Failure of three novel regimens to improve outcome for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia: a report from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Author(s): Litzow MR, Othus M, Cripe LD, Gore SD, Lazarus HM, Lee SJ, Bennett JM, Paietta EM, Dewald GW, Rowe JM, Tallman MS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Leukemia Committee
Affiliation(s): Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. email@example.com
Publication date & source: 2010-01, Br J Haematol., 148(2):217-25. Epub 2009 Oct 5.
Publication type: Clinical Trial, Phase II; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
The treatment of relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) remains unsatisfactory. We conducted a phase II randomized trial where patients received intermediate-dose cytarabine for 4 d followed by gemtuzumab ozogamicin on day 5 (Arm A), or combined with liposomal daunorubicin for 3 d (Arm B), or cytarabine given for 5 d combined with cyclophosphamide for 3 d and topotecan by continuous infusion for 5 d (Arm C). Eligible patients had primary refractory AML, a first relapse after a remission of <1 year, or a second or greater relapse. The primary objective of this trial was attainment of a conventional complete remission (CR) or a CR without platelet recovery (CRp) in at least 40% of patients. The CR/CRp rates for the 82 eligible patients were 3/26 (12%) in Arm A, 2/29 (7%) in Arm B, and 1/27 (4%) in Arm C. No patients who had relapsed within 6 months of initial CR or who had suffered multiple relapses responded. More than 95% of patients subsequently died of AML. No unexpected toxicities were encountered. We conclude that none of these three regimens were effective enough in the treatment of high-risk relapsed or refractory AML to warrant further study. This trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00005962.