Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin for First-Line Treatment of Patients with Cd-33 Positive Acute Myeloid Leukaemia in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) + standard of care (SOC) vs SOC alone for treatment of patients with de novo AML from a Spanish Health Service perspective. METHODS: A cohort state-transition model, with 12 health-states, was used to estimate the lifetime accumulated cost and benefits in terms of quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) in AML patients with favourable, intermediate, and unknown cytogenetic profiles. Patient profile was defined based on the ALFA-0701 trial. Therapeutic regimens were defined by 5 haematologists. SOC was assumed to be idarubicin and cytarabine, the combination most used in Spain. QALYs were estimated by applying utilities for the time spent by the cohort in each health-state and utility decrements associated with adverse events (AE). Total cost (€,2020) included drug-acquisition, hematologic stem-cell transplantation, disease management, AE management and end-of-life costs. Unit costs were derived from local databases. All parameters were validated by haematologist. Costs and outcomes were discounted (3%/year). RESULTS: Higher cost/patient (€177,618 vs €151,434) and greater QALYs (5,70 vs 4,62) were obtained with GO+SOC vs SOC. The ICUR was €24,203/QALY gained. CONCLUSION: This simulation suggests that GO + SOC could be a cost-effective option for treatment of patients with de novo AML in first line.

R-COMP versus R-CHOP as first-line therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in patients ≥60 years: Results of a randomized phase 2 study from the Spanish GELTAMO group.

The use of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet® ) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has been investigated in retrospective and single-arm prospective studies. This was a prospective phase 2 trial of DLBCL patients ≥60 years old with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥55% randomized to standard R-CHOP or investigational R-COMP (with Myocet® instead of conventional doxorubicin). The primary end point was to evaluate the differences in subclinical cardiotoxicity, defined as decrease in LVEF to <55% at the end of treatment. Secondary objectives were efficacy, safety, and variations of troponin and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and LVEF along follow-up. Ninety patients were included, 45 in each group. No differences were observed in the percentage of patients with LVEF <55% at end of treatment (11% in R-CHOP arm vs. 7% in R-COMP arm, p = 0.697) or at 4 months (10% vs. 6%, respectively, p = 0.667) and 12 months (8% vs. 7%, respectively, p = 1). However, a higher percentage of R-CHOP compared with R-COMP patients showed increased troponin levels in cycle 6 (100% vs. 63%, p = 0.001) and at 1 month after treatment (88% vs. 56%, respectively, p = 0.015). Cardiovascular adverse events were seen in five R-CHOP patients (nine episodes, four grade ≥3) and in four R-COMP patients (five episodes, all grade 1-2). No significant differences in efficacy were observed. In conclusion, R-COMP is a feasible immunochemotherapy schedule for DLBCL patients ≥60 years, with similar efficacy to R-CHOP. However, the use of non-pegylated doxorubicin instead of conventional doxorubicin was not associated with less early cardiotoxicity, although some reduced cardiac safety signals were observed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02012088.

Safety and efficacy of bosutinib in fourth-line therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia patients.

Bosutinib is a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (2GTKI) approved at 400 mg once daily (QD) as first-line therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients and at 500 mg QD in patients who are resistant to or intolerant of prior therapy. In clinical practice, bosutinib is often given to patients who have failed imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib (i.e., as fourth-line treatment), despite the limited data on its clinical benefit in this setting. We have retrospectively evaluated the results of bosutinib in a series of 62 CML patients who have failed to prior treatment with all three, imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib. Median time on TKI treatment before bosutinib start was 105 (9-163) months, and median duration on bosutinib was 9 months (1-30). Overall, probabilities to achieve complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) were 25% and 24% respectively. After a median follow-up period of 14 months, the event-free survival and progression-free survival were 68 and 85%, respectively. Sixty-four percent of patients in CCyR at the time of bosutinib start were able to achieve MMR. In contrast, patients without CCyR, probabilities to obtain CCyR and MMR were 25% and 14%. Bosutinib was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated patients' cohort. Pleural effusions and diarrhea were the most frequent grade II-IV side effects, leading to treatment discontinuation in 16% of patients. Bosutinib is an effective treatment option for patients who have failed previous 2GTKIs due to intolerance. However, efficacy seems to be related to the molecular response that the patient achieved prior to bosutinib.

Bosutinib shows low cross intolerance, in chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated in fourth line. Results of the Spanish compassionate use program.

The role of bosutinib as rescue treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients after failing three previous tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is currently unknown. We report here the largest series (to our knowledge) of patients treated with bosutinib in fourth-line, after retrospectively reviewing 30 patients in chronic phase, and pretreated with imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib. With a median follow up of 11.1 months, the probability to either maintain or improve their CCyR response was 56.6% (17/30) and 11 patients (36.7%) achieved or maintained their baseline MMR. In patients not having baseline CCyR, the probabilities of obtaining CCyR, MMR, and MR4.5 were 13, 11, and 14%, respectively. The probabilities of obtaining MMR and deep molecular response MR4.5 in patients with baseline CCyR were 40.0% (6/15) and 20.0% (3/15). At 20 months, progression-free survival was 73%. Grade 3-4 hematological toxicities were more frequent in resistant than intolerant patients (45.4 vs. 0.0%). Nonhematological toxicities were also more frequent in resistant patients, being diarrhea the most conspicuous one. Bosutinib seems to be an appropriate treatment option for patients resistant or intolerant to three prior TKI's.

Comparison of intensive chemotherapy, allogeneic, or autologous stem-cell transplantation as postremission treatment for children with very high risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: PETHEMA ALL-93 Trial.

PURPOSE: The optimal postremission therapy for children with very high-risk (VHR) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is not well established. This randomized trial compared three options of postremission therapy: chemotherapy and allogeneic or autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 106 VHR-ALL patients received induction with five drugs followed by intensification with three cycles of chemotherapy. Patients in complete remission (CR) with an HLA-identical family donor were assigned to allogeneic SCT (n = 24) and the remaining were randomly assigned to autologous SCT (n = 38) or to delayed intensification followed by maintenance chemotherapy up to 2 years in CR (n = 38). RESULTS: Overall, 100 patients achieved CR (94%). With a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were 45% (95% CI, 37% to 54%) and 48% (95% CI, 40% to 57%), respectively. The three groups were comparable in the main pretreatment ALL characteristics. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no differences for donor versus no donor in DFS (45%; 95% CI, 27% to 65% v 45%; 95% CI, 37% to 55%) and OS (48%; 95% CI, 30% to 67% v 51%; 95% CI, 43% to 61%), as well as for autologous SCT versus chemotherapy comparisons (DFS: 44%; 95% CI, 29% to 60% v 46%; 95% CI, 32% to 62%; OS: 45%; 95% CI, 31% to 62% v 57%; 95% CI, 43% to 73%). No differences were found within the different subgroups of ALL and neither were differences observed when the analysis was made by treatment actually performed. CONCLUSION: This study failed to prove that, when a family donor is available, allogeneic SCT produces a better outcome than autologous SCT or chemotherapy in children with VHR-ALL.