Advertisement

Rare Cancers and Therapy

, Volume 3, Issue 1–2, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Acute Myeloid Leukemia in the Elderly Patient: New Strategies

  • Xavier ThomasEmail author
Open Access
Review

Abstract

Although selected older adults with acute myeloid leukemia can benefit from intensive therapies, recent evidences support the use of lower-intensity therapies (hypomethylating agents or low-dose cytarabine) in most of these patients and emphasize the importance of tolerability and quality of life. Individualized approaches to treatment decision-making beyond consideration of chronologic age alone should therefore be considered. One promising strategy is to combine low-intensity treatments with novel agents.

Keywords

Acute myeloid leukemia Chemotherapy Elderly Hypomethylating agents Supportive care Targeted therapy 

Introduction

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) occurs mainly in patients aged 65 years or older. Median age at diagnosis ranges between 68 and 72 years, with approximately one-third of patients aged 75 years or older [1]. There is currently no consensus regarding optimal therapeutic strategy for older adults with AML, who are generally defined as those aged 60 years or older [2, 3]. Intensive chemotherapy has demonstrated a survival advantage over supportive care [2]. However, due to comorbid conditions and disease features, concerns regarding efficacy and toxicity have resulted in the ineligibility of many older patients with AML for this type of treatment [4]. Prognostic models have been developed to determine which older adults are likely to benefit from specific therapies [5, 6, 7]. However, these algorithms are not always easily applicable in daily clinical practice and each model relies on chronological age as a surrogate for measurable patient-specific factors that vary among individuals of similar age. Furthermore, even in patients who can tolerate intensive therapy, outcomes remain poor. Recently published single-center data showed a complete remission (CR) rate of 48% after intensive chemotherapy, with median overall survival of 7.4 months and 5-year overall survival of only 10% [8]. Over the last decades, there has been little progress in improving prognosis for patients aged 60 years or older, resulting in unmet needs necessitating novel therapeutic strategies [9].

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not involve any new studies of human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Aging and AML

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a different disease in older patients. Aging is a complex process influenced by genetic variables as well as environmental factors [10]. Leukemia cells are more likely to be CD34+CD33+ which correlates with poor outcome [11], to have more poor-risk karyotypes [complex karyotypes, chromosome 3 abnormalities, abnormalities of 11q, total or partial monosomy 7, total or partial monosomy 5] and fewer favorable-risk cytogenetics [t(8;21), inv(16) or t(16;16), or t(15;17)] [12]. Older patients have shown a higher probability of RAS (Rat sarcoma), SRC (Sarcoma), and tumor necrosis factor pathway activation than younger patients, which may contribute to their poorer survival [13]. Leukemia blasts have higher expression of the MRD1 gene, responsible for drug efflux and resistance [14], and are less likely to undergo apoptosis [15]. Poor outcome in older patients with AML is also correlated with impaired functional and nutritional status, presence of comorbidities, and mental health leading to loss of autonomy after chemotherapy [16, 17, 18].

