Zeidan, Amer M.

BACKGROUNDTransfusion of blood products is a key component of the supportive management in patients with acute leukemia (AL). However high‐quality trial evidence and clinical outcome data to support specific transfusion goals for blood products for patients with AL remain limited leading to diverse transfusion practices. The primary objective of this study was to determine the spectrum of transfusion patterns in a variety of care settings among providers who treat AL patients.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSA 31‐question survey queried providers caring for AL patients about the existence of institutional guidelines for transfusion of blood products, transfusion triggers for hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (PLTs), and fibrinogen in various settings including inpatient and outpatient and before procedures.RESULTSWe analyzed 130 responses and identified divergent transfusion Hb goals in hospitalized and ambulatory patients, fibrinogen goals for cryoprecipitate transfusions, and variation in practice for use of certain PLTs and red blood cell products. The least variable transfusion patterns were reported for PLT goals in thrombocytopenia and in the setting of invasive procedures such as bone marrow biopsy and lumbar punctures.CONCLUSIONSThis survey confirmed wide variations in blood product transfusion practices across several clinical scenarios in patients with AL. The findings emphasized the need for large prospective randomized trials to develop standardized evidence‐based guidelines for blood product transfusions in patients with AL with the goal of limiting unnecessary transfusions without compromising outcomes.

AbstractTherapy‐related myeloid neoplasms (tMN) are serious late effects of the treatment of cancer with poor response to conventional treatment. Azacitidine (AZA) has been used to treat patients with tMN but current data are retrospective. We present here 47 tMN patients prospectively enrolled as a specific cohort in the E1905 study. TheE1905 study was a randomized phase 2 study (NCT00313586) testing 10 d of AZA (50 mg/m2/d) +/− the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m2/d PO day‐3 and day‐10). A total of 47 patients [29 therapy‐related myelosyspastic syndrome (t‐MDS) and 18 therapy‐related acute myeloid leukaemia (t‐AML)] were recruited to the study. 24 patients were treated with AZA monotherapy and 23 with AZA+entinostat. The median number of administered cycles was 4, significantly higher in patients treated with AZA (6 cycles vs. 3 cycles, P = 0·008). Haematological normalization rates were 46% in monotherapy and 17% in the combination arm. Median overall survivals were 13 and 6 months, respectively. The novel 50 * 10 schedule of azacitidine appears effective, with response rates, when given as single agent, comparable to those for patients with de novo MDS/AML treated on the same protocol. However, the combination of AZA and entinostat was associated with increased toxicity and could not be recommended for treatment of tMN.

SummaryReliable clinical or molecular predictors of benefit from azacitidine therapy in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are not defined. Doubling of platelet count at start of second cycle of azacitidine therapy compared to baseline was associated with achieving response and survival advantage in a Dutch cohort. To validate this observation, we analysed a larger cohort of North American patients, whose data was collected in a prospective clinical trial with a longer median follow‐up. We found a significant association between platelet count doubling after first cycle of azacitidine therapy and probability of achieving objective response. Among patients with MDS or oligoblastic acute myeloid leukaemia (<30% bone marrow blasts, n = 102), there was a statistically significant reduction in risk of death for patients who achieved platelet count doubling (n = 23, median OS, 21·0 months) compared to those who did not (n = 79, median OS, 16·7 months, adjusted hazard ratio (no/yes)=1·88, 95% confidence interval, 1·03–3·40, P = 0·04). Nonetheless, the addition of this platelet count doubling variable did not improve the survival prediction provided by the revised International Prognostic Scoring System or the French Prognostic Scoring System. Identification of reliable and consistent predictors for clinical benefit for azacitidine therapy remains an unmet medical need and a top research priority.