The one caveat is that
over the last decade, as other less intensive therapies
and experimental protocols have become available,
physicians have been reluctant to treat older patients
with 3 + 7. I think we’re in some ways selecting
against the older, more infirm patients on these clini-
cal trials. In order to do this research correctly, we
have to incorporate modern scoring systems and ge-
riatric assessment tools that include scores of fitness
for chemotherapy, performance of activities of daily
living, and so on.17,18
Dr Ravandi: Yes, I agree. For example, at MD An-
derson, we use the score published by Kantarjian et
al12 to select therapy for patients over the age of 60
up to about 70 years. One point of that score is a
creatinine level of > 1.3 mg/dL, which can be used
to select against a fair number of patients over the
age of 60 so that they are not treated with Ara-C/an-
thracycline-based therapy. The UK Medical Research
Council (MRC) also has a similar scoring system,19
which they report in all of their trials. As Dr Pollyea
mentioned, the German AML-SCORE tool is useful
as well. All these systems, however, are continually
evolving and so will likely need to be refined as
new supportive care strategies and new treatment
regimens become standard.
What are some emerging therapies on the horizon for treating older patients with AML?
Dr Erba: There are a number of new drugs being
tested in patients deemed unsuitable for Ara-C/anthra-
cycline-based chemotherapy (Table 3). First, gemtu-
zumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody linked to a
cytotoxic antibiotic, has probably the longest history
Table 3. — Selected Novel Agents Under Investigation in Older Patients With AML
Agent Class Phase Outcomes of Selected Studies
Gemtuzumab ozogamicin
Anti-CD33 antibody conjugate III First-line gemtuzumab vs standard chemotherapy in pts aged 50-70 yrs: CR/CRp was 81% vs 75%, 2-year EFS was 41% vs 17%, and OS was 53% vs 42%; benefit was seen mostly in patients with favorable- and intermediate-risk cytogenetics.2
Clofarabine Purine nucleoside analogue II, III First-line monotherapy in older pts with unfavorable prognostic factors: ORR was 46% (38% CR, 8% CRp); DFS was 37 wks, OS was 41 wks.23
Clofarabine + cytarabine vs placebo + cytarabine in R/R older pts:46 ORR was 47% (35% CR) vs 23% (18% CR); OS, DFS, and DOR were similar in both arms.
Lenalidomide Immunomodulatory agent I/II First-line azacitidine then lenalidomide in older pts: ORR was 40%, including 28% CR/CRi); AEs were gastrointestinal, fatigue, and myelosuppression.24
CPX-351 Liposomal daunorubicin and cytarabine
IIb First-line CPX-351 vs 3 + 7 regimen in older pts: CR/CRi was 69% vs 27%, median EFS was 9 mos vs 1 mo, median OS was 11 vs 6 mos, and 60-day mortality was 4% vs 40%.33
Quizartinib FLT3 kinase inhibitor II Monotherapy in R/R older pts: for FLT3-ITD–positive pts, the composite CR rate was 54%, median DOR was 12.7 weeks, and median OS was 25.3 wks, significantly higher than for FLT3-ITD–negative pts.31
Volasertib Polo-like kinase (PLK1) inhibitor II First-line volasertib + LDAC vs LDAC in elderly pts: CR/CRi was 31.0% vs 11.1%; a trend for EFS benefit was also observed; remissions were observed across all genetic groups; common AEs were febrile neutropenia, constipation, nausea, and anemia.35
Tosedostat Aminopeptidase inhibitor II Monotherapy in R/R pts: 10% CR/CRi; most common AEs were febrile neutropenia and thrombocytopenia.47
Vosaroxin Topoisomerase II inhibitor Ib, II Monotherapy in R/R pts: 7% CR/CRi; major dose-limiting toxicity was stomatitis.48
Vosaroxin + cytarabine in R/R pts: ORR was 29%, including 25% CR; median OS 7.1 mos.34
Bortezomib Proteasome inhibitor I, II First-line bortezomib + decitabine: 37% CR/CRi.49
First-line bortezomib + daunorubicin/Ara-C: 69% CR/CRi.50
R/R = relapsed/refractory, CR = complete remission, CRi = CR with incomplete blood count recovery, CRp = CR with incomplete platelet recovery, pts = patients, ORR = overall response rate, AE = adverse event, LDAC = low-dose cytarabine, DOR = duration of response, DFS = disease-free survival
October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement Cancer Control 11
in older patients with AML; it was first approved in
May 2000 as a single agent for older patients with
relapsed AML who were considered to be not suitable
for chemotherapy. Approval was based on phase II
studies that showed a 25% to 30% complete remission
(CR) plus CR with incomplete platelet count recovery
(CRi).20 After it came into routine clinical practice,
many of us saw that the drug was given to older,
frail individuals who had very refractory leukemias.