Intensive Therapy in Elderly Patients with AML

Despite recent improvements, median survival in clinical trials using intensive chemotherapy remains less than 1 year [19]. Although older patients enrolled in clinical trials have adequate performance status, they are less likely than younger adults to achieve CR and remain relapse-free. Inversely, early death rate is higher [19, 20]. Standard induction chemotherapy remains a combination of intermediate-dose cytarabine with an anthracycline administered for 7 and 3 days (‘7 + 3’), respectively. This approach has been shown to improve survival as compared with supportive care only [21]. Different induction regimens (including anthracycline substitution, addition of hematopoietic growth factors, modulation of multidrug resistance, or addition of a novel agent) have been proposed but have not consistently improved efficacy (reviewed in [17]). However, improved outcomes have been reported in a subset of patients aged 60–65 years receiving higher dose of daunorubicin (90 mg/m2) when compared to a dosage of 45 mg/m2 [22], but this was not true if compared to the dosage of 60 mg/m2 [23]. Improved outcomes have also been reported in patients receiving low-dose gemtuzumab ozogamicin combined with a standard induction chemotherapy [24, 25]. CPX-351, a liposomal formulation of a synergistic 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was studied in a randomized phase 2 trial in older patients with AML and showed improved survival for CPX-351 compared with ‘7 + 3’ chemotherapy [26]. Optimal duration or intensity of consolidation therapy in older patients remains unclear, although an association has been established between dose-intensity and increased toxicity [27]. Overall, up to 20% of older adults who achieved CR, enrolled in intensive chemotherapy trials, do not receive any consolidation therapy. Several studies have indicated that subsequent cycles of intensive chemotherapy following achievement of CR offered no benefit to patients [27, 28]. The introduction of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens has resulted to an increased use of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients aged 60–70 years. Although HSCT appears feasible for selected patients, it remains unclear whether this procedure is better than more conventional approaches in terms of survival and quality of life [29, 30]. However, analyses of the SEER database clearly show longer overall survival in patients who received allogeneic HSCT [4].

Fitness and Intensive Care Eligiblity

Older patients with favorable prognostic AML (acute promyelocytic leukemia, core binding factor AML, and NPM1-mutated AML) can be cured with intensive chemotherapy [2, 31]. Therefore, the issue is to identify the elderly patients with AML who could benefit from intensive chemotherapy. Prognostic models have been developed from clinical trial data to improve outcome prediction for older patients with AML [3, 5, 6, 7]. Each of these algorithms provides useful information, but primarily explores the heterogeneity of tumor biology and relies on chronological age as a surrogate for measurable patient-specific factors. The one most consistent factor with clinical outcome after intensive chemotherapy was cytogenetics. Poor performance status can be related to the disease itself and should not be considered as a limiting factor for intensive chemotherapy. In multivariate analyses, poor outcome or early death were significantly correlated with poor cytogenetic and not with age or comorbidities [32]. Older patients with AML, particularly those older than age 70 years, have specific needs. The traditional oncology evaluation is often not adequate and will fail to uncover specific problems. Therefore, there has been increasing debate regarding the appropriate therapeutic decision-making for the geriatric patient population, which should be offered therapy to prolong both survival and quality of life. Clinical tools have been developed to predict grade 3–4 chemotherapy toxicity [33]. The chemotherapy risk assessment scale for high-age patients (CRASH) score can distinguish several risk levels of severe chemotherapy toxicity [34] and should be incorporated into clinical trials.

