Fludarabine, Cytarabine, Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor, and Idarubicin With Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin Improves Event-Free Survival in Younger Patients With Newly Diagnosed AML and Overall Survival in Patients With NPM1 and FLT3 Mutations.

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal induction chemotherapy regimen for younger adults with newly diagnosed AML without known adverse risk cytogenetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand thirty-three patients were randomly assigned to intensified (fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin [FLAG-Ida]) or standard (daunorubicin and Ara-C [DA]) induction chemotherapy, with one or two doses of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: There was no difference in remission rate after two courses between FLAG-Ida + GO and DA + GO (complete remission [CR] + CR with incomplete hematologic recovery 93% v 91%) or in day 60 mortality (4.3% v 4.6%). There was no difference in OS (66% v 63%; P = .41); however, the risk of relapse was lower with FLAG-Ida + GO (24% v 41%; P < .001) and 3-year event-free survival was higher (57% v 45%; P < .001). In patients with an NPM1 mutation (30%), 3-year OS was significantly higher with FLAG-Ida + GO (82% v 64%; P = .005). NPM1 measurable residual disease (MRD) clearance was also greater, with 88% versus 77% becoming MRD-negative in peripheral blood after cycle 2 (P = .02). Three-year OS was also higher in patients with a FLT3 mutation (64% v 54%; P = .047). Fewer transplants were performed in patients receiving FLAG-Ida + GO (238 v 278; P = .02). There was no difference in outcome according to the number of GO doses, although NPM1 MRD clearance was higher with two doses in the DA arm. Patients with core binding factor AML treated with DA and one dose of GO had a 3-year OS of 96% with no survival benefit from FLAG-Ida + GO. CONCLUSION: Overall, FLAG-Ida + GO significantly reduced relapse without improving OS. However, exploratory analyses show that patients with NPM1 and FLT3 mutations had substantial improvements in OS. By contrast, in patients with core binding factor AML, outcomes were excellent with DA + GO with no FLAG-Ida benefit.

A randomized comparison of CPX-351 and FLAG-Ida in adverse karyotype AML and high-risk MDS: the UK NCRI AML19 trial.

Liposomal daunorubicin and cytarabine (CPX-351) improved overall survival (OS) compared with 7+3 chemotherapy in older patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML); to date, there have been no randomized studies in younger patients. The high-risk cohort of the UK NCRI AML19 trial (ISRCTN78449203) compared CPX-351 with FLAG-Ida in younger adults with newly diagnosed adverse cytogenetic AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). A total of 189 patients were randomized (median age, 56 years). Per clinical criteria, 49% of patients had de novo AML, 20% had secondary AML, and 30% had high-risk MDS. MDS-related cytogenetics were present in 73% of the patients, with a complex karyotype in 49%. TP53 was the most common mutated gene, in 43%. Myelodysplasia-related gene mutations were present in 75 (44%) patients. The overall response rate (CR + CRi) after course 2 was 64% and 76% for CPX-351 and FLAG-Ida, respectively. There was no difference in OS (13.3 months vs 11.4 months) or event-free survival in multivariable analysis. However, relapse-free survival was significantly longer with CPX-351 (median 22.1 vs 8.35 months). There was no difference between the treatment arms in patients with clinically defined secondary AML or those with MDS-related cytogenetic abnormalities; however, an exploratory subgroup of patients with MDS-related gene mutations had significantly longer OS with CPX-351 (median 38.4 vs 16.3 months). In conclusion, the OS of younger patients with adverse risk AML/MDS was not significantly different between CPX-351 and FLAG-Ida.

