4.6 Article

A randomised evaluation of low-dose Ara-C plus pegylated recombinant arginase BCT-100 versus low dose Ara-C in older unfit patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: Results from the LI-1 trial

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 200, Issue 5, Pages 573-578

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18560

Keywords

arginase; AML; BCT-100; cytarabine

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The survival of older AML patients has been historically suboptimal regardless of the treatment regimen used. However, progress has been made in subgroups with favorable molecular or cytogenetic findings. This study investigated the efficacy of LDAC combined with recombinant arginase BCT-100 in older AML patients, and the overall response rate was slightly higher in the LDAC+BCT-100 group compared to the LDAC group, with no significant difference in overall or median survival observed between the two treatment arms.
The survival of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients aged over 60 has been suboptimal historically, whether they are treated using hypomethylating agents, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) or venetoclax-based regimens. Progress is being made, however, for subgroups with favourable molecular or cytogenetic findings. Arginine metabolism plays a key role in AML pathophysiology. We report the only randomised study of LDAC with recombinant arginase BCT-100 versus LDAC alone in older AML patients unsuitable for intensive therapy. Eighty-three patients were randomised to the study. An overall response rate was seen in 19.5% (all complete remission [CR]) and 15% (7.5% each in CR and CR without evidence of adequate count recovery [CRi]) of patients in the LDAC+BCT-100 and LDAC arms respectively (odds ratio 0.73, confidence interval 0.23-2.33; p = 0.592). No significant difference in overall or median survival between treatment arms was seen. The addition of BCT-100 to LDAC was well tolerated.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available