Hypomethylating Agents in Elderly Patients with AML

For many older patients, the risk of treatment-related mortality may outweigh the potential transient benefits of intensive chemotherapy. Lower-intensity regimens have then been proposed. In this setting, low-dose cytarabine has demonstrated improved survival among patients considered not fit for intensive treatment compared with supportive care alone, and is usually regarded as the standard therapy for this type of patient, although fitness has not clearly been defined [35]. However, outcomes with low-dose cytarabine are generally poor with a median survival time of only 4 months. Recent studies have shown that gene hypermethylation is widespread in patients with AML and is implicated in leukemogenesis [36]. Hypomethylating agents (decitabine and azacitidine) may have the potential to improve survival and quality of life in elderly patients and have been assessed in phase 3 studies [37, 38, 39]. The DACO-016 study (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00260832) has compared the efficacy and safety of decitabine (20 mg/m2/day for 5 days every 4 weeks) versus best supportive care or low-dose cytarabine (20 mg/m2/day for 10 days every 4 weeks) in 485 patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy [37]. While the first analysis demonstrated a non-significant trend towards improved overall survival in the decitabine arm, an unplanned ad hoc analysis performed 1 year later following 446 deaths showed a significant difference between the two arms of randomization (median overall survival: 7.7 versus 5 months; P = 0.037) [37]. Following this trial, decitabine was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of AML in patients aged 65 years or older who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy, but not by the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA). The AZA-001 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00071799) compared the efficacy and safety of azacitidine with conventional care regimens (best supportive care, low-dose cytarabine, intensive chemotherapy) in 358 patients with predominantly intermediate-2/high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes [38]. However, 113 patients of this series were with AML, when considering the World Health Organization (WHO) classification (20–30% blasts). In these patients, a significant difference in overall survival favoring azacitidine versus conventional care regimens was detected (median overall survival: 24.5 versus 16.0 months; P = 0.005). Furthermore, more patients transfusion-dependent at baseline achieved transfusion independence with azacitidine (41% versus 18%; P = 0.04). Based on this analysis, azacitidine has become established as a treatment option for patients with 20–30% leukemia cells in bone marrow, who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. In the AZA-AML-001 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01074047), 480 patients with more than 30% leukemia cells in bone marrow were randomized to receive either azacitidine (75 mg/m2/day for 7 days every 4 weeks) or conventional care regimens [39]. Median overall survival was 10.4 months in the azacitidine arm compared to 6.5 months in the conventional care regimens group (P = 0.08). However, when censoring patients at the start of the subsequent AML therapy, the analysis showed a longer median overall survival in patients receiving azacitidine (median overall survival: 12.1 months versus 6.9 months; P = 0.019) [39]. SGI-110, a dinucleotide of decitabine and deoxyguanosine with distinctive pharmacokinetic properties that allow a longer half-life and more extended decitabine exposure, is currently being investigated in older patients with AML. Response rate was 53% in a phase 2 first-line therapy in older patients with AML [40].

Novel Treatments in Development for AML

Novel agents used as single-agent or in combination (Table 1) are under investigation for the treatment older patients with newly diagnosed AML. The anti-CD33-conjugated cytotoxic gemtuzumab ozogamicin, the nucleoside analogue prodrug clofarabine, and the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib were both investigated in combination with low-dose cytarabine in a ‘pick-a-winner’ trial design. Combined data of gemtuzumab ozogamicin plus low-dose cytarabine demonstrated an improved response rate compared with low-dose cytarabine alone (30% versus 17%; P = 0.006), but no difference in terms of overall survival [41]. A comparison of clofarabine versus low-dose cytarabine also showed a higher response rate with clofarabine, but no difference in overall survival [42], while the addition of tipifarnib to low-dose cytarabine was found to have no effect on response or survival [43]. In combination with low-dose cytarabine compared with single-agent clofarabine, CR rate was higher in the first group (67% versus 31%; P = 0.012). Median overall survival was 11.4 months versus 5.8 months (P = 0.10), while median event-free survival was 7.1 versus 1.7 months (P = 0.04) [44]. In combination with azacitidine, gemtuzumab ozogamicin CR rates of 44% and 35% for patients with good-risk or poor-risk AML, respectively [45]. Sapacitabine, a nucleoside analogue prodrug, is currently under investigation in combination with decitabine (ClinicialTrials.gov number, NCT01303796). Preliminary data demonstrated response in 9/25 patients aged ≥70 years with newly diagnosed AML [46]. Volasertib, a cell cycle kinase inhibitor, is currently under phase 3 investigation in combination with low-dose cytarabine versus low-dose cytarabine alone (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721876). In a phase 2, volasertib plus low-dose cytarabine has shown improved efficacy versus low-dose cytarabine with CR rates of 31% versus 13% (P = 0.05). Median overall survival was also prolonged (8 versus 5.2 months; P = 0.047) [47]. The aurora kinase B inhibitor barasertib is under investigation in combination with low-dose cytarabine (ClincalTrials.gov number, NCT00952588). Phase 1 evaluation of this combination showed a response rate of 45% [48]. While the first part of the phase 3 trial has been reported [49], the clinical development of barasertib in AML has been discontinued. A clinical trial combining lenalidomide plus azacitidine is currently recruiting patients (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01358734). A phase 1/2 with this combination showed 41% of CR, and a median overall survival of 20 weeks [50]. Vorinostat in combination with azacitidine is currently under investigation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00948064). Although not limited to older patients, available data from phase 2 showed 30% of CR and 7 months of median overall survival with this combination [51]. Two trials evaluating decitabine combinations are ongoing: One with tosedostat, an aminopeptidase inhibitor (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01567059) and one with bordezomib, a proteasome inhibitor (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01420926). Preliminary data with this last combination demonstrated 50% of response [52]. Older patients with FLT3 mutant AML should ideally be considered for therapy incorporating a FLT3 inhibitor. The addition of sorafenib, an oral inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinases including FLT3, to upfront intensive chemotherapy was not beneficial [53]. However, a phase 2 trial of sorafenib combined with azacitidine in FLT3 mutant AML of all ages resulted in an overall response rate of 46% [54]. Based on the discovery of recurrent somatic point mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1) gene, and its isoform IDH2, small molecule inhibitors are being developed to inhibit the neomorphic enzyme, which activity results in the accumulation of the metabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate. Preliminary results of a phase 1 dose-escalation study with AG-221, an oral IDH2 inhibitor, showed good tolerance and no-limiting toxicities [55]. The tandem bromodomain (BRD)-containing family of transcriptional regulators, known as bromodomains and extraterminal (BET) proteins, has emerged as major epigenetic regulators of proliferation and differentiation. In AML, the inhibition of BRD4 led to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. A phase 1 clinical trial using the inhibitor OTX015 is currently ongoing [56].
Table 1

