Missing content? – Request curation!
Request curation for specific Genes, Variants, or PubMed publications.
Have questions, comments, or suggestions? - Let us know!
Email us at : ckbsupport@jax.org
Ref Type | Journal Article | ||||||||||||
PMID | (23605952) | ||||||||||||
Authors | Kantarjian HM, Martinelli G, Jabbour EJ, Quintás-Cardama A, Ando K, Bay JO, Wei A, Gröpper S, Papayannidis C, Owen K, Pike L, Schmitt N, Stockman PK, Giagounidis A, null null | ||||||||||||
Title | Stage I 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. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
URL | |||||||||||||
Abstract Text | In this phase 2 study, the authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the Aurora B kinase inhibitor barasertib compared with low-dose cytosine arabinoside (LDAC) in patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either open-label barasertib 1200 mg (as a 7-day intravenous infusion) or LDAC 20 mg (subcutaneously twice daily for 10 days) in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective complete response rate (OCRR) (complete responses [CR] plus confirmed CRs with incomplete recovery of neutrophils or platelets [CRi] according to Cheson criteria [also requiring reconfirmation of CRi ≥21 days after the first appearance and associated with partial recovery of platelets and neutrophils]). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety.In total, 74 patients (barasertib, n = 48; LDAC, n = 26) completed ≥1 cycle of treatment. A significant improvement in the OCRR was observed with barasertib (35.4% vs 11.5%; difference, 23.9%; 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-39.9%; P < .05). Although the study was not formally sized to compare OS data, the median OS with barasertib was 8.2 months versus 4.5 months with LDAC (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.58; P = .663). Stomatitis and febrile neutropenia were the most common adverse events with barasertib versus LDAC (71% vs 15% and 67% vs 19%, respectively).Barasertib produced a significant improvement in the OCRR versus LDAC and had a more toxic but manageable safety profile, consistent with previous studies. |
Molecular Profile | Treatment Approach |
---|
Gene Name | Source | Synonyms | Protein Domains | Gene Description | Gene Role |
---|
Therapy Name | Drugs | Efficacy Evidence | Clinical Trials |
---|
Drug Name | Trade Name | Synonyms | Drug Classes | Drug Description |
---|
Gene | Variant | Impact | Protein Effect | Variant Description | Associated with drug Resistance |
---|
Molecular Profile | Indication/Tumor Type | Response Type | Therapy Name | Approval Status | Evidence Type | Efficacy Evidence | References |
---|