https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7737-4914
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia not eligible for intensive antileukemic therapy are treated with less intensive therapies, uncertainty remains regarding their relative merits.
Objectives
To compare the effectiveness and safety of less intensive antileukemic therapies for older adults with newly diagnosed AML not candidates for intensive therapies.
Methods
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) comparing less intensive therapies in adults over 55 years with newly diagnosed AML. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to August 2021. We assessed risk of bias of RCTs with a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and NRS with the Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I). We calculated pooled hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Results
We included 27 studies (17 RCTs, 10 NRS; n = 5,698), which reported 9 comparisons. Patients were treated with azacitidine, decitabine, and low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), as monotherapies or in combination with other agents. Moderate certainty of evidence suggests no convincing difference in overall survival of patients who receive azacitidine monotherapy compared to LDAC monotherapy (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.31–1.53), fewer febrile neutropenia events occurred between azacitidine monotherapy to azacitidine combination (RR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31–0.65), and, fewer neutropenia events occurred between LDAC monotherapy to decitabine monotherapy (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44–0.86). All other comparisons and outcomes had low or very low certainty of evidence.
Conclusion
There is no convincing superiority in OS when comparing less intensive therapies. Azacitidine monotherapy is likely to have fewer adverse events than azacitidine combination (febrile neutropenia), and LDAC monotherapy is likely to have fewer adverse events than decitabine monotherapy (neutropenia).
Citation: Colunga-Lozano LE, Kenji Nampo F, Agarwal A, Desai P, Litzow M, Sekeres MA, et al. (2022) Less intensive antileukemic therapies (monotherapy and/or combination) for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia who are not candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0263240. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263240
Editor: Mona Pathak, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, INDIA
Received: April 21, 2021; Accepted: January 17, 2022; Published: February 2, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Colunga-Lozano et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The American Society of Hematology provided funding for the development of the clinical practice guideline related to this topic (American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for treating newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in older adults), however, no funding was used during the development of this study. Information added as "Related Manuscript".
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist related to this work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous hematopoietic stem cell cancer with incomplete maturation of blood cells and a reduced production of normal hematopoietic elements [1]. AML is more common in older adults with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years old; one-third of cases occur in patients older than 75 years [2].
Overall survival (OS) is strongly linked to clinical and biologic characteristics; age, performance status (PS), karyotype, mutational status and response to induction therapy [3]. For example, younger patients (2 to 30 years) have a much better 5-year OS than older patients (65 to >85 years) (57% to 42%, compared to 6.8% to 1.2%) [4,5].
Some older patients diagnosed with AML are not eligible for intensive treatment, limiting their therapeutic options [6]. Less intensive therapy with hypomethylating agents or low-dose cytarabine, as examples, has been used to treat older AML patients who are not candidates for intensive therapy [7].
In their 2020 guidelines, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) provided recommendations for the treatment of older adults with newly diagnosed AML who are considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, but not intensive antileukemic therapy [8]. When choosing between monotherapies, the guideline panel conditionally recommended the use of either hypomethylating-agents (azacitidine or decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine and, when choosing between monotherapies or combinations, the guideline panel conditionally recommend using monotherapy [8].
To inform the recommendations provided by the ASH 2020 guideline for Treating Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Older Adults [8]. We conducted a systematic review to compared the comparative effectiveness and safety of low-intensity antileukemic therapies (monotherapy and/or combination) in older adults with newly diagnosed AML who are not candidates for intensive therapy.
Methods
Protocol and registration
This systematic review was not registered on PROSPERO or other registries. This systematic review was performed with ASH guideline methodology [9] and informed the development of recommendations regarding the treatment of AML in elderly patients from the ASH 2020 Guidelines for treating newly diagnosed acute myeloid Leukemia in Older adults [8]. The eligibility criteria for studies to include were pre-established by the panel when formulating the recommendation questions. We conducted the study in accordance with the Cochrane handbook [10] and report the results according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines [11] (S1 Checklist).
Eligibility criteria
We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomized studies (NRS) of adults 55 years or older, with newly-diagnosed AML published in any language comparing the following less intensive therapies against each other, either as a monotherapy or in combination with any secondary agent: gemtuzumab ozogamicin, low dose cytarabine (LDCA), azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DEC). Outcomes of interest were mortality, quality of life, functional status, recurrence, morphologic complete remission, severe toxicity (CTC adverse effects grade 3 or higher), or burden on caregivers, measured in any way. We excluded studies that enrolled patient with acute promyelocytic leukemia, or myeloid proliferations related to Down syndrome and those in which researchers combined any of the interventions of interest with any agent considered a component of intensive antileukemic therapy regimens. Detailed description of the eligibility criteria—type of studies, participants, interventions and outcomes- is reported in S1 Appendix.
Information sources and search
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to August 2021 without restrictions on language of publication. For informing the ASH recommendations, we searched for studies published through July 2019.
We conducted an umbrella search that encompassed all the questions addressed in the guideline [8]. The supporting information file describes the search strategies items (S2 Appendix). We checked the reference lists of reviewed studies and contacted clinical experts for additional references.
Study selection and data collection process
Pairs of reviewers screened titles and abstracts obtained through the electronic searches and identified those potentially eligible. We then grouped studies according to the question they addressed and conducted full text screening specifically for our question. Four reviewers, independently working in pairs (BPR, NKF, AA, LECL) made eligibility decisions. If reviewers could not resolve disagreement through discussion, a third reviewer adjudicated (RBP).