Nocebo effects and participant information leaflets: evaluating information provided on adverse effects in UK clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Nocebo effects ('negative placebo' effects) experienced by clinical trial participants can arise from an underlying condition or through communication about side effects in the participant information leaflets (or elsewhere). Misattributing nocebo effects to the medicinal intervention can lead to participants experiencing harmful nocebo effects and may result in distortion of adverse effect reporting. However, little is known about how information on potential side effects is provided to trial participants. There is increasing concern that the way in which potential side effects in clinical trials are described to patients in participant information leaflets (PIL) can in itself cause harm by either increased anxiety, poor adherence or inducing the side effect itself. In this study, we aimed to explore these concerns and identify the way in which potential side effects from investigational medicinal products used in trials are presented in written information to potential participants. METHODS: Trials were identified from the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) clinical trial registry (a primary registry of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)). Eligible studies were placebo-controlled clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (IMP) in adults conducted in the UK. We assessed readability using the Flesch Reading Ease scale, Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade. Data extracted from the PILs were divided into 8 predefined qualitative themes for analysis in NVivo11. RESULTS: Most of the patient information leaflets were ranked as 'fairly difficult to read' or 'difficult to read' according to the Flesch Reading Ease scale. All studies presented information about adverse events, whereas only a third presented information about intervention benefits. Where intervention or study benefits were presented, they were usually after adverse events (21/33, 64%). DISCUSSION: Participant information leaflets scored poorly on ease of readability and had more content relating to adverse effects than any potential beneficial effects. The way in which adverse events were presented was heterogeneous in terms of their likelihood and severity and the amount and level of detail provided. By comparison, potential benefits from the intervention and/or study were described less often, by shorter text, and only after information about harms.

Addition of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, everolimus, to consolidation therapy in acute myeloid leukemia: experience from the UK NCRI AML17 trial.

As part of the UK NCRI AML17 trial, adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia in remission could be randomized to receive the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus, sequentially with post-induction chemotherapy. Three hundred and thirty-nine patients were randomised (2:1) to receive everolimus or not for a maximum of 84 days between chemotherapy courses. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival. At 5 years there was no difference in relapse-free survival [29% versus 40%; odds ratio 1.19 (0.9-1.59) P=0.2], cumulative incidence of relapse [60% versus 54%: odds ratio 1.12 (0.82-1.52): P=0.5] or overall survival [45% versus 58%: odds ratio 1.3 (0.94-1.81): P=0.11]. The independent Data Monitoring Committee advised study termination after randomization of 339 of the intended 600 patients because of excess mortality in the everolimus arm without any evidence of beneficial disease control. The delivery of the everolimus dose was variable, but there was no evidence of clinical benefit in patients with adequate dose delivery compared with no treatment. This study suggests that the addition of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition to chemotherapy provides no benefit.

An operational definition of primary refractory acute myeloid leukemia allowing early identification of patients who may benefit from allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

Up to 30% of adults with acute myeloid leukemia fail to achieve a complete remission after induction chemotherapy - termed primary refractory acute myeloid leukemia. There is no universally agreed definition of primary refractory disease, nor have the optimal treatment modalities been defined. We studied 8907 patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia, and examined outcomes in patients with refractory disease defined using differing criteria which have previously been proposed. These included failure to achieve complete remission after one cycle of induction chemotherapy (RES), less than a 50% reduction in blast numbers with >15% residual blasts after one cycle of induction chemotherapy (REF1) and failure to achieve complete remission after two courses of induction chemotherapy (REF2). 5-year overall survival was decreased in patients fulfilling any criteria for refractory disease, compared with patients achieving a complete remission after one cycle of induction chemotherapy: 9% and 8% in patients with REF1 and REF2 versus 40% (P<0.0001). Allogeneic stem cell transplantation improved survival in the REF1 (HR 0.58 (0.46-0.74), P=0.00001) and REF2 (HR 0.55 (0.41-0.74), P=0.0001) cohorts. The utilization of REF1 criteria permits the early identification of patients whose outcome after one course of induction chemotherapy is very poor, and informs a novel definition of primary refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Furthermore, these data demonstrate that allogeneic stem cell transplantation represents an effective therapeutic modality in selected patients with primary refractory acute myeloid leukemia.