Cargando…

Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly “promising”?

DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTIs) for patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) have low complete remission rates and are not curative. Early DNMTI combination clinical trials in HR-MDS are often termed “promising,” but many randomized trials subsequently failed to show be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brunner, Andrew M., Fell, Geoffrey, Steensma, David P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society of Hematology 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9092413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35143613
http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006357
_version_ 1784705135565340672
author Brunner, Andrew M.
Fell, Geoffrey
Steensma, David P.
author_facet Brunner, Andrew M.
Fell, Geoffrey
Steensma, David P.
author_sort Brunner, Andrew M.
collection PubMed
description DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTIs) for patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) have low complete remission rates and are not curative. Early DNMTI combination clinical trials in HR-MDS are often termed “promising,” but many randomized trials subsequently failed to show benefit. Clearer understanding of when a combination is likely to improve upon DNMTI monotherapy would inform randomized studies. We reviewed MDS azacitidine or decitabine monotherapy studies. We collected baseline demographics including International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk, DNMTI, disease characteristics; and response variables including survival and marrow and hematologic responses. Aggregate estimates across studies were calculated using meta-analyses techniques. Using a binomial design, we estimated the necessary operating characteristics to design a phase 2 study showing improved efficacy of a combination over monotherapy. Among 1908 patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 24% (n = 464; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.26): 267 complete response (CR, 14%), 68 partial response (4%), and 129 marrow complete remission (7%). Among 1604 patients for whom a hematologic response was reported, 476 (30%; 95% CI, 0.27-0.32) reported hematologic improvement (HI). More patients treated with azacitidine achieved HI (38%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.41) compared with decitabine (15%; 95% CI, 0.13-0.19), whereas the marrow ORR rate was higher with decitabine (29%; 95% CI, 0.26-0.33) compared with azacitidine (21%; 95% CI, 0.19-0.23). CR rates were similar between DNMTIs: 13% with azacitidine and 16% with decitabine. Variables that influence MDS response include the specific DNMTI backbone and the distribution of IPSS risk of patients enrolled on a trial. Considering these factors can help identify which early combination approaches are worth assessing in larger randomized trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9092413
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Society of Hematology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90924132022-05-11 Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly “promising”? Brunner, Andrew M. Fell, Geoffrey Steensma, David P. Blood Adv Myeloid Neoplasia DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTIs) for patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) have low complete remission rates and are not curative. Early DNMTI combination clinical trials in HR-MDS are often termed “promising,” but many randomized trials subsequently failed to show benefit. Clearer understanding of when a combination is likely to improve upon DNMTI monotherapy would inform randomized studies. We reviewed MDS azacitidine or decitabine monotherapy studies. We collected baseline demographics including International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk, DNMTI, disease characteristics; and response variables including survival and marrow and hematologic responses. Aggregate estimates across studies were calculated using meta-analyses techniques. Using a binomial design, we estimated the necessary operating characteristics to design a phase 2 study showing improved efficacy of a combination over monotherapy. Among 1908 patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 24% (n = 464; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.26): 267 complete response (CR, 14%), 68 partial response (4%), and 129 marrow complete remission (7%). Among 1604 patients for whom a hematologic response was reported, 476 (30%; 95% CI, 0.27-0.32) reported hematologic improvement (HI). More patients treated with azacitidine achieved HI (38%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.41) compared with decitabine (15%; 95% CI, 0.13-0.19), whereas the marrow ORR rate was higher with decitabine (29%; 95% CI, 0.26-0.33) compared with azacitidine (21%; 95% CI, 0.19-0.23). CR rates were similar between DNMTIs: 13% with azacitidine and 16% with decitabine. Variables that influence MDS response include the specific DNMTI backbone and the distribution of IPSS risk of patients enrolled on a trial. Considering these factors can help identify which early combination approaches are worth assessing in larger randomized trials. American Society of Hematology 2022-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9092413/ /pubmed/35143613 http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006357 Text en © 2022 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.
spellingShingle Myeloid Neoplasia
Brunner, Andrew M.
Fell, Geoffrey
Steensma, David P.
Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly “promising”?
title Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly “promising”?
title_full Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly “promising”?
title_fullStr Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly “promising”?
title_full_unstemmed Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly “promising”?
title_short Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly “promising”?
title_sort historical expectations with dna methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in mds: when is combination therapy truly “promising”?
topic Myeloid Neoplasia
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9092413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35143613
http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006357
work_keys_str_mv AT brunnerandrewm historicalexpectationswithdnamethyltransferaseinhibitormonotherapyinmdswheniscombinationtherapytrulypromising
AT fellgeoffrey historicalexpectationswithdnamethyltransferaseinhibitormonotherapyinmdswheniscombinationtherapytrulypromising
AT steensmadavidp historicalexpectationswithdnamethyltransferaseinhibitormonotherapyinmdswheniscombinationtherapytrulypromising