Pairs of reviewers independently abstracted data on a standardized form. We extracted the following information: type of study, recruitment time-frame, follow-up (months), sample size, participant characteristics, as age (years), gender, cytogenetics (intermediate or poor), performance status (ECOG or WHO classification), white cell count, AML diagnosis criteria, trial location, source of funding, trial registry interventions (main agent, dose and second agent for combination therapy groups), comparisons (main agent, dose and second agent for combination therapy groups), and outcomes (mortality, quality of life, functional status, recurrence, morphologic complete remission, severe toxicity (CTC adverse effects grade 3 or higher), or burden on caregivers, at any time point. If reviewers could not resolve disagreement through discussion, a third reviewer adjudicated (RBP).
Risk of bias in individual studies
Pairs of reviewers (BPR, NKF, AA, LECL), independently assessed risk of bias for each randomized controlled trial using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials [12] and, for nonrandomized studies, the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions ROBINS-I tool [13].
Data analysis
We calculated the relative effect of less intensive therapies using hazard ratios (HR) for time to event data, relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference for continuous outcomes, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects models with the DerSimonian-Laird estimate of heterogeneity to pool data across studies reporting the same comparison and outcome [10]. We used forest plots to display comparisons with two or more pooled studies. We carried out all statistical analyses using Review Manager 5.3 [14]. We planned to conduct a network meta-analysis to compare all interventions against each other, but there was no sufficient data to conduct such analysis (data not shown). We analyzed data from RCTs and NRSs separately.
Dealing with missing data
When details about study design or descriptive statistics for outcomes were not presented in original publications, we did not impute data but rather contacted authors for additional information.
Assessment of the certainty of evidence by outcome
We used the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of evidence) for each outcome as high, moderate, low, or very low [15]. The assessment included judgments addressing risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias [15]. In addition, we assessed the magnitude of the effect, the presence of dose-response relationships, and residual confounding when rating the certainty of evidence from NRS [16]. We estimated absolute effect measures to facilitate the decision-making process [17]. Using absolute effects that we calculated based on the baseline risk of the comparator arms in the included studies, we rated the certainty that there was any benefit or any harm using a minimally contextualized approached [18]. We rated down due to imprecision if the confidence intervals crossed the null effect, and if the effect estimate was obtained from a small number of participants or events [19]. We assessed inconsistency between studies by visual inspection of forest plots, in particular the extent of overlap of confidence intervals (CI), the Q statistic (with a p value ≤ 0.1 as a suggestion of important statistical heterogeneity), and the I2 value [20]. We planned, if ten or more studies were available for a particular outcome, to create a funnel plot to assess publication bias by visual inspection [21]. Because we had multiple comparisons, we created Summary of Findings Tables for each comparison [22] and outcome using GRADEpro GDT (www.gradepro.org) [23].
Subgroup and sensitivity analysis
We pooled and reported results from RCTs and NRS separately. We planned to conduct sensitivity analyses to explore the impact of the risk of bias in the effect estimates. We performed a subgroup analysis to explore the impact of the secondary agent (when comparing a combination therapy group) in the effect estimates, when there were sufficient studies. The number of studies per comparisons did not allow us to explore any subgroup analysis based on patients’ characteristics (e.g., gender)
Results
Search results
After the removal of duplicates, we identified 12,376 studies of which 149 proved to be potentially relevant based on title an abstract screening. After full text review, we included 27 studies (Fig 1). From the included studies, 21 were included after the first search and informed the development of the recommendations [24–43], 6 studies were included after the guideline recommendation [44–49] We did not find any ongoing studies.
Study characteristics
We included 27 studies: 17 RCTs (3,902 patients) [24–35,37,46–49] and 10 NRS (1,796 patients) [36,38–42,44,45,50,51] published between 2007 to 2020. Table 1 and S3 Appendix summarize the study characteristics. 12 studies were single center (Four RCTs [26,27,29,33], one prospective NRS [36] and seven retrospective NRS [38–40,42,43,45,51]) and 15 were multicenter studies (13 RCTs [24,25,28,30–32,34,35,37,46–49] and 2 prospective NRS [41,44]). The trials’ geographical location is reported in S3 Appendix. Participants median age ranged from 67 years to 76 years, female participation ranged from 20% to 57.2%, and follow-up ranged from 3.3 months to 54 months.
The criteria to diagnose AML varied across studies; 14 used the WHO-AML criteria [8,30–34,37,41,44,46,47,49,50], six did not provided information [25–27,39,40,45], five studies used bone marrow blast percentage description [28,35,36,38,51], one used the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2009 criteria [24], and one used immunophenotype confirmation [42].
We identified 9 comparisons from the 27 included studies: two RCTs (433 patients) compared azacitidine monotherapy against low-dose cytarabine monotherapy [24,25]; four RTCs (921 patients) compared azacitidine monotherapy against azacitidine in combination with a second agent (venetoclax [48], entinostat [34] and vorinostat [32,33]); three NRS (648 patients) compared azacitidine monotherapy against decitabine monotherapy [39,40,50]; three RCTs (685 participants) compared decitabine monotherapy against decitabine in combination with a second agent (bortezomib [37], valproate and/or retinoic acid [46] and talacotuzumab [47]); two NRS (190 patients) compared decitabine in combination with a second agent (venetoclax) against azacitidine in combination with a second agent (venetoclax) [41,44]; seven RCTs (1406 patients) and one NRS (28 patients) compared low-dose cytarabine monotherapy against low-dose cytarabine in combination with a second agent (ATRA [51], arsenic trioxide [26], gemtuzumab ozogamicin [27], lintuzumab [29], volasertib [30], vosaroxin [28], glasdegib [31], and venetoclax [49]); one RCT (457 patients) and one NRS (30 patients) compared low-dose cytarabine monotherapy against decitabine monotherapy [35,36]; one NRS (406 patients) compared low-dose cytarabine in combination with a second agent (not specified) against hypomethylating agents [38]; and, two NRS (485 patients) compared low-dose cytarabine monotherapy against hypomethylating agents [42,45]. Meta-analyses were done reporting each comparison and without mixing the study designs.
