Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts

  • Hervé Dombret
  • , John F. Seymour
  • , Aleksandra Butrym
  • , Agnieszka Wierzbowska
  • , Dominik Selleslag
  • , Jun Ho Jang
  • , Rajat Kumar
  • , James Cavenagh
  • , Andre C. Schuh
  • , Anna Candoni
  • , Christian Récher
  • , Irwindeep Sandhu
  • , Teresa Bernal Del Castillo
  • , Haifa Kathrin Al-Ali
  • , Giovanni Martinelli
  • , Jose Falantes
  • , Richard Noppeney
  • , Richard M. Stone
  • , Mark D. Minden
  • , Heidi McIntyre
  • Steve Songer, Lela M. Lucy, C. L. Beach, Hartmut Döhner
  • Université Paris Cité
  • Peter Maccallum Cancer Centre
  • University of Melbourne
  • Wrocław Medical University
  • Medical University of Łódź
  • General Hospital St. Jan
  • Cancer Care Manitoba
  • Barts Health NHS Trust
  • Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
  • S. Maria Della Misericordia Hospital
  • CHU de Toulouse
  • University of Alberta
  • Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias
  • Leipzig University
  • Institute of Hematology and Medical Oncology L. e A. Seràgnoli
  • Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio
  • University of Duisburg-Essen
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
  • Celgene Corporation
  • Ulm University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated azacitidine efficacy and safety vs conventional care regimens (CCRs) in 488 patients age ≥65 years with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with >30% bone marrow blasts. Before randomization, a CCR (standard induction chemotherapy, low-dose ara-c, or supportive care only) was preselected for each patient. Patients then were assigned 1:1 to azacitidine (n = 241) or CCR (n = 247). Patients assigned to CCR received their preselected treatment. Median overall survival (OS) was increased with azacitidine vs CCR: 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-12.7 months) vs 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.6 months), respectively (hazard ratio [HR] was 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.03; stratified log-rank P = .1009). One-year survival rates with azacitidine and CCR were 46.5% and 34.2%, respectively (difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 3.5%-21.0%). A prespecified analysis censoring patients who received AML treatment after discontinuing study drug showed median OS with azacitidine vs CCR was 12.1 months (95% CI, 9.2-14.2 months) vs 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.1-9.6 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96; stratified log-rank P = .0190). Univariate analysis showed favorable trends for azacitidine compared with CCR across all subgroups defined by baseline demographic and disease features. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profile of azacitidine. Azacitidine may be an important treatment option for this difficult-to-treat AML population. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01074047.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)291-299
Number of pages9
JournalBlood
Volume126
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 16 Jul 2015

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this