European journal of haematology · 2025
Outpatient Versus Inpatient Azacitidine Plus Venetoclax Regimen in Elderly Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kasmi Deborah, Bisegna Maria Laura, Carmosino Ida, Scalzulli Emilia, Costa Alessandro, Cenfra Natalia, Mecarocci Sergio, Capria Saveria, Minotti Clara, Martelli Maurizio, Cartoni Claudio, Pulsoni Alessandro, Breccia Massimo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Azacitidine (AZA) combined with venetoclax (VEN) as an outpatient treatment of unfit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been infrequently investigated.
METHODS: We report on 65 elderly AML patients: 35 patients received AZA + VEN as first-line and 30 after progression on prior treatment with AZA (R/R group). Thirty-eight patients were treated as outpatients, while 27 were hospitalized. The overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were calculated, and predictive factors were assessed using Cox regression models.
RESULTS: Inpatients were slightly younger, with a median age of 72 versus 74 years in outpatients (p = 0.015). Median WBC was higher in inpatients (median 7.3 × 109/L vs. 2.9 × 109/L, p = 0.020). Median marrow blast count was 43% in inpatients versus 25.5% in outpatients (p = 0.042). Treatment setting emerged as a key predictive factor for infection development during Cycle 1 in both univariate (p = 0.016) and multivariate analysis (p = 0.043), in the overall cohort. Inpatients had a significantly higher infection rate (81.4%) versus outpatients (44.7%, p = 0.004). In R/R group, 1-year EFS was 68% for outpatients versus 38% for inpatients (p = 0.009). One-year OS was 77% in outpatients versus 38% in inpatients (p = 0.052).
CONCLUSIONS: In most instances, outpatient administration of Cycle 1 of AZA + VEN should be preferred as a beneficial option.
METHODS: We report on 65 elderly AML patients: 35 patients received AZA + VEN as first-line and 30 after progression on prior treatment with AZA (R/R group). Thirty-eight patients were treated as outpatients, while 27 were hospitalized. The overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were calculated, and predictive factors were assessed using Cox regression models.
RESULTS: Inpatients were slightly younger, with a median age of 72 versus 74 years in outpatients (p = 0.015). Median WBC was higher in inpatients (median 7.3 × 109/L vs. 2.9 × 109/L, p = 0.020). Median marrow blast count was 43% in inpatients versus 25.5% in outpatients (p = 0.042). Treatment setting emerged as a key predictive factor for infection development during Cycle 1 in both univariate (p = 0.016) and multivariate analysis (p = 0.043), in the overall cohort. Inpatients had a significantly higher infection rate (81.4%) versus outpatients (44.7%, p = 0.004). In R/R group, 1-year EFS was 68% for outpatients versus 38% for inpatients (p = 0.009). One-year OS was 77% in outpatients versus 38% in inpatients (p = 0.052).
CONCLUSIONS: In most instances, outpatient administration of Cycle 1 of AZA + VEN should be preferred as a beneficial option.