Skip to content

Treatment of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Myelodysplasia

A Collaborative Trial for the Treatment of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Myelodysplasia

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00136084
Enrollment
238
Registered
2005-08-26
Start date
2002-08-31
Completion date
2012-06-30
Last updated
2012-12-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Leukemia, Myelocytic, Acute

Keywords

Leukemia,Erythroblastic, Acute, Erythroblastic Leukemia, Acute, Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute, Myeloid Leukemia, Acute

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two multi-agent chemotherapy regimens using different dosages of cytarabine to eliminate all detectable leukemia.

Detailed description

The study compares the effectiveness of two doses of cytarabine combined with set doses of daunomycin and etoposide as an initial course of chemotherapy to eliminate minimal residual disease. Subsequent therapy is tailored according to cytogenetic risk features, assessments of minimal residual disease, and availability of a suitable donor for bone marrow transplant. Patients with higher risk disease features are given more intense therapy. For higher risk groups, transplant is given to patients with suitable donors. Secondary objectives include: * To assess the prognostic value of biological markers in childhood Acute Myeloid leukemia (AML). * To compare the amounts of leukemia cells in the blood and bone marrow to study minimal residual disease(MRD). * To relate non-invasive cardiac evaluation with health-related quality of life in AML patients treated with cardiotoxic therapy during and following therapy. Detailed Description of Treatment Plan Induction I Patients will be randomly assigned to receive induction therapy that consists of daunomycin, etoposide, and high-dose or low-dose cytarabine. High-Dose Cytarabine (HDAC) arm: Cytarabine 3 gm/m2 IV days 1, 3, 5 Daunomycin 50 mg/m2 IV days 2, 4, 6 Etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV days 2-6 Low-Dose Cytarabine(LDAC) arm: Cytarabine 100 mg/m2 IV days 1-10 (20 doses) Daunomycin 50 mg/m2 IV days 2, 4, 6 Etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV days 2-6 Induction II Patients who have \< 1% MRD after Induction I will receive daunomycin, cytarabine, etoposide (ADE): Daunomycin 50 mg/m2 IV days 1, 3, 5 Cytarabine 100 mg/m2 IV 1-8 (16 doses) Etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV days 1-5 Patients who have ≥ 1% MRD after Induction I will receive daunomycin, cytarabine, etoposide (ADE) + gemtuzumab ozogamicin: Daunomycin 50 mg/m2 IV days 1, 3, 5 Cytarabine 100 mg/m2IV days 1-8 (16 doses) Etoposide: 100 mg/m2 IV on days 1-5 Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) 3 mg/m2 IV on day 1. Consolidation I (Chemotherapy course 3) The chemotherapy administered in course 3 will be based on the participant's response and cytogenetic/morphologic subgroup MRD+ patients (except those who received ADE + GO) Gemtuzumab ozogamicin 6 mg/m2 IV on day 1 MRD+ patients who had No response(NR) to induction I These patients should proceed to Stem Cell Transplant (SCT) as soon as possible. In cases where SCT is delayed (e.g., during searches for unrelated donors), these patients should receive chemotherapy according to their cytogenetic or morphologic subtype until the time of SCT. MRD- patients (i.e., patients who were MRD- after ADE or after GO) will receive risk-based intensification (RBI) t(9;11) and inv(16) Cytarabine 500 mg/m2/day by continuous infusion for 120 hours Cladribine (2CDA) 9 mg/m2: IV over 30 minutes daily for 5 days Amend 8 M4/M5 without t(9;11) or inv(16): CE Cytarabine 3 gm/m2 IV q12h x 6 doses (days 1-3) by continuous infusion for 3 hours. Etoposide 125 mg/m2 IV on days 2-5 by continuous infusion for at least one hour t(8;21) and others: HAM Cytarabine 3 g/m2 IV x 6 doses (days 1-3) Mitoxantrone 10 mg/m2 IV days 3-4 Standard-risk patients with matched related donors and high-risk patients will proceed to stem cell transplant per institutional practice Consolidation II (Chemotherapy course 4): Cytarabine 3 gm/m2 IV q12 hours on days 1, 2, 8, 9 (8 doses) L-Asparaginase 6000 Units/m2 IM 3 hours after 4th and 8th doses of cytarabine Consolidation III (Chemotherapy course 5) Mitoxantrone 10 mg/m2 IV days 1-3 Cytarabine 1 gm/m2 IV over 2 hours q12 hours on days 1-3 (6 doses) Patients who are in first remission are eligible to be enrolled on the St. Jude protocols NKAML protocol and receive Natural Killer (NK) cell therapy instead of Consolidation III or after Consolidation III. At the discretion of their primary physician, these patients will be offered the option of enrolling on NKAML. Some patients with biphenotypic leukemia respond poorly to AML-directed therapy, but respond quite well to lymphoid-directed therapy. Patients with such markers who have no response to induction I or who fail to achieve complete response (CR) after induction II will therefore receive lymphoid directed induction therapy. Other biphenotypic patients will continue to receive AML-directed therapy as described above All patients will undergo lumbar puncture and receive an age-appropriate dose of intrathecal (IT) cytarabine at the time of diagnosis. Patients without Central Nervous System disease (CNS)(i.e., less than 5 leukocytes per microliter of CSF (colony-stimulating factor) will receive one dose of intrathecal (IT) methotrexate, hydrocortisone, and cytarabine (MHA) with each course of chemotherapy beginning with induction II. Patients with overt CNS leukemia (more or equal to 5 leukocytes per l microliter of CSF and the presence of leukemic blast cells on CSF cytospin) will receive weekly IT MHA therapy beginning 1 week after the initial dose of IT cytarabine and continuing until the CSF is free of blast cells (minimum number of doses, 4). These patients will then receive 4 additional doses of intrathecal therapy with methotrexate, hydrocortisone, and cytarabine (IT MHA) (minimum total number of doses, 8) at approximately 1-month intervals (generally given with each subsequent course of chemotherapy).