Main ongoing randomized clinical trials with novel agents in development for older unfit patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia

Novel agent

Mechanism of action

Combination

Comparator

Trial (clinicaltrials.gov number)

Barasertib

Aurora B kinase inhibitor

LD-AraC

Barasertib LD-AraC

Phase 2/3 (NCT00952588)

Bortezomib

Proteasome inhibitor

Decitabine

Decitabine

Phase 2 (NCT01420926)

Clofarabine

Nucleoside analogue prodrug

LD-AraC

Clofarabine

Phase 2 (NCT00088218)

ERY001

l-asparaginase encapsulated in red blood cells

LD-AraC

LD-AraC

Phase 2 (NCT01810705)

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin

Anti-CD33 conjugated with calicheamicin

LD-AraC

LD-AraC

Phase 3 (NCT00005823)

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin

Anti-CD33 conjugated with calicheamicin

LD-AraC

LD-AraC

Phase 2/3 (NCT00454480)

Lenalidomide

Immunomodulatory, anti-angiogenic, cytotoxicity

Azacitidine

Azacitidine, Lenalidomide

Phase 2 (NCT01358734)

Sapacitabine

Nucleoside analogue prodrug

Decitabine

Decitabine

Phase 3 (NCT01303796)

Tipifarnib

Farnesyltransferase inhibitor

LD-AraC

LD-AraC

Phase 2/3 (NCT00454480)

Tosedostat

Aminopeptidase inhibitor

Decitabine

Tosedostat + AraC

Phase 2 (NCT01567059)

Volasertib

Polo-like kinase inhibitor

LD-AraC

Placebo + LD-AraC

Phase 3 (NCT01721876)