Unfortunately in that situation, we saw more of the
toxicity than the benefit of the drug, and the initial
enthusiasm waned. Then came the SWOG study that
combined gemtuzumab single dose on day 4 with
standard anthracycline and cytarabine that showed
no improvement in CR rates, disease-free or overall
survival, and unfortunately a higher induction mortal-
ity.21 So the FDA asked the manufacturer to remove
the drug from the market, which it did voluntarily.
However, that decision may have been premature
because very shortly after that a number of studies
were published involving older patients and combin-
ing gemtuzumab with chemotherapy. The most excit-
ing of these was the French Acute Leukemia French
Association ALFA-0701 study in which gemtuzumab
was given at a total dose of 9 mg/m2 but in a novel
fractionated schedule of 3 mg/m2 on days 1, 3, and 5,
with a standard daunorubicin and cytarabine includ-
ing daunorubicin 60 mg/m2.22 While no difference
was seen in CR rates between the gemtuzumab-con-
taining arm and standard chemotherapy, a significant
improvement in event-free and overall survival was
reported in patients between the ages of 50 and 70
years. The benefit was seen mostly in patients with
favorable- and intermediate-risk cytogenetics, not in
the poor-risk cytogenetic group. In addition, there
was a benefit even in the older patients in that age
group, those between 65 and 70 years. There were
three cases of hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD),
one of which was fatal and associated with the gem-
tuzumab. Nonetheless, many of us believe that the
withdrawal of gemtuzumab was premature and that it
is actually an active agent, especially in older patients.
I have been closely involved in the development
of the purine nucleoside analogue clofarabine as a
single agent for the treatment of older patients with
AML.23 Dr Kantarjian and I led a phase II study in
the United States of older AML patients with high-risk
features. The overall response rate was 45%. What
was really intriguing to us is that when we looked
at patients with high-risk cytogenetics or antecedent
hematologic disorders, the response rates were similar
to those who did not have those high-risk features.
In terms of toxicity, the induction mortality was just
under 10%, with about a 20% to 25% rate of reversible
hepatic toxicity and about a 5% rate of renal toxicity,
again mostly reversible. It’s now being tested in an
ECOG trial looking at clofarabine vs standard dauno-
rubicin and cytarabine for older patients.
Dr Pollyea: I think lenalidomide is another inter-
esting agent for the treatment of AML. It’s an active
agent, and we’ve been working for several years to
determine what setting is ideal, at what dose, and with
what other agents. We did a phase I study followed
by a phase II study of sequential therapy with azaciti-
dine followed by a high dose of lenalidomide and had
some promising results.24,25 We saw a 40% overall
response rate and close to a 30% CR rate so there is
a significant minority of patients who do respond to
this regimen, and that was in the elderly population.
Although the mechanism is not well understood, it
does appear that lenalidomide is an active drug for
elderly AML patients. We’re now piloting this regimen
in relapsed and refractory patients to see what the
activity is in that setting. There is also a company-
sponsored trial comparing the sequential combination
with high doses of lenalidomide followed by more
maintenance doses, which has been piloted by Wash-
ington University.26 We’re doing that in a controlled
randomized fashion to determine which of these two
regimens may be more effective for this population.
Dr Erba: A hypomethylating agent that has been ap-
proved for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and is
used for AML is decitabine. The Ohio State University
group published some interesting data regarding a
10-day course of decitabine using what we refer to
as the “MD Anderson dosing schedule” of 20 mg/m2
intravenously over 1 hour on days 1 to 10 of 4-week
cycles.27 The researchers saw encouraging response
rates: 42% of patients achieved CR and 58% achieved
either CR or CRi. In addition, a phase III trial compar-
ing decitabine to either supportive care or low-dose
Ara-C showed a statistically nonsignificant but favor-
able trend for increased overall survival for patients
treated with decitabine, from 5.0 to 7.7 months.28
Unfortunately, because of the statistical design of
the study, the drug did not receive approval for use
in older AML patients. The other hypomethylating
agent used off-label in this setting is azacitidine. Sev-
eral recent studies have shown that azacitidine either
prolongs overall survival compared to conventional
regimens29 or has similar efficacy but a better toxicity
profile30 in older patients with AML.