Risk of bias of the included studies
We provide a detailed description of the risk of bias assessment per study and domain in S4 Appendix. All NRS had serious risk of bias due to confounding because patient baseline characteristics were different between the treatment groups [36,38–42,44,45,50,51]; two of the 10 studies had bias in the selection of participants into the study (serious (36) and moderate [51]); three of the studies had moderate risk of bias in the classification of the interventions, [38,42,45]; and seven of the studies had bias due to deviations from the intended interventions (serious [42] and moderate[38,39,41,43–45]). None of the studies had risk of bias due to missing data, outcomes measurements and selective reporting (S4 Appendix). All RCTs had low or probably low risk of bias in the sequence generation domain [24–35,37,46–49]; three of the 17 studies had high risk of bias in the allocation concealment domain [26–28]; all the studies had low or probably low risk of bias in the blinding domains (performance and outcome measurement), missing data and selective reporting (S4 Appendix).
Effects of the interventions
We summarize the effects of the interventions and their associated certainty of the evidence by creating one table per outcome. Table 2 summarize the effect of the interventions on the overall survival of the participants, Table 3 summarizes the effect of the interventions on the infectious severe adverse events (CTC adverse effects grade 3 or higher), and Table 4 summarizes the effect of the interventions on the non- infectious severe adverse events (CTC adverse effects grade 3 or higher). S1 Table summarizes the effect of the interventions on 1-year mortality, 30-days mortality, complete remission and length of hospital stay, and S2 Table summarizes the certainty of evidence from the sub-group analyses.
Overall survival (OS)
Overall survival over the longest follow-up time.
Seventeen studies [twelve RCTs (2,618 patients) and five NRS (1,523 patients)] reported overall survival, with a median follow-up ranged from 6 to 30 months (Table 1) [24,25,29–32,35,37,38,40–42,44–49]. We identified three main drugs (azacitidine (AZA), decitabine (DEC) and low-dose cytarabine (LDAC)) used as monotherapy or in combination with other agents, and a total of 9 comparisons (LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [35], AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24,25], AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination [32,48], LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29–31,49], DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination [37,46,47], AZA monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [40], LDAC combination vs hypomethylating agents (HMAs) [38], DEC combination vs AZA combination [32,48], and LDAC monotherapy vs HMAs [42,45]. From the nine comparisons, one had moderate certainty evidence, and showed little or no difference on survival between AZA monotherapy and LDAC monotherapy (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31–1.53, N = 2 RCTs, 346 patients, I2 56%) (Table 1, Fig 2) [24,25]. We identified four comparisons with low certainty of evidence, that may have little or no effect on the survival of the participants (LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [35], and AZAM monotherapy vs AZAM combination [32,48]) (Table 1). All other comparisons were very low certainty evidence, which means that we are very uncertain about the true comparative effect of the interventions (Table 1). There was important inconsistency in two comparisons (DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination [37,47], and LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination) [29–31,49], for which we conducted subgroup analyses (Subgroup analysis section).
All-cause of mortality at 1 year.
Seven RCTs (1,511 patients) addressing three comparisons reported all-cause mortality as the proportion of patient who died at 1 year (AZAM monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24], LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [26–30], and LDAC monotherapy vs HMAs [42,45]). Two of the comparisons reported a reduction on mortality (AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy; [RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64–0.94, N = 1 RCT, 312 patients] [24], and, LDAC monotherapy vs HMAs [RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.36–0.59, N = 2 NRS, 485 patients, I2 0%] [42,45]). However, the certainty of the evidence was low, and very low, respectively, which means that we are not certain about the true effect of the interventions (S1 Table).
All-cause of mortality at 30 days.
Seven RCTs (1,334 patients), addressing two comparisons reported all-cause mortality as the proportion of patient who died at 30 days (DEC monotherapy vs DEC plus bortezomib [37], and, LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [26–28,30,31,49]). The comparisons suggested have little or no difference on patient mortality at 30 days. However, the certainty of the evidence was low (S1 Table).
Infectious adverse events (AEs)
Septic shock.
Two RCTs (421 patients) addressing two comparisons reported septic shock (AZAM monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24], and, AZA monotherapy vs AZA plus vorinostat [33]). The comparisons suggested little or no difference in the development of septic shock. However, the certainty of the evidence was low, and very low respectively (Table 3).
Febrile neutropenia.
Ten RCTs (2,801 patients) and one NRS (145 patients) addressing 6 comparisons reported febrile neutropenia events (LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [33], AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24], LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29–31,49], DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination [37,46,47], AZA monotherapy vs AZA plus venetoclax [48], and DEC plus venetoclax vs AZA plus venetoclax [44]). Two of the six were moderate certainty evidence. When comparing AZA monotherapy vs AZA plus venetoclax, patients treated with AZA monotherapy had a lower risk of fewer febrile neutropenia events (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31–0.65, N = 1 RCT, 427 participants) [48], and when comparing DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65–1.10, N = 3 RCTs, 671 patients, I2 0%) [37,46,47] (Fig 3) there was probably little or no difference in the risk of febrile neutropenia. Four comparisons have low (AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24], LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [35], and LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29–31,49]) and very low (DEC plus venetoclax vs AZA plus venetoclax [44]) certainty of evidence (Table 3).