LD-AraC low-dose cytosine arabinoside

Perspectives, Unresolved Issues, and Conclusions

Treatment recommendations for elderly patients with AML need to be individualized. Hypomethylating agents may provide an exciting new approach to the treatment of elderly patients potentially as monotherapy, and mainly in combination regimens with other agents. Although CR rate was higher with intensive chemotherapy, there was a trend for lower early mortality with epigenetic therapy. More accurate biomarkers are needed to better identify patients who may or may not benefit from intensive chemotherapy. In younger adults, molecular profiling of aberrations such as NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations and MLL translocations could identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a certain treatment or dose intensity [57, 58]. However, in multiple studies, patients aged 60 years and older with NPM1-mutated AML have far superior outcomes and survival after intensive therapy compared with any other treatment modality [59, 60, 61]. Presence of the FLT3 mutation was associated with a worse outcome, regardless of NPM1 status [62]. In order to avoid toxicities, hematologists should collaborate more and more with geriatricians to identify clues of vulnerability in elderly patients through the study of functional physical, physiological, cognitive, social and psychological parameters [63]. It appears that chronological age may not be a robust predictor of outcome after accounting for function, comorbidities, and symptoms [64]. These comprehensive geriatric assessments were shown more specific than the screening tool G8, which is the most studied screening tool applied in geriatric oncology [65]. Indeed, systematic measurement of patient-specific factors can help discriminate among fit, vulnerable, and frail patients for a given treatment. Studies have shown that assessment of self-reported activities of daily living and measured physical performance are predictive of survival after accounting for performance status [66, 67]. Better understanding of specific patient vulnerabilities are under evaluation and may help to defined adaptive clinical trial design for specific patient subgroups [68, 69]. The Townsend index, which measures material deprivation based on unemployment, car ownership, home ownership and overcrowding, was found to be significantly increased in older patients and correlated with survival [70]. Furthermore, a correlation has recently been confirmed between the use of potentially inappropriate medication, polypharmacy (defined as the concurrent use of an excessive number of drugs), and increased comorbidities [71]. Polypharmacy should therefore be a critical component of geriatric evaluation [72]. An important issue remains the lack of a prospective definition of the so called ‘unfit’ population. Hypomethylating agents or low-dose cytarabine can serve as backbone low-intensity treatments with which novel therapies could be combined. Decision-making should be determined through patient-centered discussions and taken with the aim to keep an accurate balance between efficacy of therapy and avoidance of a decreased quality of life and loss of autonomy feared by elderly patients and their families. Inclusion in clinical trials will furnish some guarantee for quality of treatment, while offering the opportunity to contribute to therapeutic progress [73].

Notes

Acknowledgments

No funding or sponsorship was received for publication of this article. The named author meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this manuscript, takes responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and has given final approval of the version published.

Conflict of interest. Xavier Thomas declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics guidelines. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not involve any new studies of human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Supplementary material

