MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1182/blood.2021014901

Медицинская библиотека · Blood · 2023

Enasidenib vs conventional care in older patients with late-stage mutant-IDH2 relapsed/refractory AML: a randomized phase 3 trial.

de Botton Stéphane, Montesinos Pau, Schuh Andre C, Papayannidis Cristina, Vyas Paresh, Wei Andrew H, Ommen Hans, Semochkin Sergey, Kim Hee-Je, Larson Richard A, Koprivnikar Jaime, Frankfurt Olga, Thol Felicitas, Chromik Jörg, Byrne Jenny, Pigneux Arnaud, Thomas Xavier, Salamero Olga, Vidriales Maria Belen, Doronin Vadim, Döhner Hartmut, Fathi Amir T, Laille Eric, Yu Xin, Hasan Maroof, Martin-Regueira Patricia, DiNardo Courtney D

Рандомизированное исследованиеКлиническое исследование III фазыСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

This open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 (isocitrate dehydrogenase 2) inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCRs) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care) and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg per day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n = 158) or CCR (n = 161). The median age was 71 years, median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3 to 1270), and CCR was 36 days (1 to 1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. The median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio], 0.86; P = .23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median, 4.9 vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR, 0.68; P = .008), TTF (median, 4.9 vs 1.9 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001), ORR (40.5% vs 9.9%; P <.001), HI (42.4% vs 11.2%), and red blood cell (RBC)-TI (31.7% vs 9.3%). Enasidenib safety was consistent with prior reports. The primary study endpoint was not met, but OS was confounded by early dropout and subsequent AML-directed therapies. Enasidenib provided meaningful benefits in EFS, TTF, ORR, HI, and RBC-TI in this heavily pretreated older mutant-IDH2 R/R AML population.

Для цитирования: de Botton Stéphane, Montesinos Pau, Schuh Andre C, Papayannidis Cristina, Vyas Paresh, Wei Andrew H, Ommen Hans, Semochkin Sergey, Kim Hee-Je, Larson Richard A, Koprivnikar Jaime, Frankfurt Olga, Thol Felicitas, Chromik Jörg, Byrne Jenny, Pigneux Arnaud, Thomas Xavier, Salamero Olga, Vidriales Maria Belen, Doronin Vadim, Döhner Hartmut, Fathi Amir T, Laille Eric, Yu Xin, Hasan Maroof, Martin-Regueira Patricia, DiNardo Courtney D. Enasidenib vs conventional care in older patients with late-stage mutant-IDH2 relapsed/refractory AML: a randomized phase 3 trial.. Blood. 2023. DOI: 10.1182/blood.2021014901.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.