This analysis compared azacitidine (AZA) to conventional care regimens (CCR) and their associated overall survival (OS) and tolerability in the subset of 87 elderly (>= 75 years) patients with higher-risk MDS (FAB: RAEB, RAEB-t, CMML and IPSS: Int-2 or High) from the AZA-001 trial. Patients were randomized to AZA (75 mg/m(2)/day subcutaneously x 7 days every 28 days) (n = 38) or CCR (n = 49) and had median ages of 78 and 77 years, respectively. AZA significantly improved OS vs CCR (HR: 0.48 [95%CI: 0.26, 0.89]; p = 0.0193) and 2-year OS rates were 55% vs 15% (p<0.001), respectively. AZA was generally well tolerated compared with CCR, which was primarily best supportive care (67%). Grade 3-4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia with AZA vs CCR were 13% vs 4%, 61% vs 17%, and 50% vs 30%, respectively. Given this efficacy and tolerability, AZA should be considered the treatment of choice in patients aged >= 75 years with good performance status and higher-risk MDS. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effects of azacitidine compared with conventional care regimens in elderly (≥ 75 years) patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes / JF. Seymour ; P. Fenaux ; LR. Silverman ; GJ. Mufti ; E. Hellström-Lindberg ;V. Santini ;AF. List ; SD. Gore ; J. Backstrom; D. McKenzie ; CL.Beach. - In: CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY. - ISSN 1040-8428. - STAMPA. - 76(3):(2010), pp. 218-227. [10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.04.005]

Effects of azacitidine compared with conventional care regimens in elderly (≥ 75 years) patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

SANTINI, VALERIA;
2010

Abstract

This analysis compared azacitidine (AZA) to conventional care regimens (CCR) and their associated overall survival (OS) and tolerability in the subset of 87 elderly (>= 75 years) patients with higher-risk MDS (FAB: RAEB, RAEB-t, CMML and IPSS: Int-2 or High) from the AZA-001 trial. Patients were randomized to AZA (75 mg/m(2)/day subcutaneously x 7 days every 28 days) (n = 38) or CCR (n = 49) and had median ages of 78 and 77 years, respectively. AZA significantly improved OS vs CCR (HR: 0.48 [95%CI: 0.26, 0.89]; p = 0.0193) and 2-year OS rates were 55% vs 15% (p<0.001), respectively. AZA was generally well tolerated compared with CCR, which was primarily best supportive care (67%). Grade 3-4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia with AZA vs CCR were 13% vs 4%, 61% vs 17%, and 50% vs 30%, respectively. Given this efficacy and tolerability, AZA should be considered the treatment of choice in patients aged >= 75 years with good performance status and higher-risk MDS. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
2010
76(3)
218
227
JF. Seymour ; P. Fenaux ; LR. Silverman ; GJ. Mufti ; E. Hellström-Lindberg ;V. Santini ;AF. List ; SD. Gore ; J. Backstrom; D. McKenzie ; CL.Beach
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/595334
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 110
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 91
social impact