4.7 Article

CPX-351 (cytarabine and daunorubicin) Liposome for Injection Versus Conventional Cytarabine Plus Daunorubicin in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 36, 期 26, 页码 2684-+

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6112

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Celator Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeCPX-351 is a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin that delivers a synergistic 5:1 drug ratio into leukemia cells to a greater extent than normal bone marrow cells. Prior clinical studies demonstrated a sustained drug ratio and exposure in vivo and prolonged survival versus standard-of-care cytarabine plus daunorubicin chemotherapy (7+3 regimen) in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML).Patients and MethodsIn this open-label, randomized, phase III trial, 309 patients age 60 to 75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk/sAML received one to two induction cycles of CPX-351 or 7+3 followed by consolidation therapy with a similar regimen. The primary end point was overall survival.ResultsCPX-351 significantly improved median overall survival versus 7+3 (9.56 v 5.95 months; hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; one-sided P = .003). Overall remission rate was also significantly higher with CPX-351 versus 7+3 (47.7% v 33.3%; two-sided P = .016). Improved outcomes were observed across age-groups and AML subtypes. The incidences of nonhematologic adverse events were comparable between arms, despite a longer treatment phase and prolonged time to neutrophil and platelet count recovery with CPX-351. Early mortality rates with CPX-351 and 7+3 were 5.9% and 10.6% (two-sided P = .149) through day 30 and 13.7% and 21.2% (two-sided P = .097) through day 60.ConclusionCPX-351 treatment is associated with significantly longer survival compared with conventional 7+3 in older adults with newly diagnosed sAML. The safety profile of CPX-351 was similar to that of conventional 7+3 therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据