Stay Up
to Date
Stay Up
to Date
Breaking News,
Updates, & More
Breaking News,
Updates, & More
Click Here to
Subscribe
Click Here to
Subscribe

Effect of Early Blood Counts on Response and Overall SurvEffect of Early Blood Counts on Response and Overall Survival Following Glasdegib + LDAC in Newly Diagnosed AMLival Following Glasdegib + LDAC in Newly Diagnosed AML

2020 Year in Review - AML - Leukemia

In this post-hoc analysis, data from the BRIGHT AML 1003 study were used to evaluate the potential association of early blood counts with overall survival (OS) or leukemia response among patients receiving glasdegib (GLAS) plus low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) or LDAC alone. Patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were randomized to GLAS + LDAC (N = 78) or LDAC alone (N = 38). GLAS was given once daily and LDAC was given on days 1 to 10 of a 28-day cycle. Peripheral blood counts were measured at cycle 2, day 1 (C2D1), approximately 1 month prior to the first bone marrow assessments. OS was compared between GLAS + LDAC and LDAC in subgroups meeting thresholds of absolute neutrophil count (ANC; ≥1000 or 500/µL), hemoglobin (Hb; ≥10 or 9 g/dL), or platelets (≥100,000 or 50,000/µL). Patients were included in this analysis regardless of transfusion status. The data cutoff for this analysis was April 2019.

Among all patients, attaining the aforementioned ANC, Hb, and platelet thresholds at C2D1 was associated with improved median OS (mOS) to a greater extent for patients receiving GLAS + LDAC versus LDAC alone, as follows: ANC 0.5 x 103: 9.0 months versus 4.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.76; P = .002), ANC 103: 7.4 months versus 3.8 months (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.81; P = .005), Hb ≥9: 12.4 months versus 4.9 months (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.72; P = .002), Hb ≥10: 8.7 months versus 3.0 months (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.87; P = .009), platelets ≥0.5 x 105: 14.9 months versus 4.7 months (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.50; P <.001), and platelets ≥105: 18.5 months versus 4.3 months (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.51; P <.001), respectively. Similar OS benefits for GLAS + LDAC compared with LDAC alone were observed among patients who did not meet ANC, Hb, or platelet thresholds at C2D1. Patients with baseline anemia or thrombocytopenia also had improved OS associated with C2D1 recovery of Hb or platelets, with mOS for GLAS + LDAC versus LDAC as follows: Hb ≥9: 9.1 months versus 2.9 months (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.62; P = .001) or Hb ≥10: 9.1 months versus 2.9 months (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.95; P = .015); and platelets ≥0.5 x 105: 19.1 months versus 6.4 months (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.82; P = .007) or platelets ≥105: 19.6 months versus 5.1 months (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.53; P <.001), respectively. Any degree of response (complete response [CR]/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery/partial response) to GLAS + LDAC correlated with achieving platelet thresholds at C2D1, including recovery in patients with baseline thrombocytopenia. Of the 13 patients in the GLAS + LDAC arm with baseline platelets <0.5 x 105 who achieved C2D1 platelets ≥105, 11 (84.6%) were responders compared with 2 (15.4%) who were nonresponders (P <.0001).

In conclusion, improved OS was associated with attaining various blood count thresholds after 1 cycle of GLAS + LDAC versus LDAC alone in patients with newly diagnosed AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy. In addition, recovery of Hb and platelet thresholds was associated with improved OS among patients with baseline measurements below threshold. Finally, platelet recovery was correlated with response in the GLAS + LDAC group.

Reference

Wang ES, Heuser M, Sekeres MA, et al. Effect of Early Blood Counts on Response and Overall Survival Following Glasdegib plus LDAC in Newly Diagnosed AML: Bright AML 1003 Post Hoc Analysis. Presented at: 25th European Hematology Association Congress Virtual; June 11-21, 2020. Abstract EP633.

Related Items
Retrospective Study of Single Cord Blood Transplantation for Patients with AML Aged ≥60 Years
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 17, 2020 in Leukemia
Enasidenib Monotherapy with Addition of Azacitidine in Nonresponders Effective in Older Patients with Newly Diagnosed, IDH2-Mutated AML
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 17, 2020 in Leukemia
The HARMONY Alliance: Novel Insights into Genomic Classification and Prognosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 17, 2020 in Leukemia
Characteristics and Prognostic Effects of IDH Mutations Across the Age Spectrum in AML: A Collaborative Analysis
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 17, 2020 in Leukemia
Venetoclax plus Standard Intensive AML Induction/Consolidation with FLAG-IDA in Patients with Newly Diagnosed or Relapsed/Refractory AML
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 17, 2020 in Leukemia
Clinical Outcomes for Treatment-Naïve Patients with AML Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy Receiving Azacitidine or Decitabine
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 17, 2020 in Leukemia
SAL-DaunoDouble Trial Interim Analysis: Single versus Double Induction with 7+3 for Patients with Newly Diagnosed AML
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 17, 2020 in Leukemia
Prognostic Significance of Concomitant Gene Mutations in Intensively Treated Patients with IDH1/2 Mutated AML
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 17, 2020 in Leukemia
Decitabine + Venetoclax versus Intensive Chemotherapy for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory AML: A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 17, 2020 in Leukemia
Escalated Dosing Schedules of CC-486 Effective for Patients Experiencing First AML Low Blast Count Relapse
2020 Year in Review - AML published on December 15, 2020 in Leukemia
Last modified: July 22, 2021