What are some promising agents with novel MOAs currently in clinical development?
Dr Ravandi: One new class of agents is the FLT3 ki-
nase inhibitors, the most potent and specific of which
is quizartinib (AC220). It has been evaluated in a
phase II study as a single oral agent in the relapse
12 Cancer Control October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement
setting in older FLT3-ITD–positive patients who were
in first relapse or primary refractory disease.31 The
overall composite CR rate (CR + CRi) was 44% to 47%.
Essentially, the drug was able to clear the marrow
from leukemic cells in the first relapse setting in al-
most half of heavily pretreated patients. That is quite
remarkable because we have been using combination
chemotherapy regimens in the relapse setting in AML
for many years, and if a regimen produces a 35% re-
sponse rate, we consider it active, even in the younger
patients. We also recently reported the results of a
study combining another FLT3 inhibitor, sorafenib,
plus 5-azacytidine in patients with FLT3-ITD–positive
AML, and we saw approximately a 50% response in
very heavily pretreated patients.32 So I think these
FLT3 kinase inhibitors are potentially active agents,
and I would encourage practicing oncologists to refer
their patients to these trials.
Dr Ravandi: Three other novel agents are worth
mentioning (Table 3). The first is CPX-351, a liposo-
mal formulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin in a
5:1 molar ratio, which is being evaluated in untreated
older AML patients and secondary AML.33 The phase
IIb study presented at ASH 2012 compared up to 2
induction and 2 consolidation courses of CPX-351
with standard 3 + 7 therapy. Patients treated with
CPX-351 showed marked improvements in CR + CRi
rate, median event-free survival, and overall survival.
This activity was seen in all subgroups, including
patients with adverse cytogenetics. Second, a first-in-
class quinolone derivative topoisomerase II inhibitor
called vosaroxin potentially offers advantages over
anthracyclines, including less risk of off-target organ
damage (eg, cardiotoxicity). It was shown in a phase
II trial34 to have an overall response rate of 28%, most
of which were CRs, with an acceptable safety profile.
It is currently being evaluated in combination with
cytarabine in a large randomized phase III trial in
patients with relapsed AML. If vosaroxin becomes
available, it will be an important drug to consider
in the elderly, perhaps in combination with Ara-C or
hypomethylating agents. Third, a particularly inter-
esting new drug is volasertib, which is a polo-like
kinase (PLK1) inhibitor that was reported by Dohner
et al35 at ASH in 2012. PLK1 is essential for cell divi-
sion, specifically for spindle assembly during mitosis.
Volasertib was evaluated in a randomized phase II
trial of newly diagnosed older patients ineligible for
intensive therapy who received low-dose Ara-C plus
or minus volasertib. The volasertib arm was associ-
ated with an almost 3 times higher response rate and
better event-free and overall survival. A phase III trial
of volasertib called POLO-AML-2 was initiated in early
2013, so that’s another agent that’s potentially going
to find its way to the treatment of older AML patients.
Dr Erba: What was most impressive about the vola-
sertib data that Dr Dohner presented was the high re-
sponse rate, even in patients with complex karyotypes.
When is referral of older patients with AML to a tertiary center warranted?
Dr Ravandi: I believe that as many AML patients as
possible should be treated at academic institutions,
not because we are any better than community on-
cologists but because we have access to a number of
resources not generally available, including pretreat-
ment testing and banking and multiple clinical trials.
In general, I would recommend that all practitioners
consider sending their patients with acute leukemia
to academic centers.
Dr Erba: I agree. I would also say that AML is a rare
malignancy that the community oncologist is going to
see fewer than 5 to10 times per year. Even with less
intensive therapies, it will require hospitalization of
the patients due to the complication of bone marrow
failure. What the academic-centered setting offers is
continuous monitoring of these patients by house staff
as well as a variety of consultative services. The other
point is that for many patients with AML, the only
potentially curative option is allogeneic transplant.
