ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (TRMN) with concomitant active neoplastic disorder (CAND) are usually proposed for best supportive care (BSC). We evaluated the feasibility of using 5-azacytidine (AZA) in this setting. METHODS: All patients referred to Gustave Roussy between 2010 and 2015 for TRMN diagnosis (less than 30% blast) and eligible for AZA treatment were included. Patients with CAND proposed for BSC were also described. Patient's outcomes were analyzed based on the presence or not of a CAND. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with TRMN were analyzed, including 19 patients with CAND (14 eligible for AZA) and 33 without CAND eligible for AZA. The 5 patients with CAND ineligible for AZA had a worst performance status (p=0.016) at diagnosis and a shorter overall survival (OS) (0.62 months). Baseline characteristics of patients eligible for AZA were similar in the 2 groups except a trend for best performance status in patients with CAND (p=0.06). Overall response rate (71.4% vs 60.3%), transfusion independence (50.0% vs 45.5%) and OS (12.7 months vs 10.8 months) were similar between patients with and without CAND respectively (p=ns). CONCLUSION: Here we report the feasibility and efficacy of AZA for selected patients with TRMN and a CAND.
Subject(s)
Azacitidine/therapeutic use , Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/drug therapy , Neoplasms, Second Primary/drug therapy , Neoplasms/complications , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Azacitidine/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/complications , Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Metastasis , Neoplasms/mortality , Neoplasms/pathology , Neoplasms, Second Primary/complications , Neoplasms, Second Primary/mortality , Remission Induction , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The opportunity to apply a sampling plan was evaluated. Costs were computed by a microcosting study. SETTING: In 2003, a sampling plan was defined to reduce the number of chemotherapy quality controls while preserving the same level of quality. Recent qualitative and quantitative changes led us to define a second sampling plan supplemented by an economic evaluation to determine the cost and cost-savings of quality control. METHODS: The study considers preparation produced during four semesters classified into three groups. The first one includes drugs produced below 200 batches a semester. Group 2, those for which the lot of preparation lots would have been rejected twice among these four semesters. Group 3, those would have been accepted (≥3 'acceptable lot'). A single sampling plan by attributes was applied to this group with an acceptance quality level of 1.65% and a lot tolerance percent defective below 5%. A micro-costing study was conducted on quality control, from the sampling to the validation of the results. RESULTS: Among 39 cytotoxic drugs, 11 were sampled which enabled to avoid a mean of 17,512 control assays per year. Each batch of the 28 non-sampled drugs was however analyzed. Costs were estimated at 2.98 and 5.25 for control assays depending of the analytical method. The savings from the application of the sampling plans was 153,207 in 6 years. CONCLUSION: The sampling plan allowed maintaining constancy in number of controls and the level of quality with significant costsavings, despite a substantial increase in drugs to assay and in the number of preparations produced.
