RESUMO
Fludarabine (Flu) and melphalan (Mel) reduced-intensity conditioning is frequently used for allogenic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, there is limited evidence on the impact of Mel dosing on toxicities and clinical outcomes of allo-HCT. We retrospectively compared 8/8 HLA matched donor allo-HCT outcomes of 345 patients with AML or MDS receiving total Mel dose of 100 mg/m2 (Mel-100, n=62) versus 140 mg/m2 (Mel-140, n=283) in combination with Flu. Median age at allo-HCT was 66 years and median follow-up was 36.5 months. For Mel-100 versus Mel-140 groups, any grade gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 40.3% vs. 67.8% (p<0.001), day 100 grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) rates were 21.0% vs. 43.1% (p=0.001) and 2-year chronic GVHD rates were 17.4% vs. 27.1% (p=0.033). In multivariable analysis, Mel-140 resulted in higher risks of gastrointestinal toxicity (HR=1.83, p=0.013), grade II-IV acute GVHD (HR=2.35, p=0.003), and moderate/severe chronic GVHD (HR=3.13, p=0.007). Total Mel dose had no independent impact on oral mucositis, non-relapse mortality, relapse, relapse-free survival, and overall survival. While independent validation of our observation is warranted, our findings support using Mel-100 in combination with Flu to minimize allo-HCT toxicities and morbidities related to GVHD.
RESUMO
Background: Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies. Methods: A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL). Findings: We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9-25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6-15), RCC (11.86, range: 6-15), UC (11.50, range: 9-14), and PC (10.56, range: 6-15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations. Interpretation: Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care. Funding: None.