So another advantage is that your patients are at a
center where tissue typing and donor searches can
be done early and the patient may more seamlessly
go to a transplant. In the community setting, it’s dif-
ficult to get that patient into see the transplanter at
the academic center and have the patient evaluated
in a timely fashion while you are also trying to give
very intensive chemotherapies and dealing with those
complications.
Case Study in Induction Therapy
A 62-year-old woman presents with low-grade fever,
anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia. She
has no comorbid conditions, no antecedent hemato-
logic disorder, and normal organ function. A bone
marrow examination revealed M1 AML and diploid
cytogenetics.
Dr Erba: The molecular diagnostics would be very
important in this case. If the patient is FLT3-ITD–
negative and NPM1-mutated or CEBPA-mutated, I
might be even more optimistic. But even if I didn’t
have those data, we have a 62-year-old woman who
has no comorbidities, no complications of the dis-
ease at this point, and normal organ function, so I
would consider standard therapy or a clinical trial that
October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement Cancer Control 13
incorporates standard therapy. Then, based on the
molecular testing results, I would consider high-dose
Ara-C consolidation or transplant. There aren’t a lot
of data indicating that a transplant actually benefits
patients who are FLT3-ITD–mutated and in remission,
but that’s what we tend to do.
Dr Pollyea: Dr Erba, do you have an age cut-off for
high-dose Ara-C consolidation?
Dr Erba: I go into the early 70s but only up to a
total dose of 1 g/m2. Some of the most impressive
long-term disease-free survival data came from an
older ECOG study,36 in which they used Ara-C at 2 g/
m2 twice daily for 6 doses.
Dr Ravandi: I agree that such a patient could easily
benefit from Ara-C and anthracycline-based induction
either on or off a clinical trial. At MD Anderson, we
use a higher dose of Ara-C: 1.5 g/m2 daily plus ida-
rubicin for 3 days. For younger patients, we give it
for 4 days. I think that there is some revised thinking
about the whole dosing of Ara-C induction based on a
study from Löwenberg et al37 and other papers, which
indicated that perhaps high doses of Ara-C are not
necessary and that intermediate doses may be better
than standard doses.
Dr Pollyea: I’m not so sure how convincing the
data are for consolidation in elderly patients fit for
intensive induction chemotherapy. Whether patients
receive consolidation with cytarabine and for how
many cycles are open questions that need to be ad-
dressed in the setting of clinical trials. Consolidation
with further cycles of cytarabine usually doesn’t en-
ter the equation for me because the supportive care
measures and transplant protocols have gotten so
good (Table 4).
Dr Erba: I agree. If I have older patients in their
70s or above with high-risk cytogenetics, and they
get through induction, I would tell them that they
should take this time and enjoy life. I would not put
them through consolidation because I am not certain
of the benefit. It might benefit a small percentage of
patients, but the jury is still out.
Case Study in Post-Induction Therapy
A 74-year-old man was diagnosed with AML (normal
karyotype, NPM1-positive, FLT3-ITD–negative) and
received standard-dose cytarabine/anthracycline in-
duction therapy. Ten days following completion of
induction therapy (day 14), he underwent a bone
marrow biopsy that revealed residual blasts (8%) and
no hypoplasia.
Dr Erba: This case is a great example to include in a
roundtable discussion because you will not find any
textbook, evidence-based information on what to do
with day 14 bone marrow results. At this point, you
could argue that it is possible that you are seeing
the beginning of marrow recovery in this patient. I
do not know that those residual blasts are the same
as in the original leukemia, or maybe it is persistent
Table 4. — Supportive Care Practices for Patients With AML*
Symptom Treatment
Fungal infections Azole antifungals (posaconazole, voriconazole, echinacandins, amphotericin-B)
Bacterial infections Broad-spectrum antibiotics
Viral infections Acyclovir, valacyclovir
Leukocytosis Hydroxyurea
Neutropenia G-CSF (filgrastim), GM-CSF (sargramostim) during postremission therapy
Anemia/thrombocytopenia Use leukocyte-depleted products for transfusion and irradiated blood products for patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy; HCT candidates should be screened for CMV
Tumor lysis syndrome Prophylaxis with IV hydration with diuresis, urinary alkalinization, allopurinol; treatment with rasburicase
Cognitive decline/cerebellar toxicity Patients should be monitored for nystagmus, dysmetria, slurred speech, and ataxia before each dose of cytarabine
Nausea/Vomiting Serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron)
Ocular toxicity Saline or steroid drops in both eyes during cytarabine therapy
Oral mucositis Mouthwash with viscous lidocaine, Maalox, and injectable diphenhydramine liquid
* References 51-55.