Pneumonia.
Nine RCTs (2,440 patients) and one NRS (139 patients) addressing 6 comparisons reported the presence of pneumonia (LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [35], AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24], DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination [37,46,47], LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29,31,49], AZAM monotherapy vs AZA plus venetoclax [48], and LDAC monotherapy vs HMAs [42]). One of the six comparisons is moderate certainty evidence. When comparing DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination there is probably little or no difference in the risk of pneumonia (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73–1.42, N = 3 RCTs, 671 patients, I2 12%) (Fig 4) [37,46,47]. Five comparisons are low (LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [35], AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24], LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29,31,49], and AZA monotherapy vs AZA plus venetoclax [48]) and very low (LDAC monotherapy vs HMAs [42]) certainty of evidence (Table 3).
Sepsis.
Four RCTs (1,010 patients) and one NRS (45 patients) addressing four comparisons reported sepsis (LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29,49], DEC monotherapy vs DEC plus bortezomib [37], AZAM monotherapy vs AZA plus venetoclax [48], and DEC plus venetoclax vs AZA plus venetoclax [41]). One of the four is moderate certainty evidence. When comparing LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination there is probably little or no difference in the risk of sepsis (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.48–2.01, N = 2 RCTs, 420 patients, I2 0%) (Fig 5) [29,49]. Three comparisons are low (DEC monotherapy vs DEC plus bortezomib [37], and AZA monotherapy vs AZA plus venetoclax [48]) and very low (DEC plus venetoclax vs AZA plus venetoclax [41]) certainty of evidence (Table 3).
Non-infectious adverse events (AEs)
Anemia.
Ten RCTs (2,500 patients) and one NRS (145 patients) addressing 6 comparisons reported anemia (DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination [46,47], AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24,25], LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [35], LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29,31,49], AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination [32,48], and, DEC plus venetoclax vs AZA plus venetoclax [44]). Two of the six were moderate certainty evidence. When comparing DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68–1.06, N = 2 RCTs, 512 patients, I2 0%) (Fig 6) [46,47], and AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy there is probably little or no difference in the risk of anemia (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58–1.09, N = 2 RCTs, 512 patients, I2 17%) (Fig 7) [24,25]. Four comparisons are low (LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [35], LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29,31,49], and AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination [34,48]) and very low (DEC combination vs AZA combination [44]) certainty of evidence (Table 4).
Neutropenia.
Ten RCTs (2,500 patients) and two NRS (184 patients) addressing seven comparisons reported neutropenia (DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination [46,47], AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24,25], LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [35], LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29,31,49], AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination [34,48], DEC combination vs AZA combination [41], and LDAC monotherapy vs HMAs [42]). Three of those seven are moderate certainty evidence. When comparing LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy, patients treated with LDAC monotherapy shown fewer neutropenia events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44–0.86, N = 1 RTC, 446 patients) [35], and when comparing AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81–1.24, N = 2 RCTs, 421 patients, I2 0%) (Fig 8) [24,25] and DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64–1.06, N = 2 RCTs, 512 patients, I2 0%) (Fig 9) ([46,47] there is probably little or no difference in the risk of neutropenia. Four comparisons are low (LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29,31,49], and AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination [34,48]) and very low (DEC combination vs AZA combination [41], and LDAC monotherapy vs HMAs [42]) certainty of evidence (Table 4).
Thrombocytopenia.
Ten RCTs (2,500 patients) and two NRS (184 patients) addressing seven comparisons reported thrombocytopenia (DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination [46,47], AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy [24,25], LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy (35), LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29,31,49], AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination [34,48], DEC combination vs AZA combination [41], and LDAC monotherapy vs HMAs [42]). Four of these seven are moderate certainty evidence. When comparing DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67–1.23, N = 2 RCTs, 512 patients, I2 34%) (Fig 10) [46,47], AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78–1.07, N = 2 RCTs, 422 patients, I2 0%) (Fig 11) [24,25], AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78–1.06, N = 2 RTC, 576 patients, I2 0%) (Fig 12) [34,48], and LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67–1.10, N = 3 RCTs, 545 patients, I2 0%) (Fig 13) [29,31,49], there is probably little or no difference in the risk of thrombocytopenia. Four comparisons are low (LDAC monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [35]) and very low (DEC combination vs AZA combination [41], and LDAC monotherapy vs HMAs [42]) certainty of evidence (Table 4).
Hospitalization and hypoxia.
One NRS (478 patients) [40] and one RCT (87 patients) [30] addressing two comparisons reported on hospitalization (very low certainty evidence) and hypoxia/respiratory failure (low certainty evidence). When comparing LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination no difference was found in hypoxia/respiratory failure development. When comparing AZA monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy, fewer hospitalizations occurred in favor of AZA monotherapy. However, we are very uncertain about this effect (Table 4).
Other outcomes
Complete remission over the longest follow-up.
