4.3 Article

Impact of high dose cytarabine dosing strategies in obese patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Journal

LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
Volume 102, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2021.106517

Keywords

Acute myeloid leukemia; High dose cytarabine; Obesity; Consolidation; Outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There were no significant differences in safety or efficacy outcomes for obese versus non-obese patients who received HIDAC consolidation, suggesting that weight does not impact the dosage of this therapy.
High dose cytarabine (HIDAC) consolidation has demonstrated a survival benefit in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The increasing prevalence of obesity and the toxicity risk with this therapy renders important the quantification of potential risks with weight-based dosing in this patient population. The American Society of Clinical Oncology published recommendations on chemotherapy dosing in obese patients, but patients with leukemia were excluded from analysis. This was a retrospective comparison of safety and efficacy outcomes in obese and non-obese patients with AML who received HIDAC consolidation. Thirty-nine (41.9 %) patients received dose adjusted HIDAC in cycle 1. Nine of the 40 patients in the obese group received HIDAC dose-adjusted for obesity. The combined incidence of cycle delays, febrile neutropenia, or documented infection was 41.5 % in non-obese patients compared to 57.5 % in obese patients (p = 0.127). The median overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS) were not reached in both cohorts. The estimated 36-month overall survival was 76.4 % (95 % CI 0.623-0.905) in non-obese patients, compared to 66.1 % (95 % CI 0.472-0.85) in obese patients. There were no significant differences in safety or efficacy outcomes for obese versus non-obese patients who received HIDAC consolidation. For class III obesity, baseline dose-adjustments were more common.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available