Search

PURPOSE DNA-hypomethylating agents are studied in combination with other epigenetic drugs, such as histone deacetylase inhibitors or differentiation inducers (eg, retinoids), in myeloid neoplasias. A randomized, phase II trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design was conducted to investigate the effects of the histone deacetylase inhibitor valproate and all- trans retinoic acid (ATRA) in treatment-naive elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred patients (median age, 76 years; range, 61-92 years) ineligible for induction chemotherapy received decitabine (20 mg/m2 intravenously, days 1 to 5) alone (n = 47) or in combination with valproate (n = 57), ATRA (n = 46), or valproate + ATRA (n = 50). The primary endpoint was objective response, defined as complete and partial remission, tested at a one-sided significance level of α = .10. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival, event-free survival, and progression-free survival and safety. RESULTS The addition of ATRA resulted in a higher remission rate (21.9% with ATRA v 13.5% without ATRA; odds ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 0.86 to 3.79; one-sided P = .06). For valproate, no effect was observed (17.8% with valproate v 17.2% without valproate; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.21; one-sided P = .44). Median overall survival was 8.2 months with ATRA v 5.1 months without ATRA (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89; two-sided P = .006). Improved survival was observed across risk groups, including patients with adverse cytogenetics, and was associated with longer response duration. With valproate, no survival difference was observed. Toxicities were predominantly hematologic, without relevant differences between the 4 arms. CONCLUSION The addition of ATRA to decitabine resulted in a higher remission rate and a clinically meaningful survival extension in these patients with difficult-to-treat disease, without added toxicity.

4014 Background: 5-FU based CRT is regarded standard perioperative treatment in LARC. Here we report safety data of a non-inferiority phase III trial investigating (neo-)adjuvant CRT with Cape in comparison with 5-FU. Methods: Patients (pts) aged ≥18 years with LARC UICC stages II or III were recruited in this two-arm, two-strata randomized phase-III trial (arm A: Cape, arm B: 5-FU; stratum [S] I: adjuvant, S II: neoadjuvant). Regimens: Arm A: CRT: 50.4 Gy + Cape 1,650 mg/m2 days 1–38 plus five cycles of Cape 2,500 mg/m2 d 1–14, rep. d 22 (S I: 2 x Cape, CRT, 3 x Cape; S II: CRT, TME surgery followed by Cape x 5). Arm B: CRT: 50.4 Gy + 5-FU 225 mg/m2 c.i. daily [S I] or 5-FU 1,000 mg/m2 c.i. d 1–5 and 29–33 [S II] plus 4 cycles of bolus 5-FU 500mg/m2 d 1–5, rep. d 29 (S I: 2 x 5-FU, CRT, 2 x 5-FU; S II: CRT, TME surgery followed by 5-FU x 4). Primary endpoint was survival, secondary endpoints comprised safety and disease-free survival. Results: Of 401 randomized pts a total of 392 are evaluable (Arm A n=197, arm B n=195; S I n=231, S II n=161). Both arms were well balanced with respect to age, sex, WHO status, T- and N- stages. Regarding duration of treatment, 78% (Cape) and 80% (5-FU) completed all scheduled treatment cycles in S I, and 46% (Cape) and 40% (5-FU) in neoadjuvant stratum S II. In S II a total of 38% (Cape) and 43% (5-FU) did not continue chemotherapy after tumour resection. Concerning early efficacy endpoints in S II, pts treated with Cape (evaluable thus far n=121) exhibited a higher rate of T-downstaging (defined as ypT0–2; 52 vs 39%; p=0.16) and N0 (71 vs 56%; p=0.09). Regarding overall safety (NCI-CTC), pts receiving Cape experienced significantly less leukopenia (25 vs 35%; p=0.04), but more hand-foot syndrome (31 vs. 2%; p [Table: see text]