5 RCTs (1,331 patients) and 1 NRS (114 patients)] addressing three comparisons reported complete remission as event-free survival (AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination [48], LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [26–28,49], and, AZA monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [39]). One of these is moderate certainty of evidence. When comparing AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination, patients treated with AZA monotherapy shown a decrease in the event-free survival (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.26–2.00, N = 1 RCTs, 488 patients) [48]. One comparison is very low certainty (AZA monotherapy vs DEC monotherapy [37]) (S1 Table). There was important inconsistency in one comparison (LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination) [26–28,49], which we conducted subgroup analyses (Subgroup analysis section).
Length of hospital stay.
Two RCTs (598 patients) addressing one comparison (LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination) reported the length of hospital stay [27,28]. When comparing both drugs (MD 8.24 days, 95% CI -18.71 to 2.24, N = 2 RCTs, 598 patients, I2 83%) there is little or no effect on the length of hospital stay (S1 Table).
Subgroup and sensitivity analysis
The included studies did not provide sufficient information to performed a sensitivity analysis base on the risk of bias. We observed important inconsistency in two comparisons from two outcomes: Overall survival (DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination [37,46,47], and LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [29–31,49]), and 12-month relapse-free survival (LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination [26–28,49]), for which we conducted subgroup analyses based on the secondary agent of the combination
DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination.
We identified five secondary agents from three RCTs (679 patients) reporting overall survival [37,46,47]. All the comparisons are low certainty of evidence. Talacotuzumab (HR 1.04, 95% 0.79–1.37, N = 1 RCT, 316 patients) [47], Bortezomib (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.84–1.63, N = 1 RCT, 163 patients) [37], and Valproate (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.57–1.27, N = 1 RCT arm) [46] has little or no effect in the overall survival of participants compared to DEC monotherapy. When comparing all-trans retinoic acid (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37–0.91, N = 1 RCT arm) and all-trans retinoic acid plus valproate (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40–0.96, N = 1 RCT arm) against DEC monotherapy, patients treated with the combination therapy shown higher overall survival (S1 Fig) [46]. However, we are uncertain about the true effect of these comparisons (S2 Table).
LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination.
Overall survival. We identified four secondary agents from four RCTs (620 participants) reporting overall survival [29–31,49]. All the comparisons are low certainty of evidence. Venetoclax (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.92–1.92, N = 1 RCT, 211 patients) [49], and Lintuzumab (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72–1.25, N = 1 RCT, 211 patients) has little or no effect in the overall survival of participants compared to LDAC monotherapy [29]. When comparing volasertib (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00–2.52, N = 1 RCT, 87 patients) [30] and glasdegib (HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.44–3.26, N = 1 RCT, 111 patients) [31], patients treated with combination therapy shown higher overall survival (S2 Fig). However, we are uncertain about the true effect of these comparisons (S2 Table).
Complete remission. We identified four secondary agents from four RCTs (843 patients) reporting the 12-month relapse-free survival. All the comparisons are low certainty of evidence. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin plus LDAC against LDAC monotherapy (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73–1.69, N = 1 RCT, 494 participants) has little or no effect in the 12-month relapse-free survival [27]. When comparing LDAC plus arsenic trioxide against LDAC monotherapy (HR 2.95, 95% CI 1.21–7.19, N = 1 RCT, 34 participants), we found an improve of the 12-month relapse-free survival on patients treated with LDAC monotherapy [26], and when comparing vosaroxin plus LDAC (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16–1.02, N = 1 RCT, 104 participants) [28] and venetoclax plus LDAC (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42–0.80, N = 1 RCT, 211 patients) [49] we found an improvement of the 12-month relapse-free survival on patients treated with LDAC combination therapy (S3 Fig). However, we are uncertain about the true effect of these comparisons (S3 Table).
Discussion
The elderly population diagnosed with AML who are not candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy propose an important challenge. In the last two decades’ new therapeutic options have become available with a reasonable effectiveness and excellent toxicity profile. However, uncertainty remains about the comparative effectiveness and safety of the different available options. In order to help clinicians and patients during the decision-making process, we summarize the best available evidence by conducting a systematic review with several meta-analyses.
Summary of the evidence
Our systematic review identified three main drugs (azacitidine, decitabine and low-dose cytarabine), as monotherapies or in combination, addressing nine comparisons. We found information on patients´ OS, 1-year mortality, 30-days’ mortality, infectious and non-infectious AEs, complete remission and length of hospital stay. We found no evidence regarding quality of life, functional status and burden of caregiver for any comparison.
Most of the evidence comes from RCTs (3,902 patients). However, due to the small number of patients per comparison (imprecision), and inconsistency between the treatment effects reported by different studies, most of the evidence was judged as low or very low certainty. Evidence about the effects on OS was available for all nine comparisons, with no compelling evidence in favor of any of the available options. There is moderate certainty in one of the comparisons (AZA monotherapy vs LDAC monotherapy), showing little no differences in the OS between the patients treated with these drugs. We performed two subgroup analyses for this outcome (DEC monotherapy vs DEC combination, and LDAC monotherapy vs LDAC combination). Also, we performed another subgroup analysis for the complete remission outcome (LDAC monotherapy and LDAC combination). Overall, we found single studies with favorable effects in combination therapy groups (LDAC combination and, DEC combination). However, due to the number of studies, the sample size, and the inconsistency between the pooled estimates, we classified the evidence as low certainty (Table 2). The evidence for other outcomes and comparisons was scarce and we could not conduct more of these analyses.
Toxicity is a very important feature during the decision-making process. We observed a similar prevalence of severe adverse events (CTC grade 3 or higher), except for two. AZA combination therapy (venetoclax) had more febrile neutropenia events when compared against AZA monotherapy (Table 3), and DEC monotherapy had more neutropenia events when compared against LDAC monotherapy (Table 4).