40487_2015_6_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (197 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 196 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program: SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975–2009. http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2009_pops09/.
  2. 2.
    Juliusson G, Antunovic P, Derolf A, et al. Age and acute myeloid leukemia: real world data on decision to treat and outcomes from the Swedish Acute Leukemia Registry. Blood. 2009;113:4179–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kantarjian H, Ravandi F, O’Brien S, et al. Intensive chemotherapy does not benefit most older patients (age 70 years and older) with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2010;116:4422–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oran B, Weisdorf DJ. Survival for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a population-based study. Haematologica. 2012;97:1916–24.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krug U, Röllig C, Koschmieder A, et al. Complete remission and early death after intensive chemotherapy in patients aged 60 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia: a Web-based application for prediction of outcomes. Lancet. 2010;376:2000–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Röllig C, Thiede C, Gramatzki M, et al. A novelprognostic model in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia: results of 909 patients entered into the prospective AML96 trial. Blood. 2010;116:971–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wheatley K, Brookes CL, Howman AJ, et al. Prognostic factor analysis of the survival of elderly patients with AML in the MRC AML11 and LRF AML14 trials. Br J Haematol. 2009;145:598–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kantarjian H, O’Brien S. Questions regarding frontline therapy of acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer. 2010;116:4896–901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alibhai SM, Leach M, Minden MD, Brandwein J. Outcomes and quality of care in acute myeloid leukemia over 40 years. Cancer. 2009;115:2903–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lopez-Otin C, Blasco MA, Partridge L, Serrano M, Kroemer G. The hallmarks of aging. Cell. 2013;153:1194–217.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plesa C, Chelghoum Y, Plesa A, et al. Prognostic value of immunophenotyping in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a single-institution experience. Cancer. 2008;112:572–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farag SS, Archer KJ, Mrozek K, et al. Pretreatment cytogenetics add to other prognostic factors predicting complete remission and long-term outcome in patients 60 years of age or older with acute myeloid leukemia: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B 8461. Blood. 2006;108:63–73.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rao AV, Valk PJ, Metzeler KH, et al. Age-specific differences in oncogenic pathway dysregulation and anthracycline sensitivity in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5580–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leith CP, Kopecky KJ, Chen IM, et al. Frequency and clinical significance of the expression of the multidrug resistance proteins MDR1/P-glycoprotein, MRP1, and LRP in acute myeloid leukemia: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Blood. 1999;94:1086–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garrido SM, Cooper JJ, Appelbaum FR, et al. Blasts from elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients are characterized by low levels of culture- and drug-induced apoptosis. Leuk Res. 2001;25:23–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deschler B, Ihorst G, Platzbecker U, et al. Parameters detected by geriatric and quality of life assessment in 195 older patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia are highly predictive for outcome. Haematologica. 2013;98:208–16.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klepin H, Rao A, Pardee T. Acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in older adults. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2541–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamaker ME, Prins MC, Stauder R. The relevance of geriatric assessment for elderly patients with a haematological malignancy—a systematic review. Leuk Res. 2014;38:275–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Appelbaum FR, Gundacker H, Head DR, et al. Age and acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2006;107:3481–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kantarjian H, O’Brien S, Cortes J, et al. Results of intensive chemotherapy in 998 patients age 65 years or older with acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Predictive prognostic models for outcome. Cancer. 2006;106:1090–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Löwenberg B, Zittoun R, Kerkhofs H, et al. On the value of intensive remission-induction chemotherapy in elderly patients of 65+ years with acute myeloid leukemia: a randomized phase III study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Leukemia Group. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:1268–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Löwenberg B, Ossenkoppele GJ, van Putten W, et al. High-dose daunorubicin in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1235–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burnett AK, Russell NH, Hills RK, et al. A randomised comparison of daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 vs 60 mg/m2 in AML induction: results from the UK NCRI AML17 trial in 1206 patients. Blood. 2015; [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Castaigne S, Pautas C, Terré C, et al. Effect of gemtuzumab ozogamicin on survival of adult patients with de-novo acute myeloid leukaemia (ALFA-0701): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2012;379:1508–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burnett AK, Russell NH, Hills RK, et al. Addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to induction chemotherapy improves survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3924–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lancet JE, Cortes JE, Hogge DE, et al. Phase II, multicenter, randomized, open label trial of CPX-351 (cytarabine:daunorubicin) liposome injection versus cytarabine and daunorubicin in patients with untreated AML 60–75 years of age. Blood. 