14 Cancer Control October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement
disease. On the other hand, there is nothing magi-
cal about a marrow that every single last blast cell
should be gone. Perhaps if you repeated the mar-
row a week later, it would look better. By saying no
hypoplasia, I’m assuming that the marrow has been
cytoreduced; otherwise, if it is only 8% blasts, what
are those other cells? At this point they’re probably
lymphocytes. Putting it all together in this case, I
would tend to watch the patient since it seems that
he’s had cytoreduction but just not a marrow aplasia.
I would watch him for another week and repeat a
marrow if his counts were not recovering, even if I
knew that those 8% blasts were the myeloid blasts.
Dr Ravandi: When using a higher dose of Ara-C,
virtually everyone is going to be hypoblastic on day
14. My understanding from the CALGB studies is
that on day 14, if the patient has more than 20% cel-
lularity and more than 5% blasts, he would be given
a second abbreviated course of 2 + 5. No hypoplasia
probably means that the cellularity is more than 20%
and, of that, 8% of cells are blasts. Then the question
becomes: would you do the same thing in the 74-year-
old as you would in a 55-year-old? If the patient was
age 55, I would likely give a second course because
the research shows that patients who receive 2 cycles
of induction using the traditional 3 + 7 regimen fare
just as well if they achieve a remission as those who
receive 1 cycle.38 So for a younger patient, I would
probably give a second abbreviated course but prob-
ably not in this 74-year-old patient.
Dr Erba: I agree. What’s occurring at that time
with this patient is clearly important. You often do
not get a great aspirate on day 14 because the mar-
row is hypocellular, so I take this information with a
large grain of salt. I try not to give more induction
at this point. I would argue that you could interpret
the data from Rowe et al38 in a way that suggests
that we do not really know the clinical significance
of a minor amount of residual disease on day 14. I
think that residual disease is an area that we know
very little about and have made up these algorithms
to make us feel better. For example, in the current
SWOG 1203 trial, we’re comparing 3 inductions for
younger patients: cytarabine and daunorubicin or
idarubicin and cytarabine with or without vorinostat.
To make the 3 arms equivalent, we put in a day 14
bone marrow, but there are no guidelines on what
to do with that information. It has raised a lot of
questions among investigators.
Dr Pollyea: This example is where your experience is
really helpful, Drs Erba and Ravandi. What concerned
me when looking at this case was not so much the
residual blasts but the lack of hypoplasia in a patient
who was treated with an intensive regimen. I would
probably recommend more chemotherapy. However,
proceeding cautiously is certainly important, since
it’s always possible to see latent responders, particu-
larly with patients treated with clofarabine. There
are times when patience is the best prescription, and
appreciating this approach is truly an art that only
comes with experience.
Dr Erba: From my own practice, I have a patient on
the clofarabine arm of the ECOG 2906 study who at
day 14 had a 10% cellular marrow and 10% blasts.
I decided to wait, and he achieved CR without any
further treatment. When the fellow rushed back to
me and said that there was residual disease in that
marrow — 10% to 20% cellular and 8% blasts — my
next question was, “What are the other 92% of the
cells?” If they are developing erythroid and granulo-
cytic precursors, it might be early marrow recovery,
so the context is very important.
Case Study in Postremission Therapy
A 71-year-old man with a history of AML presented
with inv(16). He was treated with 3 + 7 induction
therapy and achieved CR. A post-induction biopsy
revealed no residual blasts (< 5%) and no hypoplasia.
Dr Ravandi: I would continue to treat this patient
with Ara-C consolidation. This case involves an old-
er patient with core-binding factor (CBF) leukemia.