Interventions

DRUGCladribine, Cyclophosphamide, Cytarabine, Daunorubicin, Dexamethasone

Since limited characters are allowed in this passage, please see detailed Description to know the dosage, dosage form, frequency of administration for the above mentioned drugs

DRUGEtoposide, Cytarabine, Gemtuzumab, L-asparaginase, Mercaptopurine, methotrexate, Mitoxantrone, Prednisone, Vincristine

Since limited characters are allowed in this passage, please see detailed Description to know the dosage, dosage form, frequency of administration for the above mentioned drugs

Sponsors

National Cancer Institute (NCI)
CollaboratorNIH
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
No minimum to 21 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia by immunophenotyping, morphology, and cytochemical staining; myelodysplasia; or biphenotypic leukemia. * Age less than or equal to 21 years at time of study entry. * No prior therapy for this malignancy (patients with secondary AML following treatment of primary malignancy are eligible) except for one dose of intrathecal therapy. * Negative pregnancy test * Patient does not have Down syndrome, acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), or juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (JMML)

Exclusion criteria

* Positive pregnancy test * Down syndrome, acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), or juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (JMML)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Minimal Residual Disease (MRD).Day 22 MRD measurementDetection of Minimal Residual Disease following one course of chemotherapy where positive MRD was defined as one or more leukemic cell per 1000 mononuclear bone-marrow cells (\>=0.1%).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion of MRD Reduction After One Course of Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GOInduction IITo estimate proportion of patients with MRD reduction after one course of Induction II (cytarabine + daunomycin + etoposide (ADE) + GO), who had no response to first course of induction therapy.
Proportion of Patients Experienced Toxicity of Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GO.Induction IITo estimate proportion of patients experiencing CTC Grade 3 or 4 toxicity during Induction II (Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GO), who had no response to first course of induction therapy
Proportion of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD)+ Patients Who Become MRD- After One Course of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO)Consolidation ITo estimate the proportion of minimal residual disease (MRD)+ patients who become MRD- after one course of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO)
To Assess Whether Inhibition of DNA Synthesis is Greater After High-dose Ara-C (HDAC) Than After Low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) TherapyMeasurements were assessed in Induction I chemotherapyInhibition of DNA synthesis is defined as the percentage of DNA synthesis rate at 24-hour post-araC treatment over DNA synthesis rate pre-araC treatment.
Relationship of Inhibition of DNA Synthesis and Clinical ResponseMeasurements were assessed in Induction I chemotherapyClinical response is defined as MRD (minimal residual disease) measured by flow cytometry at day 22. The MRD at day 22 is classified as positive (with MRD) or negative (no detectable MRD). The relation between inhibition of DNA synthesis and MRD was performed by logistic regression. In the model, logit of probability of MRD positive was regressed on inhibition of DNA synthesis.
To Estimate the Overall Event-free Survival (EFS) of AML Patients Who Undergo Risk-adapted and Genotype-directed TherapyFive YearOverall event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from study enrollment to induction failure, relapse, secondary malignancy, death, or study withdrawal for any reason, with event-free patients censored on the date of the last follow-up