Strengths and limitations
No prior SRs addressed alternative chemotherapy for older patients with AML in whom intensive therapy was not an option. We conducted a comprehensive database search; specified explicit eligibility criteria; and conducted duplicate, independent study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment with resolution of disagreement with discussion and third-party adjudication where necessary. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence for NRS and RCT studies and where informative included both relative and absolute effects. We included all the relevant options that either RCTs or NRS had addressed.
We faced an important challenge when conducting our meta-analysis: The secondary agents varied across the studies within each comparison and, for most of the comparisons the type of secondary agent was not the same. We decided to pool studies within the comparisons regardless the secondary agent, and to explore if the secondary agent was associated with the treatment effect when comparing monotherapies vs. combination therapies. During the clinical practice guideline development, we planned additional analyses based on the input from the panel members. Unfortunately, the number of studies within comparisons and outcomes was insufficient to conduct such analyses. With the available evidence when developing the recommendations, the panel believed that any extra analyses, including sensitivity analyses that would exclude specific studies (e.g., diagnostic criteria for AML), was unlikely to change their conclusions. Also, we planned to performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare all interventions against each other. At the end of data extraction, we identified insufficient evidence to do so (data not shown). This decision created the challenge to summarize all the useful evidence across the nine comparisons; we provided a summary on main text but also provide extensive supplementary information in the appendices.
Implications
Treating older AML patients can be challenging, as clinicians and patients must balance the goal of increasing longevity with the risk that more aggressive treatment may increase adverse events and hospitalization. During the recommendation formulation process, with the evidence available at that time, the guideline panel found no compelling evidence of additional benefit with more aggressive treatment with more than one agent, and instances in which such therapy did increase adverse events. After the meeting, however, some new studies (RCTs and NRS) reported benefits of combinations over monotherapy, for example, DEC combined with ATRA and VPA+ATRA may result in better survival than DEC monotherapy [Lubbert 2020] [46], and AZA combined with venetoclax may also result in better survival than AZA monotherapy [DiNardo 2020] [48]. Because these results were inconsistent with the previously identified studies, when including these new studies in the meta-analyses, the certainty of the overall evidence decreased. It is important to notice, however, that the certainty of evidence for each of these specific comparisons is low.
Therapy selection for older adults with AML who are not candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy is based on the patient fitness, patients’ characteristics (cytogenic and molecular profiles), the trade-off between drug safety and toxicity, and patients’ values and preferences [52]. The scientific community agrees on offering therapies based on HMA agents (e.g., azacytidine, decitabine) with some exceptions: liver and kidney severe disease, prior HMA therapy, and the presence of an actionable mutation [52,53]. For these populations other options are available (e.g., Low-dose cytarabine). Currently, combination therapy has become the standard of care for unfit AML older patients. However, the secondary agent depends on their availability in each setting and the presence of specific genetic mutations. Venetoclax (BCL2 inhibitor) is the preferred secondary agent to add to the HMA therapies, this is based on promising results from NRS and RCTs (mentioned previously). In our review, we identify benefits from the combination therapy with venetoclax. However, the certainty of the effect was judged to be low after creating a pooled estimate (imprecision and inconsistency). The same situation was identified with other secondary agents. We are aware that creating pooled estimates without stratifying based on the second agent may impact the effect estimate of a specific agent (e.g., venetoclax). In the comparison with enough studies, we undertook a subgroup analysis to explore their effect. However, the AZA monotherapy vs AZA combination did not have sufficient studies to explore it.
Our evidence suggests HMA therapies are acceptable options with similar efficacy and safety to other less-intensive treatment options. The certainty of the evidence was, however, low for most comparisons and outcomes, and there was no published evidence for several outcomes considered critical for decision-making. The limitations of the evidence also highlight the need for additional randomized trials including a wider range of patient-important outcomes–in particular quality of life—to definitively establish the relative merits of alternative regimens in older patients with AML in whom more aggressive therapy is not an option.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Overall survival subgroup analysis.
Decitabine monotherapy vs decitabine combination.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263240.s002
(TIF)
S2 Fig. Overall survival subgroup analysis.
Low-dose cytarabine monotherapy vs low dose cytarabine combination.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263240.s003
(TIF)
S3 Fig. Complete remission subgroup analysis.
Low-dose cytarabine monotherapy vs low dose cytarabine combination.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263240.s004
(TIF)
S1 Table. Summary of findings table for 1-year mortality, 30-day mortality, complete remission and length of hospital stay.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263240.s005
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Overall survival subgroup analyses–summary of findings table.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263240.s006
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Relapse free survival subgroup analyses–summary of findings table.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263240.s007
(DOCX)
S1 Appendix. Eligibility criteria and study characteristics.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263240.s008
(DOCX)
S4 Appendix. Risk of bias of the included studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263240.s011
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We thank the clinical experts, Desai Pinkal, Mark Litzow, Mikkael A. Sekeres for critical feedback on population and outcome selection, and treatment grouping.