The data from Applebaum et al14 showed that older
patients with CBF leukemias tend to do worse than
younger patients perhaps because their residual stem
cell reserve is less healthy. In general, CBF leukemia
patients should be treated with Ara-C as much as
possible because they are sensitive to it. The MRC
study39 and the French ALFA study22 showed a benefit
for patients with CBF leukemias when gemtuzumab
was added to chemotherapy. However, in terms of
practicing oncologists, it is a moot point because gem-
tuzumab is no longer available. Therefore, I would
consolidate this patient with perhaps 4 courses of
high-dose Ara-C, approximately 5 to 10 g/m2.
Dr Erba: I would give this patient high-dose Ara-C
consolidation. I usually do 6 doses at 1 g/m2, right
in the range of what Dr Ravandi does. As far as the
number of cycles, 4 is a good goal, but 2 or 3 is also
acceptable, depending on how the patient responds.
The optimal number of cycles is really unclear, espe-
cially in older patients.
Dr Ravandi: They should be given as many cycles as
they can tolerate — up to 4 using the CALGB regimen.
October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement Cancer Control 15
CBF leukemias are really the most Ara-C–sensitive
leukemias, and when these patients relapse, they do
not always fare well. You want to avoid them re-
lapsing. For consolidation therapy in these patients,
we administer up to 6 cycles of the FLAG regimen
(fludarabine, Ara-C, and G-CSF).40
References
1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(1):11-30. 2. Juliusson G, Antunovic P, Derolf A, et al. Age and acute myeloid leu-kemia: real world data on decision to treat and outcomes from the Swedish Acute Leukemia Registry. Blood. 2009;113(18):4179-4187. 3. Alibhai SM, Leach M, Minden MD, et al. Outcomes and quality of care in acute myeloid leukemia over 40 years. Cancer. 2009;115(13):2903-2911. 4. Kantarjian H, O’Brien S. Questions regarding frontline therapy of acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer. 2010;116(21):4896-4901. 5. Thein MS, Ershler WB, Jemal A, et al. Outcome of older patients with acute myeloid leukemia: an analysis of SEER data over 3 decades. Cancer. 2013;119(15):2720-2727. 6. Meyers J, Yu Y, Kaye JA, et al. Medicare fee-for-service enrollees with primary acute myeloid leukemia: an analysis of treatment patterns, sur-vival, and healthcare resource utilization and costs. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):275-286. 7. Tilly H, Castaigne S, Bordessoule D, et al. Low-dose cytarabine ver-sus intensive chemotherapy in the treatment of acute nonlymphocytic leuke-mia in the elderly. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8(2):272-279. 8. Löwenberg B, Zittoun R, Kerkhofs H, et al. On the value of intensive remission-induction chemotherapy in elderly patients of 65+ years with acute myeloid leukemia: a randomized phase III study of the European Organiza-tion for Research and Treatment of Cancer Leukemia Group. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7(9):1268-1274. 9. Quintás-Cardama A, Ravandi F, Liu-Dumlao T, et al. Epigenetic ther-apy is associated with similar survival compared with intensive chemother-apy in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2012;120(24):4840-4845. 10. Sekeres MA, Elson P, Kalaycio ME, et al. Time from diagnosis to treatment initiation predicts survival in younger, but not older, acute myeloid leukemia patients. Blood. 2009;113(1):28-36. 11. Patel JP, Gönen M, Figueroa ME, et al. Prognostic relevance of integrated genetic profiling in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(12):1079-1089. 12. Kantarjian H, O’Brien S, Cortes J, et al. Results of intensive chemo-therapy in 998 patients age 65 years or older with acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: predictive prognostic models for out-come. Cancer. 2006;106(5):1090-1098. 13. Krug U, Röllig C, Koschmieder A, et al. Complete remission and early death after intensive chemotherapy in patients aged 60 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia: a web-based application for prediction of out-comes. Lancet. 2010;376(9757):2000-2008. 14. Röllig C, Thiede C, Gramatzki M, et al. A novel prognostic model in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia: results of 909 patients entered into the prospective AML96 trial. Blood. 2010;116(6):971-978. 15. Appelbaum FR, Gundacker H, Head DR, et al. Age and acute my-eloid leukemia. Blood. 2006;107(9):3481-3485. 16. Othus M, Kantarjian H, Petersdorf S, et al. Declining rates of treat-ment-related mortality in patients with newly diagnosed AML given ‘intense’ induction regimens: a report from SWOG and MD Anderson. Leukemia. 