2014;123:3239–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stone RM, Berg DT, George SL, et al. Postremission therapy in older patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: a randomized trial comparing mitoxantrone and intermediate-dose cytarabine with standard-dose cytarabine. Blood. 2001;98:548–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gardin C, Turlure P, Fagot T, et al. Postremission treatment of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission after intensive induction chemotherapy: results of the multicenter randomized Acute Leukemia French Association (ALFA) 9803 trial. Blood. 2007;109:5129–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hahn T, McCarthy PL, Hassebroek A, et al. Significant improvement in survival after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation during a period of significantly increased use, older recipient age, and use of unrelated donors. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2437–49.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McClune BL, Weisdorf DJ, Pedersen TL, et al. Effect of age on outcome of reduced-intensity hematopoietic cell transplantation for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission or with myelodysplastic syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1878–87.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wetzler M, Mrözek K, Kohlschmidt J, et al. Intensive induction is effective in selected octogenarian acute myeloid leukemia patients: prognostic significance of karyotype and selected molecular markers used in the European LeukemiaNet classification. Haematologica. 2014;99:308–13.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grimwade D, Walker H, Harrison G, et al. The predictive value of hierarchical cytogenetic classification in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML): analysis of 1065 patients entered into the United Kingdom Medical Research Council AML11 trial. Blood. 2001;98:1312–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hurria A, Togawa K, Mohile SG, et al. Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer: a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3457–65.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Extermann M, Boler I, Reich RR, et al. Predicting the risk of chemotherapy toxicity in older patients: The Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients (CRASH) score. Cancer. 2012;118:3377–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Burnett AK, Milligan D, Prentice AG, et al. A comparison of low-dose cytarabine and hydroxuyurea with or without all-trans retinoic acid for acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome in patients not considered fit for intensive treatment. Cancer. 2007;109:1114–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kroeger H, Jelinek J, Estecio MR, et al. Aberrant CpG island methylation in acute myeloid leukemia is accentuated at relapse. Blood. 2008;112:1366–73.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kantarjian HM, Thomas XG, Dmoszynska A, et al. Multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of decitabine versus patient choice, with physician advice, of either supportive care or low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2670–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fenaux P, Mufti GJ, Hellstrom-Lindberg E, et al. Azacitidine prolongs overall survival compared with conventional care regimens in elderly patients with low bone marrow blast count acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:562–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dombret H, Seymour JF, Butrym A, et al. International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts. Blood. 2015; [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kantarjian H, Jabbour E, Yee K, et al. First clinical results of a randomized phase 2 study of SGI-110, a novel subcutaneous (SQ) hypomethylating agent (HMA), in adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Blood. 2013;122:497.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Burnett AK, Hills RK, Hunter AE, et al. The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to low-dose Ara-C improves remission rate but does not significantly prolong survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: results from the LRF AML 14 and NCRI AML 16 pick-a-winner comparison. Leukemia. 2013;27:75–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Burnett AK, Russell NH, Hunter AE, et al. Clofarabine doubles the response rate in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia but does not improve survival. Blood. 2013;122:1384–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Burnett AK, Russell NH, Culligan D, et al. The addition of the farnesyl transferase inhibitor, tipifarnib, to low-dose cytarabine does not improve outcome for older patients with AML. Br J Haematol. 2012;158:519–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Faderl S, Ravandi F, Huang X, et al. A randomized study of clofarabine versus clofarabine plus low-dose cytarabine as front-line therapy for patients aged 60 years or older with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Blood. 2008;112:1638–45.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nand S, Othus M, Godwin JE, et al. A phase 2 trial of azacitidine and gemtuzumab ozogamicin therapy in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2013;122:3432–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ravandi F, Faderl S, Cortes JE, et al. Phase 1/2 study of sapacitabine and decitabine administered sequentially in elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML. Blood. 2011; 118:abstract 3630.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Döhner H, Lübbert M, Fiedler W, et al. Randomized phase 2 trial comparing low-dose cytarabine with or without volasertib in AML patients not suitable for intensive induction therapy. Blood. 2014;124:1426–33.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kantarjian HM, Sekeres MA, Ribrag V, et al. Phase I study assessing the safety and tolerability of barasertib (AZD1152) with low-dose cytosine arabinoside in elderly patients with AML. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2013;13:559–67.