References
- 1. Ferrara F, Schiffer CA. Acute myeloid leukaemia in adults. Lancet. 2013;381(9865):484–95. pmid:23399072
- 2. Almeida AM, Ramos F. Acute myeloid leukemia in the older adults. Leukemia research reports. 2016;6:1–7. pmid:27408788
- 3. British Committee for Standards in H, Milligan DW, Grimwade D, Cullis JO, Bond L, Swirsky D, et al. Guidelines on the management of acute myeloid leukaemia in adults. British journal of haematology. 2006;135(4):450–74. pmid:17054678
- 4. Creutzig U, Buchner T, Sauerland MC, Zimmermann M, Reinhardt D, Dohner H, et al. Significance of age in acute myeloid leukemia patients younger than 30 years: a common analysis of the pediatric trials AML-BFM 93/98 and the adult trials AMLCG 92/99 and AMLSG HD93/98A. Cancer. 2008;112(3):562–71. pmid:18076087
- 5. Thein MS, Ershler WB, Jemal A, Yates JW, Baer MR. Outcome of older patients with acute myeloid leukemia: an analysis of SEER data over 3 decades. Cancer. 2013;119(15):2720–7. pmid:23633441
- 6. Onec B, Okutan H, Albayrak M, Can ES, Aslan V, Koluman BU, et al. Combination therapy with azacitidine, etoposide, and cytarabine in the treatment of elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients: A single center experience. Journal of cancer research and therapeutics. 2018;14(5):1105–11. pmid:30197357
- 7. Finn L, Dalovisio A, Foran J. Older Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Treatment Challenges and Future Directions. The Ochsner journal. 2017;17(4):398–404. pmid:29230125
- 8. Sekeres MA, Guyatt G, Abel G, Alibhai S, Altman JK, Buckstein R, et al. American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for treating newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in older adults. Blood advances. 2020;4(15):3528–49. pmid:32761235
- 9. Wiercioch W, Nieuwlaat R, Akl EA, Kunkle R, Alexander KE, Cuker A, et al. Methodology for the American Society of Hematology VTE guidelines: current best practice, innovations, and experiences. Blood advances. 2020;4(10):2351–65. pmid:32453843
- 10. Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2(updated February 2021).Cochrane, 2021.
- 11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International journal of surgery. 2021;88:105906. pmid:33789826
- 12. GH Guyatt JB. Modification of Cochrane Tool to assess risk of bias in randomized trials 2015. Available from: https://www.evidencepartners.com/resources/methodological-resources/.
- 13. Schunemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA, Mustafa RA, Meerpohl JJ, Thayer K, et al. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018. pmid:29432858
- 14.
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020. ed.
- 15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj. 2008;336(7650):924–6. pmid:18436948
- 16. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(12):1311–6. pmid:21802902
- 17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2013;66(2):158–72. pmid:22609141
- 18. Zeng L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Hultcrantz M, Siemieniuk RAC, Santesso N, Traversy G, et al. GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2021;137:163–75. pmid:33857619
- 19. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(12):1283–93. pmid:21839614
- 20. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(12):1294–302. pmid:21803546
- 21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(12):1277–82. pmid:21802904
- 22. Yepes-Nunez JJ, Li SA, Guyatt G, Jack SM, Brozek JL, Beyene J, et al. Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2019;115:1–13. pmid:31055177
- 23.
GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2020 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.).
- 24. Dombret H, Seymour JF, Butrym A, Wierzbowska A, Selleslag D, Jang JH, et al. International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts. Blood. 2015;126(3):291–9. pmid:25987659
- 25. Fenaux P, Mufti GJ, Hellstrom-Lindberg E, Santini V, Gattermann N, Germing U, et al. Azacitidine prolongs overall survival compared with conventional care regimens in elderly patients with low bone marrow blast count acute myeloid leukemia. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2010;28(4):562–9. pmid:20026804
- 26. Burnett AK, Hills RK, Hunter A, Milligan D, Kell J, Wheatley K, et al. The addition of arsenic trioxide to low-dose Ara-C in older patients with AML does not improve outcome. Leukemia. 2011;25(7):1122–7. pmid:21475252
- 27. Burnett AK, Hills RK, Hunter AE, Milligan D, Kell WJ, Wheatley K, et al. The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to low-dose Ara-C improves remission rate but does not significantly prolong survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: results from the LRF AML14 and NCRI AML16 pick-a-winner comparison. Leukemia. 2013;27(1):75–81. pmid:22964882
- 28. Dennis M, Russell N, Hills RK, Hemmaway C, Panoskaltsis N, McMullin MF, et al. Vosaroxin and vosaroxin plus low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) vs low-dose Ara-C alone in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2015;125(19):2923–32. pmid:25805811
- 29. Sekeres MA, Lancet JE, Wood BL, Grove LE, Sandalic L, Sievers EL, et al. Randomized phase IIb study of low-dose cytarabine and lintuzumab versus low-dose cytarabine and placebo in older adults with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 2013;98(1):119–28. pmid:22801961
- 30. Dohner H, Lubbert M, Fiedler W, Fouillard L, Haaland A, Brandwein JM, et al. Randomized, phase 2 trial of low-dose cytarabine with or without volasertib in AML patients not suitable for induction therapy. Blood. 2014;124(9):1426–33. pmid:25006120
- 31. Cortes JE, Heidel FH, Hellmann A, Fiedler W, Smith BD, Robak T, et al. Randomized comparison of low dose cytarabine with or without glasdegib in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Leukemia. 2019;33(2):379–89. pmid:30555165
- 32. Craddock CF, Houlton AE, Quek LS, Ferguson P, Gbandi E, Roberts C, et al. Outcome of Azacitidine Therapy in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Is not Improved by Concurrent Vorinostat Therapy but Is Predicted by a Diagnostic Molecular Signature. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2017;23(21):6430–40. pmid:28765326
- 33. Montalban-Bravo G, Huang X, Naqvi K, Jabbour E, Borthakur G, DiNardo CD, et al. A clinical trial for patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes not eligible for standard clinical trials. Leukemia. 2017;31(7):1659.
