Drugs & Aging

, Volume 22, Issue 11, pp 943–955

Trends in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia in the Elderly

  • Kathleen Lang
  • Craig C. Earle
  • Talia Foster
  • Deirdre Dixon
  • Renilt Van Gool
  • Joseph Menzin
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is the most common type of leukaemia among adults in the US. However, data on longitudinal treatment patterns and outcomes associated with AML and its relapse are sparse, particularly among the elderly. This study documents changes in treatment patterns and outcomes among elderly AML patients over the past decade.

Methods

Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, we retrospectively evaluated trends in mortality, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilisation and Medicare payments associated with AML and its relapse among Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age who were initially diagnosed with AML in a SEER registry between 1991 and 1999. Chemotherapy was ascertained from examination of inpatient and outpatient bills. AML relapse and retreatment were identified using a validated algorithm. Costs of care were based on total Medicare payments.

Results

A total of 3439 elderly patients with AML were identified. Median survival across all study patients was 2.4 months (mean ± SD 5.6 ± 6.8 months), with medians of 3.9, 2.2 and 1.4 months for patients 65–74 years of age, 75–84 years of age and ≥85 years of age, respectively. Fewer than 7% of patients were alive at 2 years, and there was very little variation during the decade of our analysis. Costs and overall healthcare utilisation patterns also changed very little, with the exception of those relating to hospice use and chemotherapy. Hospice use more than doubled during the decade (from 12% to 29% among patients diagnosed in 1991 and 1999, respectively; p < 0.0001), mostly among the oldest patients. Administration of chemotherapy also increased from 29% of patients diagnosed in 1991 to 38% of patients diagnosed in 1999 (p = 0.014), with the increase being seen mostly among younger patients and those treated in teaching hospitals. Average total costs (± SD) were US$51 888 ± $54 825 and declined by age as a result of lower survival. A total of 192 patients (16% of treated patients) relapsed and received retreatment with chemotherapy. These patients survived a median 18 months, with a median duration of remission of 8 months, and average total costs three times higher than the overall sample.

Conclusions

The high early mortality and costs associated with AML have not changed significantly over the past decade. However, treatment patterns appear to be changing, with increasing use of chemotherapy and hospice care. The on going introduction of new treatments for AML in the elderly is likely to further impact treatment patterns, and may change the economic burden of the disease. Our findings can be used as a baseline against which the benefits of new therapies can be compared.

