Refractory primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP): current clinical challenges and therapeutic perspectives.

Chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) can today benefit from multiple therapeutic approaches with proven clinical efficacy, including rituximab, thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RA), and splenectomy. However, some ITP patients are unresponsive to multiple lines of therapy with prolonged and severe thrombocytopenia. The diagnosis of refractory ITP is mainly performed by exclusion of other disorders and is based on the clinician's expertise. However, it significantly increases the risk of drug-related toxicity and of bleedings, including life-threatening events. The management of refractory ITP remains a major clinical challenge. Here, we provide an overview of the currently available treatment options, and we discuss the emerging rationale of new therapeutic approaches and their strategic combination. Particularly, combination strategies may target multiple pathogenetic mechanisms and trigger additive or synergistic effects. A series of best practices arising both from published studies and from real-life clinical experience is also included, aiming to optimize the management of refractory ITP.

Randomized trial of two schedules of low-dose gemtuzumab ozogamicin as induction monotherapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia in older patients not considered candidates for intensive chemotherapy. A phase II study of the EORTC and GIMEMA leukaemia groups (AML-19).

This study compared two schedules of low-dose gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) as induction monotherapy for untreated acute myeloid leukaemia in older patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy, to identify the more promising regimen for further study. Patients were randomized to receive either best supportive care or a course of GO according to one of two schedules: 3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 3 and 5 (arm A), or GO 6 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 3 mg/m(2) on day 8 (arm B). Primary endpoint was the rate of disease non-progression (DnP), defined as the proportion of patients either achieving a response or maintaining a stable disease following GO induction in each arm. Fifty-six patients were randomized in the two GO arms (A, n = 29; B, n = 27). The rate of DnP was 38% [90% confidence interval (CI), 23-55] in arm A, and 63% (90% CI, 45-78) in arm B. Peripheral cytopenias were the most common adverse events for both regimens. The all-cause early mortality rate was 14% in arm A and 11% in arm B. The day 1 + 8 schedule, which was associated with the highest rate of DnP, met the statistical criteria to be selected as the preferred regimen for phase III comparison with best supportive care.

Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin Versus Best Supportive Care in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Unsuitable for Intensive Chemotherapy: Results of the Randomized Phase III EORTC-GIMEMA AML-19 Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare single-agent gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) with best supportive care (BSC) including hydroxyurea as first-line therapy in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this trial, patients at least 61 years old were centrally randomized (1:1) to receive either a single induction course of GO (6 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 3 mg/m(2) on day 8) or BSC. Patients who did not progress after GO induction could receive up to eight monthly infusions of the immunoconjugate at 2 mg/m(2). Randomization was stratified by age, WHO performance score, CD33 expression status, and center. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients were randomly assigned (118 to GO and 119 to BSC). The median OS was 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.8 months) in the GO group and 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.2 months) in the BSC group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.90; P = .005); the 1-year OS rate was 24.3% with GO and 9.7% with BSC. The OS benefit with GO was consistent across most subgroups, and was especially apparent in patients with high CD33 expression status, in those with favorable/intermediate cytogenetic risk profile, and in women. Overall, complete remission (CR [complete remission] + CRi [CR with incomplete recovery of peripheral blood counts]) occurred in 30 of 111 (27%) GO recipients. The rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were similar in the two groups, and no excess mortality from AEs was observed with GO. CONCLUSION: First-line monotherapy with low-dose GO, as compared with BSC, significantly improved OS in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. No unexpected AEs were identified and toxicity was manageable.

High-dose cytarabine in induction treatment improves the outcome of adult patients younger than age 46 years with acute myeloid leukemia: results of the EORTC-GIMEMA AML-12 trial.

PURPOSE: Cytarabine plays a pivotal role in the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Most centers use 7 to 10 days of cytarabine at a daily dose of 100 to 200 mg/m(2) for remission induction. Consensus has not been reached on the benefit of higher dosages of cytarabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell' Adulto (GIMEMA) Leukemia Groups conducted a randomized trial (AML-12; Combination Chemotherapy, Stem Cell Transplant and Interleukin-2 in Treating Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia) in 1,942 newly diagnosed patients with AML, age 15 to 60 years, comparing remission induction treatment containing daunorubicin, etoposide, and either standard-dose (SD) cytarabine (100 mg/m(2) per day by continuous infusion for 10 days) or high-dose (HD) cytarabine (3,000 mg/m(2) every 12 hours by 3-hour infusion on days 1, 3, 5, and 7). Patients in complete remission (CR) received a single consolidation cycle containing daunorubicin and intermediate-dose cytarabine (500 mg/m(2) every 12 hours for 6 days). Subsequently, a stem-cell transplantation was planned. The primary end point was survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 6 years, overall survival was 38.7% for patients randomly assigned to SD cytarabine and 42.5% for those randomly assigned to HD cytarabine (log-rank test P = .06; multivariable analysis P = .009). For patients younger than age 46 years, survival was 43.3% and 51.9%, respectively (P = .009; multivariable analysis P = .003), and for patients age 46 to 60 years, survival was 33.9% and 32.9%, respectively (P = .91). CR rates were 72.0% and 78.7%, respectively (P < .001) and were 75.6% and 82.4% for patients younger than age 46 years (P = .01) and 68.3% and 74.8% for patients age 46 years and older (P = .03). Patients of all ages with very-bad-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and/or FLT3-ITD (internal tandem duplication) mutation, or with secondary AML benefitted from HD cytarabine. CONCLUSION: HD cytarabine produces higher remission and survival rates than SD cytarabine, especially in patients younger than age 46 years.

Sequential combination of gemtuzumab ozogamicin and standard chemotherapy in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: results of a randomized phase III trial by the EORTC and GIMEMA consortium (AML-17).

PURPOSE: This randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of sequential gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) and standard chemotherapy in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 472) age 61 to 75 years were randomly assigned to induction chemotherapy with mitoxantrone, cytarabine, and etoposide preceded, or not, by a course of GO (6 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15). In remission, patients received two consolidation courses with or without GO (3 mg/m(2) on day 0). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The overall response rate was comparable between the two arms (GO, 45%; no GO, 49%), but induction and 60-day mortality rates were higher in the GO arm (17% v 12% and 22% v 18%, respectively). With median follow-up of 5.2 years, median OS was 7.1 months in the GO arm and 10 months in the no-GO arm (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.45; P = .07). Other survival end points were similar in both arms. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic and liver toxicities were greater in the GO arm. Treatment with GO provided no benefit in any prognostic subgroup, with the possible exception of patients age < 70 years with secondary AML, but outcomes were significantly worse in the oldest age subgroup because of a higher risk of early mortality. CONCLUSION: As used in this trial, the sequential combination of GO and standard chemotherapy provides no benefit for older patients with AML and is too toxic for those age ≥ 70 years.