- 34. Prebet T, Sun Z, Figueroa ME, Ketterling R, Melnick A, Greenberg PL, et al. Prolonged administration of azacitidine with or without entinostat for myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes: results of the US Leukemia Intergroup trial E1905. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2014;32(12):1242–8. pmid:24663049
- 35. Kantarjian HM, Thomas XG, Dmoszynska A, Wierzbowska A, Mazur G, Mayer J, et al. Multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of decitabine versus patient choice, with physician advice, of either supportive care or low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30(21):2670–7. pmid:22689805
- 36. Jacob LA, Aparna S, Lakshmaiah KC, Lokanatha D, Babu G, Babu S, et al. Decitabine Compared with Low-Dose Cytarabine for the Treatment of Older Patients with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Pilot Study of Safety, Efficacy, and Cost-Effectiveness. Advances in Hematology. 2015;2015:167029. pmid:26617639
- 37. Roboz GJ, Mandrekar SJ, Desai P, Laumann K, Walker AR, Wang ES, et al. Randomized trial of 10 days of decitabine +/- bortezomib in untreated older patients with AML: CALGB 11002 (Alliance). Blood advances. 2018;2(24):3608–17. pmid:30567725
- 38. Boddu PC, Kantarjian HM, Ravandi F, Garcia-Manero G, Verstovsek S, Jabbour EJ, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of older patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia according to treatment approach. Cancer. 2017;123(16):3050–60. pmid:28387922
- 39. Quintás-Cardama A, Ravandi F, Liu-Dumlao T, Brandt M, Faderl S, Pierce S, et al. Epigenetic therapy is associated with similar survival compared with intensive chemotherapy in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2012;120(24):4840–5. pmid:23071272
- 40. Smith BD, Beach CL, Mahmoud D, Weber L, Henk HJ. Survival and hospitalization among patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with azacitidine or decitabine in a large managed care population: a real-world, retrospective, claims-based, comparative analysis. Experimental Hematology & Oncology. 2014;3(1):10. pmid:24666795
- 41. DiNardo CD, Pratz KW, Letai A, Jonas BA, Wei AH, Thirman M, et al. Safety and preliminary efficacy of venetoclax with decitabine or azacitidine in elderly patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukaemia: a non-randomised, open-label, phase 1b study. The Lancet Oncology. 2018;19(2):216–28. pmid:29339097
- 42. Kanakasetty GB, C R, CL K, Dasappa L, Jacob LA, CS M, et al. Treatment patterns and comparative analysis of non-intensive regimens in elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients-a real-world experience from India. Annals of hematology. 2019;98(4):881–8. pmid:30697642
- 43. Nanah R, McCullough K, Hogan W, Begna K, Patnaik M, Elliott M, et al. Outcome of elderly patients after failure to hypomethylating agents given as frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: Single institution experience. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(9):866–71. pmid:28474744
- 44. DiNardo CD, Pratz K, Pullarkat V, Jonas BA, Arellano M, Becker PS, et al. Venetoclax combined with decitabine or azacitidine in treatment-naive, elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2019;133(1):7–17. pmid:30361262
- 45. Talati C, Dhulipala VC, Extermann MT, Ali NA, Kim J, Komrokji R, et al. Comparisons of commonly used front-line regimens on survival outcomes in patients aged 70 years and older with acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 2020;105(2):398–406. pmid:31073071
- 46. Lubbert M, Grishina O, Schmoor C, Schlenk RF, Jost E, Crysandt M, et al. Valproate and Retinoic Acid in Combination With Decitabine in Elderly Nonfit Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Results of a Multicenter, Randomized, 2 x 2, Phase II Trial. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2020;38(3):257–70.
- 47. Montesinos P, Roboz GJ, Bulabois C-E, Subklewe M, Platzbecker U, Ofran Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of talacotuzumab plus decitabine or decitabine alone in patients with acute myeloid leukemia not eligible for chemotherapy: results from a multicenter, randomized, phase 2/3 study. Leukemia. 2020.
- 48. DiNardo CD, Jonas BA, Pullarkat V, Thirman MJ, Garcia JS, Wei AH, et al. Azacitidine and Venetoclax in Previously Untreated Acute Myeloid Leukemia. The New England journal of medicine. 2020;383(7):617–29. pmid:32786187
- 49. Wei AH, Montesinos P, Ivanov V, DiNardo CD, Novak J, Laribi K, et al. Venetoclax plus LDAC for newly diagnosed AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy: a phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled trial. Blood. 2020;135(24):2137–45. pmid:32219442
- 50. Nanah R, McCullough K, Hogan W, Begna K, Patnaik M, Elliott M, et al. Outcome of elderly patients after failure to hypomethylating agents given as frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: Single institution experience*. American Journal of Hematology. 2017;92(9):866–71. pmid:28474744
- 51. Di Febo A, Laurenti L, Falcucci P, Tosti ME, Fianchi L, Pagano L, et al. All-trans retinoic acid in association with low dose cytosine arabinoside in the treatment of acute myeoid leukemia in elderly patients. American journal of therapeutics. 2007;14(4):351–5. pmid:17667210
- 52. Network. NCC. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Acute myeloid leukemia. V.3.2021. Updated March 2, 2021.
- 53. Palmieri R, Paterno G, De Bellis E, Mercante L, Buzzatti E, Esposito F, et al. Therapeutic Choice in Older Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Matter of Fitness. Cancers. 2020;12(1).