Search

In recent years, an explosion of novel agents has shifted the treatment paradigm for patients with acute myeloid leukemia. The optimal place in therapy for many of these novel agents remains unknown due to limited guidance from national guidelines and the way these agents were studied prior to entering the market. A critical evaluation of the literature and incorporation of oncology stewardship principles can be helpful in determining an optimal place for these agents while being mindful of the overall cost that is associated with therapies. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the efficacy and safety data for five controversial agents and provide examples of the use of stewardship practices in determining their place in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.

Secondary AML is associated with a disproportionately poor prognosis, consistently shown to exhibit inferior response rates, event-free survival, and overall survival in comparison with de novo AML. Secondary AML may arise from the evolution of an antecedent hematologic disorder, or it may arise as a complication of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy or radiation therapy in the case of therapy-related AML. Because of the high frequency of poor-risk cytogenetics and high-risk molecular features, such as alterations in TP53, leukemic clones are often inherently chemoresistant. Standard of care induction had long remained conventional 7 + 3 until its reformulation as CPX-351, recently FDA approved specifically for secondary AML. However, recent data also suggests relatively favorable outcomes with regimens based on high-dose cytarabine or hypomethylating agents. With several investigational agents being studied, the therapeutic landscape becomes even more complex, and the treatment approach involves patient-specific, disease-specific, and therapy-specific considerations.

The 5-year overall survival (OS) in patients ≥ 60 years old with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains

The optimal intensity of conditioning for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains undefined. Traditionally, myeloablative conditioning regimens improve disease control, but at the risk of greater nonrelapse mortality. Because fludarabine with myeloablative doses of intravenous busulfan using pharmacokinetic monitoring has excellent tolerability, we reasoned that this regimen would limit relapse without substantially elevating toxicity when compared to reduced intensity conditioning. We retrospectively analyzed 148 consecutive AML patients in remission receiving T cell replete HCT conditioned with fludarabine and intravenous busulfan at doses defined as reduced (6.4 mg/kg; FluBu2, n = 63) or myeloablative (12.8 mg/kg; FluBu4, n = 85). Early and late nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was similar among FluBu4 and FluBu2 recipients, respectively (day + 100: 4 vs 0 %; 5 years: 19 vs 22 %; p = 0.54). NRM did not differ between FluBu4 and FluBu2 in patients >50 years of age (24 vs 22 %, p = 0.75). Relapse was lower in recipients of FluBu4 (5 years: 30 vs 49 %; p = 0.04), especially in patients with poor risk cytogenetics (22 vs 59 %; p = 0.02) and those >50 years of age (28 vs 51 %; p = 0.02). Overall survival favored FluBu4 recipients at 5 years (53 vs 34 %, p = 0.02), a finding confirmed in multivariate analysis (HR: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.34–0.95; p = 0.03). These data suggest that myeloablative FluBu4 may provide equivalent NRM, reduced relapse, and improved survival compared to FluBu2, emphasizing the importance of busulfan dose in conditioning for AML.