2013 Jun 13. Epub ahead of print. 17. Hurria A, Cirrincione CT, Muss HB, et al. Implementing a geriatric as-sessment in cooperative group clinical cancer trials: CALGB 360401. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(10):1290-1296. 18. Extermann M, Boler I, Reich RR, et al. Predicting the risk of chemo-therapy toxicity in older patients: the Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients (CRASH) score. Cancer. 2012;118(13):3377-3386. 19. Wheatley K, Brookes CL, Howman AJ, et al. Prognostic factor analy-sis of the survival of elderly patients with AML in the MRC AML11 and LRF AML14 trials. Br J Haematol. 2009;145(5):598-605. 20. Bross PF, Beitz J, Chen G, et al. Approval summary: gemtuzumab ozogamicin in relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7(6): 1490-1496. 21. Petersdorf S, Kopecky K, Stuart RK, et al. Preliminary results of Southwest Oncology Group Study S0106: an International Intergroup Phase 3 randomized trial comparing the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to standard induction therapy versus standard induction therapy followed by a second randomization to post-consolidation gemtuzumab ozogamicin versus no additional therapy for previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Blood (ASH Ann Meet Abstr). 2009;114(22):790. Abstract. 22. Castaigne S, Pautas C, Terré C, et al. Effect of gemtuzumab ozo-
gamicin on survival of adult patients with de-novo acute myeloid leu-kaemia (ALFA-0701): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2012;379(9825):1508-1516. 23. Kantarjian HM, Erba HP, Claxton D, et al. Phase II study of clofara-bine monotherapy in previously untreated older adults with acute myeloid leukemia and unfavorable prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):549-555. 24. Pollyea DA, Zehnder J, Coutre S, et al. Sequential azacitidine plus lenalidomide combination for elderly patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 2013;98(4):591-596. 25. Pollyea DA, Kohrt HE, Gallegos L, et al. Safety, efficacy and biologi-cal predictors of response to sequential azacitidine and lenalidomide for el-derly patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2012;26(5):893-901. 26. Fehniger TA, Uy GL, Trinkaus K, et al. A phase 2 study of high-dose lenalidomide as initial therapy for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2011;117(6):1828-1833. 27. Blum WG, Klisovic R, Liu S, et al. Efficacy of a novel schedule of decitabine in previously untreated AML, age 60 or older. J Clin Oncol 2009 ASCO Ann Meet Proc (Post-Meet Ed). 2009;27(15s May 20 suppl):7010. Abstract. 28. Kantarjian HM, Thomas XG, Dmoszynska A, et al. Multicenter, ran-domized, open-label, phase III trial of decitabine versus patient choice, with physician advice, of either supportive care or low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(21):2670-2677. 29. Fenaux P, Mufti GJ, Hellström-Lindberg E, et al. Azacitidine prolongs overall survival compared with conventional care regimens in elderly patients with low bone marrow blast count acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):562-569. 30. van der Helm LH, Scheepers ER, Veeger NJ, et al. Azacitidine might be beneficial in a subgroup of older AML patients compared to intensive che-motherapy: a single centre retrospective study of 227 consecutive patients. J Hematol Oncol. 2013;6(1):29. 31. Cortes JE, Perl AE, Dombret H, et al. Final results of a phase 2 open-label, monotherapy efficacy and safety study of quizartinib (AC220) in pa-tients ≥ 60 years of age with FLT3 ITD positive or negative relapsed/refracto-ry acute myeloid leukemia. Blood (ASH Ann Meet Abstr). 2012;120(21):48. Abstract. 32. Ravandi F, Alattar ML, Grunwald MR, et al. Phase 2 study of aza-cytidine plus sorafenib in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and FLT-3 internal tandem duplication mutation. Blood. 2013;121(23):4655-4662. 33. Lancet JE, Cortes JE, Kovacsovics T, et al. CPX-351 is effective in newly diagnosed older patients with AML and with multiple risk factors. Blood (ASH Ann Meet Abstr). 2012;120(21):3626. Abstract. 34. Roboz GJ, Lancet JE, Cripe LD, et al. Final results of a phase II phar-macokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) study of combination voreloxin and cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2010 ASCO Ann Meet Proc (Post-Meet Ed). 2010;28(15s May 20 suppl):6526. Abstract. 