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

238 patients were recruited between October, 2002 and June, 2008.

Pre-assignment details

238 patients were enrolled on the study. This report is based on results for 223 patients. 15 patients were excluded for the following reasons: 7 were switched to lymphoid-directed therapy shortly after enrollment, 6 were determined to be ineligible shortly after enrollment (wrong diagnosis), and 2 were not randomized.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Arm 1: (HDAC)
High-dose Cytarabine (HDAC)
109
Arm 2:(LDAC)
Low-dose Cytarabine (LDAC)
114
Total223

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyDeath125
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up20
Overall StudyNo Response12
Overall StudyRelapse2023
Overall StudyUnacceptable toxicity811
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject51

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicArm 1: (HDAC)Arm 2:(LDAC)Total
Age Continuous8.57 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.08
8.48 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.32
8.49 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.19
Sex: Female, Male
Female
50 Participants48 Participants98 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
59 Participants66 Participants125 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
107 / 109112 / 114
serious
Total, serious adverse events
23 / 10919 / 114

Outcome results

Primary

Minimal Residual Disease (MRD).

Detection of Minimal Residual Disease following one course of chemotherapy where positive MRD was defined as one or more leukemic cell per 1000 mononuclear bone-marrow cells (\>=0.1%).

Time frame: Day 22 MRD measurement

Population: Of the 223 randomized patients, 205 patients were included in the day 22 MRD analysis. 18 patients were not included in the day 22 MRD analysis. 5 patients had inadequate sample for MRD, 11 patients had no suitable phenotype to determine MRD, 1 patient was not done on MRD, and 1 patient was lost for follow-up.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Arm 1: (HDAC)Minimal Residual Disease (MRD).MRD Positive31 participants
Arm 1: (HDAC)Minimal Residual Disease (MRD).MRD Negative68 participants
Arm 2:(LDAC)Minimal Residual Disease (MRD).MRD Positive43 participants
Arm 2:(LDAC)Minimal Residual Disease (MRD).MRD Negative63 participants
Comparison: The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that HDAC and LDAC result in the same proportion of patients with positive MRD after 22 days. Power calculations indicate that enrollment of a total of 186 MRD-evaluable patients in a 5-stage O'Brien-Fleming group sequential design gives 80% power at the 5% level to detect a change in the MRD-positive proportion from 0.50 to 0.30. The design was developed using East statistical software.p-value: 0.155995% CI: [0.832, 3.205]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Proportion of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD)+ Patients Who Become MRD- After One Course of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO)

To estimate the proportion of minimal residual disease (MRD)+ patients who become MRD- after one course of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO)

Time frame: Consolidation I

Population: Sixteen patients received GO treatment during consolidation I. One patient with negative MRD received GO treatment, which was not consistent with the protocol definition. 15 patients were analyzed. Out of the 15 patients, 7 patients were treated on HDAC arm and 8 patients were treated on LDAC arm.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Arm 1: (HDAC)Proportion of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD)+ Patients Who Become MRD- After One Course of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO)Negative11 Participants
Arm 1: (HDAC)Proportion of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD)+ Patients Who Become MRD- After One Course of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO)Positive4 Participants
Comparison: Estimate of the proportion of negative minimal residual disease.95% CI: [0.449, 0.922]Binomial proportion
Secondary

Proportion of MRD Reduction After One Course of Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GO

To estimate proportion of patients with MRD reduction after one course of Induction II (cytarabine + daunomycin + etoposide (ADE) + GO), who had no response to first course of induction therapy.