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kantarjian HM, Martinelli G, Jabbour EJ, et al. Stage 1 of a phase 2 study assessing the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of barasertib (AZD1152) versus low-dose cytosine arabinoside in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer. 2013;119:2611–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pollyea DA, Zehnder J, Coutre S, et al. Sequential azacitidine plus lenalidomide combination for elderly patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 2013;98:591–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Garcia-Manero G, Estey EH, Jabbour E, et al. Final report of a phase II study of 5-azacitidine and vorinostat in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) not eligible for clinical trials because poor performance and presence of other comorbidities. Blood. 2011; 118:abstract 608.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Blum W, Schwind S, Tarighat SS, et al. Clinical and pharmacodynamic activity of bortezomib and decitabine in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2012;119:6025–31.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Serve H, Krug U, Wagner R, et al. Sorafenib in combination with intensive chemotherapy in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3110–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ravandi F, Alattar ML, Grunwald MR, et al. Phase 2 study of azacytidine plus sorafenib in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and FLT-3 internal tandem duplication mutation. Blood. 2013;121:4655–62.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stein E, Tallman MS, Pollya D, et al. Clinical safety and activity in a phase I trial AG-221, a first in class, potent inhibitor of the IDH2-mutant protein in patients with IDH2 mutant positive advanced hematologic malignancies. AACR Annual Meeting. 2014; abstract CT103.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dombret H, Preudhomme C, Berthon C, et al. A phase 1 study of the BET-bromodomain inhibitor OTX015 in patients with advanced acute leukemia. 56th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Blood. 2014; 124: abstract 117.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Patel JP, Gonen M, Figueroa ME, et al. Prognostic relevance of integrated genetic profiling in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1079–89.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schlenk RF, Döhner K, Krauter J, et al. Mutations and treatment outcome in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1909–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Quintas-Cardama A, Ravandi F, Liu-Dumlao T, et al. Epigenetic therapy is associated with similar survival compared with intensive chemotherapy in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2012;120:4840–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Becker H, Marcicci G, Maharry K, et al. Favorable prognostic impact of NPM1 mutations in older patients with cytogenetically normal de novo acute myeloid leukemia and associted gene- and microRNA-expression signatures: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:596–604.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Daver N, Liu Dumlao T, Ravandi F, et al. Effects of NPM1 and FLT3 mutations on the outcomes of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving standard chemotherapy. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2013;13:435–40.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Scholl S, Theuer C, Scheble V, et al. Clinical impact of nucleophosmin mutations and Flt3 internal tandem duplications in patients older than 60 yr with acute myeloid leukaemia. Eur J Haematol. 2008;80:208–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Klepin HD, Geiger AM, Tooze JA, et al. The feasibility of inpatient geriatric assessment for older adults receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:1837–46.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sherman AE, Motyckova G, Fega KR, et al. Geriatric assessment in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a retrospective study of associated treatment and outcomes. Leuk Res. 2013;37:998–1003.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dubruille S, Libert Y, Maerevoet M, et al. Prognostic value of neuro-psychological and biological factors in clinically fit older patients with hematological malignancies admitted to receive chemotherapy. Blood. 2014; 124:abstract 2630.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Klepin HD, Geiger AM, Tooze JA, et al. Geriatric assessment predicts survival for older adults receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood. 2013;121:4287–94.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wedding U, Röhrig B, Klippstein A, et al. Impairment in functional status and survival in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2006;132:665–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Alibhai SM, O’Neill S, Fisher-Schlombs K, et al. A clinical trial of supervised exercise for adults inpatients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing induction chemotherapy. Leuk Res. 2012;36:1255–61.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Klepin HD, Danhauer SC, Tooze JA, et al. Exercise for older adult inpatients with acute myelogenous leukemia: a pilot study. J Geriatr Oncol. 2011;2:11–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kristinsson SY, Derolf AR, Edgren G, et al. Socioeconomic differences in patient survival are increasing for AML and MM in Sweden. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2073–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Maggiore RJ, Dale W, Gross CP, et al. Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults with cancer undergoing chemotherapy: effect on chemotherapy-related toxicity and hospitalization during treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62:1505–12.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Flood KL, Carroll MB, Le CV, et al. Geriatric syndromes in elderly patients admitted to an oncology-acute care for elders unit. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2298–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ossenkoppele G, Löwenberg B. How I treat the older patient with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2015;125:767–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hematology Department, Hospices Civils de LyonLyon-Sud HospitalPierre-BéniteFrance

Personalised recommendations