4.2 Article

AML: New Drugs but New Challenges

Journal

CLINICAL LYMPHOMA MYELOMA & LEUKEMIA
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 341-350

Publisher

CIG MEDIA GROUP, LP
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.02.005

Keywords

FLT3 inhibitors; Gemtuzumab ozogamicin; Glasdegib; IDH1 and 2 inhibitors; Vyxeos

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the approval of 8 new drugs for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) since 2017, the disease remains challenging, given the significant toxicity associated with available treatments and relatively low cure rates, especially in older adults. Although advantageous for patients, self-congratulatory rejoicing about the new agents would be extremely premature. Questions abound about the need for a specific versus less specific FLT3 inhibitor (eg, midostautin) in the upfront setting and whether a single agent (gilteritnib), albeit better than chemotherapy, is sufficient for relapsed disease. Is the new liposomal formulation of daunorubicin/cytarabine better than '3 + 7' only in secondary AML? Should only those newly diagnosed patients with core binding factor AML routinely receive gemtuzumab ozogamicin? The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors were approved based on non-randomized data; thus, one wonders whether single-agent isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitor therapy is appropriate for relapsed patients. Glasdegib, an orally available hedgehog inhibitor, is approved in conjunction with low-dose cytarabine in unfit patients but is rarely used in favor of a combination of hypomethylating agents or low-dose cytarabine with venetoclax, which are hopeful newly approved combinations for the older and/or unfit previously untreated. Perhaps venetoclax-based combinations should be more widely used, but the data is currently lacking. Thus, a temperate approach, more clinical research, and a critical analysis of the available data remain important in this optimistic new era of AML therapeutics. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available