Time frame: Induction II

Population: Out of the 30 patients received ADE + GO treatment, one patient had inevaluable MRD prior to and after the treatment. 29 patients were analyzed. Out of the 29 patients, 10 patients were treated on HDAC arm and 19 patients were treated on LDAC arm.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Arm 1: (HDAC)Proportion of MRD Reduction After One Course of Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GODecrease27 Participants
Arm 1: (HDAC)Proportion of MRD Reduction After One Course of Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GOIncrease or no change2 Participants
95% CI: [0.772, 0.992]Binomial proportion
Secondary

Proportion of Patients Experienced Toxicity of Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GO.

To estimate proportion of patients experiencing CTC Grade 3 or 4 toxicity during Induction II (Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GO), who had no response to first course of induction therapy

Time frame: Induction II

Population: 30 patients received ADE + GO during induction II and were analyzed. Out of the 30 patients, 11 patients were treated on HDAC arm, and 19 patients were treated on LDAC arm.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Arm 1: (HDAC)Proportion of Patients Experienced Toxicity of Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GO.Experienced Grade 3 or 4 toxicities27 Participants
Arm 1: (HDAC)Proportion of Patients Experienced Toxicity of Cytarabine + Daunomycin + Etoposide (ADE) + GO.Did not experience Grade 3 or 4 toxicities3 Participants
95% CI: [0.735, 0.979]Binomial proportion
Secondary

Relationship of Inhibition of DNA Synthesis and Clinical Response

Clinical response is defined as MRD (minimal residual disease) measured by flow cytometry at day 22. The MRD at day 22 is classified as positive (with MRD) or negative (no detectable MRD). The relation between inhibition of DNA synthesis and MRD was performed by logistic regression. In the model, logit of probability of MRD positive was regressed on inhibition of DNA synthesis.

Time frame: Measurements were assessed in Induction I chemotherapy

Population: Of 232 eligible patients, 49 had DNA synthesis rate performed prior to araC treatment. Of the 49 patients, 23 had no 24-hr samples and 3 did not have enough cells in 24-hr samples. 21 patients with both pre and post araC samples were included in the DNA inhibition study. 17 of the 21 patients had evaluable day 22 MRD.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Arm 1: (HDAC)Relationship of Inhibition of DNA Synthesis and Clinical Response66.7 Percent inhibition of DNA SynthesisStandard Error 12.6
p-value: 0.228795% CI: [-0.0365, 0.00873]Regression, Logistic
Secondary

To Assess Whether Inhibition of DNA Synthesis is Greater After High-dose Ara-C (HDAC) Than After Low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) Therapy

Inhibition of DNA synthesis is defined as the percentage of DNA synthesis rate at 24-hour post-araC treatment over DNA synthesis rate pre-araC treatment.

Time frame: Measurements were assessed in Induction I chemotherapy

Population: Of 232 eligible patients, 49 had DNA synthesis rate performed prior to araC treatment. Of the 49 patients, 23 had no 24-hr samples and 3 did not have enough cells in 24-hr samples. 21 patients with both pre and post araC samples were included in the DNA inhibition study. Of the 21 patients, 9 were treated on HDAC and 12 were treated on LDAC.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Arm 1: (HDAC)To Assess Whether Inhibition of DNA Synthesis is Greater After High-dose Ara-C (HDAC) Than After Low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) Therapy60.6 Percent Inhibition of DNA SynthesisStandard Error 16
Arm 2:(LDAC)To Assess Whether Inhibition of DNA Synthesis is Greater After High-dose Ara-C (HDAC) Than After Low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) Therapy72.8 Percent Inhibition of DNA SynthesisStandard Error 15.6
p-value: 0.6t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

To Estimate the Overall Event-free Survival (EFS) of AML Patients Who Undergo Risk-adapted and Genotype-directed Therapy

Overall event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from study enrollment to induction failure, relapse, secondary malignancy, death, or study withdrawal for any reason, with event-free patients censored on the date of the last follow-up

Time frame: Five Year

Population: 238 patients were enrolled on the study. Out of 238, 6 were determined to be ineligible and 2 were not randomized. Of the 230 patients, 14 bi-phenotypic leukemia patients were excluded. 216 AML patients were included to estimate EFS.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Arm 1: (HDAC)To Estimate the Overall Event-free Survival (EFS) of AML Patients Who Undergo Risk-adapted and Genotype-directed Therapy62.4 Percentage of Participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 31, 2026