35. Maertens J, Lübbert M, Fiedler W, et al. Phase I/II study of volasertib (BI 6727), an intravenous polo-like kinase (PLK) inhibitor, in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML): results from the randomized phase II part for volasertib in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) versus LDAC monotherapy in patients with previously untreated AML ineligible for intensive treatment. Blood (ASH Ann Meet Abstr). 2012;120(21):411. Abstract. 36. Bennett JM, Young ML, Andersen JW, et al. Long-term survival in acute myeloid leukemia: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group experi-ence. Cancer. 1997;80(11 suppl):2205-2209. 37. Löwenberg B, Pabst T, Vellenga E, et al. Cytarabine dose for acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):1027-1036. 38. Rowe JM, Kim HT, Cassileth PA, et al. Adult patients with acute my-eloid leukemia who achieve complete remission after 1 or 2 cycles of in-duction have a similar prognosis: a report on 1980 patients registered to 6 studies conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Cancer. 2010;116(21):5012-5021. 39. Burnett AK, Hills RK, Milligan D, et al. Identification of patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia who benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin: results of the MRC AML15 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(4):369-377. 40. Borthakur G, Kantarjian H, Wang X, et al. Treatment of core-bind-ing-factor in acute myelogenous leukemia with fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor results in improved event-free survival. Cancer. 2008;113(11):3181-3185. 41. Byrd JC, Mrózek K, Dodge RK, et al. Pretreatment cytogenetic ab-normalities are predictive of induction success, cumulative incidence of re-lapse, and overall survival in adult patients with de novo acute myeloid leu-kemia: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 8461). Blood. 2002;100(13):4325-4336. 42. Löwenberg B, Ossenkoppele GJ, van Putten W, et al. High-dose daunorubicin in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(13):1235-1248. 43. Burnett A, Milligan D, Prentice A, et al. A comparison of low-dose cytarabine and hydroxyurea with or without all-trans retinoic acid for acute
16 Cancer Control October 2013, Vol. 20, No. 4 Supplement
myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome in patients not considered fit for intensive treatment. Cancer. 2007;109(6):1114-1124. 44. Cashen AF, Schiller GJ, O’Donnell MR, et al. Multicenter, phase II study of decitabine for the first-line treatment of older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):556-561. 45. Dombret H, Gardin C. An old AML drug revisited. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(13):1301-1303. 46. Faderl S, Wetzler M, Rizzieri D, et al. Clofarabine plus cytarabine compared with cytarabine alone in older patients with relapsed or refractory acute myelogenous leukemia: results from the CLASSIC I Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(20):2492-2499. 47. Cortes J, Feldman E, Yee K, et al. Two dosing regimens of tosedo-stat in elderly patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukae-mia (OPAL): a randomised open-label phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(4):354-362. 48. Lancet JE, Ravandi F, Ricklis RM, et al. A phase Ib study of vosar-oxin, an anticancer quinolone derivative, in patients with relapsed or refrac-tory acute leukemia. Leukemia. 2011;25(12):1808-1814. 49. Blum W, Schwind S, Tarighat SS, et al. Clinical and pharmacodynam-ic activity of bortezomib and decitabine in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2012;119(25):6025-6031. 50. Attar EC, Johnson JL, Amrein PC, et al. Bortezomib added to dauno-rubicin and cytarabine during induction therapy and to intermediate-dose cy-tarabine for consolidation in patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia age 60 to 75 years: CALGB (Alliance) study 10502. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(7):923-929. 51. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Ver-sion 2.2013. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/aml.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2013. 52. Rogers BB. Advances in the management of acute myeloid leukemia in older adult patients. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2010;37(3):E168-E179. 53. Higa GM, Gockerman JP, Hunt AL, et al. The use of prophylactic eye drops during high-dose cytosine arabinoside. Cancer. 1991;68:1691-1693. 54. Jabbour EJ, Estey E, Kantarjian HM. Adult acute myeloid leukemia. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(2):247-260. 55. Harris DJ, Eilers J, Harriman A, et al. Putting evidence into practice: evidence-based interventions for the management of oral mucositis. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2008;12(1):141-152.
®