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2005. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2005f4PWSecured.pdf [Accessed 2005 Sep 26]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams JP, Handler HL. Antibody-targeted chemotherapy for the treatment of relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Manag Care. 2000; 6Suppl. 18: S975–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oberg G, Killander A, Bjoreman M, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients ≥ 60 yr old with acute myeloid leukaemia treated with intensive chemotherapy. Eur J Haematol 2002; 68(6): 376–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldstone AH, Burnett AK, Wheatley K, et al. Attempts to improve treatment outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in older patients: the results of the United Kingdom Medical Research Council AML11 trial. Blood 2001; 98(5): 1302–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baudard M, Beauchamp-Nicoud A, Delmer A, et al. Has the prognosis of adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia improved over years? A single institution experience of 784 consecutive patients over a 16-year period. Leukemia 1999; 13(10): 1481–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hann IM, Stevens RF, Goldstone AH, et al. Randomized comparison of DAT versus ADE as induction chemotherapy in children and younger adults with acute myeloid leukemia: results of the Medical Research Council’s 10th AML trial (MRC AML10). Adult and Childhood Leukaemia Working Parties of the Medical Research Council. Blood 1997; 89(7): 2311–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rees JK, Gray RG, Wheatley K. Dose intensification in acute myeloid leukaemia: greater effectiveness at lower cost. Principal report of the Medical Research Council’s AML9 study: MRC Leukaemia in Adults Working Party. Br J Haematol 1996; 94(1): 89–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mayer RJ, Davis RB, Schiffer CA, et al. Intensive postremission chemotherapy in adults with acute myeloid leukemia: Cancer and Leukemia Group B. N Engl J Med 1994; 331(14): 896–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cassileth PA, Lynch E, Hines JD, et al. Varying intensity of postremission therapy in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 1992; 79(8): 1924–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dillman RO, Davis RB, Green MR, et al. A comparative study of two different doses of cytarabine for acute myeloid leukemia: a phase III trial of Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Blood 1991; 78(10): 2520–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buchner T, Hiddemann W, Berdel W, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia: treatment over 60. German AML Co-Operative Group. Rev Clin Exp Hematol 2002; 6(1) 46–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sekeres MA, Stone R. Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Curr Oncol Rep 2002; 4(5): 403–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackson GH, Taylor PR. Acute myeloid leukaemia: optimising treatment in elderly patients. Drugs Aging 2002; 19(8): 571–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kimby E, Nygren P, Glimelius B, et al. A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in acute myeloid leukaemia: SBU-group, Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Acta Oncol 2001; 40(2–3): 231–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    SEER. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, SEER *Stat Database: incidence — SEER 9 Regs Public Use, Nov 2004 sub (1973–2002), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2005, based on November 2004 submission [online]. Available from URL: http://www.seer.cancer.gov [Accessed 2005 Sep 26]
  16. 16.
    Löwenberg B, Downing JR, Burnett A. Acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 1051–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menzin J, Lang K, Earle CC, et al. The outcomes and costs of acute myeloid leukemia among the elderly. Arch Int Med 2002; 162: 1597–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Estey EH. How I treat older patients with AML. Blood. 2000; 96(5): 1670–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leith CP, Kopecky KJ, Godwin J, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia in the elderly: assessment of multidrug resistance (MDR1) and cytogenetics distinguishes biologic subgroups with remarkably distinct responses to standard chemotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Blood 1997; 89(9): 3323–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giles F, Estey E, O’Brien S. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer 2003; 98(10): 2095–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sievers EL, Larson RA, Stadtmauer EA, et al. Efficacy and safety of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in patients with CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse: Mylotarg Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(13): 3244–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bross PF, Beitz J, Chen G, et al. Approval summary: gemtuzumab ozogamicin in relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7(6): 1490–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lancet JE, Karp JE. Farnesyltransferase inhibitors in hematologic malignancies: new horizons in therapy. Blood 2003; 102(12): 3880–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karp JE, Lancet JE, Kaufmann SH, et al. Clinical and biologic activity of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor R1 15777 in adults with refractory and relapsed acute leukemias: a phase 1 clinical-laboratory correlative trial. Blood 2001; 97(11); 3361–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hematologic Malignancy Diagnostic Service. Acute myeloid leukemia [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hmds.org.uk/aml.html. [Accessed 2005 Sep 26]
  26. 26.
    Earle C, Menzin J, Lang K, et al. Validating the use of administrative claims data for assessing cancer relapse: the case of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) [abstract]. Blood 1999; 94 (10 Suppl. 1): 185aGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(6): 613–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Estey E. Prognostic factors in clinical cancer trials. Clin Cancer Res 1997; 3 (12 Pt 2): 2591–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ravandi F, Kantarjian H, Giles F, et al. New agents in acute myeloid leukemia and other myeloid disorders. Cancer 2004; 100(3): 441–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cortes J, Giles F, O’Brien S, et al. Results of imatinib mesylate therapy in patients with refractory or recurrent acute myeloid leukemia, high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, and myeloproliferative disorders. Cancer 2003; 97(11): 2760–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cortes J. Farnesyltransferase inhibitors in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Clin Lymphoma 2003; 4Suppl. 1: S30–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lancet J, Gotlib J, Gojo I, et al. Tipifarnib (ZARNESTRA™) in previously untreated poor-risk AML of the elderly: updated results of a multicenter phase 2 trial. Proceedings from the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology [abstract no. 874]. Blood. 204; 104: 249aGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Health Care Financing Administration. Figure 39: trends in Medicare Hospice Benefit Program payments. CYs 1986–1999. Issue: Medicare and Medicaid statistical supplement. Health Care Financ Rev 2001: 59Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zerzan J, Stearns S, Hanson L. Access to palliative care and hospice in nursing homes. JAMA 2000; 284(19): 2489–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 666–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Frey CM, McMillen MM, Cowan CD, et al. Representativeness of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program data: recent trends in cancer mortality rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84: 872–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Warren JL, Riley GF, McBean AM, et al. Use of Medicare data to identify incident breast cancer cases. Health Care Financ Rev 1996; 18(1): 237–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Du X, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS. Information on radiation treatment in patients with breast cancer: the advantages of the linked Medicare and SEER data. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52(5): 463–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schapira MS, McAuliffe TL, Nattinger AB. Underutilization of mammography in older breast cancer survivors. Med Care 2000; 38(3): 281–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Riley GF, Potosky AL, Lubitz JD, et al. Medicare payments from diagnosis to death for elderly cancer patients by stage at diagnosis. Med Care 1995; 33: 828–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Etzioni R, Urban N, Baker M. Estimating the costs attributable to a disease with application to ovarian cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fireman BH, Quesenberry CP, Somkin CP, et al. Cost of care for cancer in a Health Maintenance Organization. Health Care Financ Rev 1997; 18: 51–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Potosky AL, Riley GF, Lubitz JD, et al. Potential for cancer related health services research using a linked Medicare tumor registry database. Med Care 1993; 31: 732–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Potosky AL, Warren JL, Riedel ER, et al. Measuring complications of cancer treatment using the SEER-Medicare data. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl.): IV62–8Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Deleyiannis FW, Weymuller Jr EA, Garcia I, et al. Geographic variation in the utilization of esophagoscopy and bronchoscopy in head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 123: 1203–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Stange KC, et al. The utility of the Medicare claims data for measuring cancer stage. Med Care 1999; 37(7): 706–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Stange KC, et al. The sensitivity of Medicare claims data for case ascertainment of six common cancers. Med Care 1999; 37: 436–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Warren JL, Feuer E, Potosky AL, et al. Use of Medicare hospital and physician data to assess breast cancer incidence. Med Care 1999; 37: 445–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Warren JL, Brown ML, Fay MP, et al. Costs of treatment for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer in fee-for-service settings. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20(1): 307–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yao SL, Lu-Yao G. Interval after prostate specific antigen testing and subsequent risk of incurable prostate cancer. J Urol 2001; 166(3): 861–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen Lang
    • 1
  • Craig C. Earle
    • 2
  • Talia Foster
    • 1
  • Deirdre Dixon
    • 1
  • Renilt Van Gool
    • 3
  • Joseph Menzin
    • 1
  1. 1.Boston Health Economics Inc.WalthamUSA
  2. 2.Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical ServicesBeerseBelgium

Personalised recommendations