The word Leukemia was coined nearly 200 years ago by Rudolf Virchow. Once a death sentence, Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) is now a treatable condition. The introduction of “7 + 3” chemotherapy, originally reported from the Roswell Park Memorial institute in Buffalo, New York, in 1973, changed the treatment paradigm for AML. About twenty-seven years later, FDA approved the first targeted agent, gemtuzumab, to be added to this backbone. During the last seven years, we have had ten new drugs approved for the management of patients with AML. Work by many dedicated scientists led to AML achieving the elite status of being the first cancer to have the whole genome sequenced using next-generation sequencing. In the year 2022, we witnessed the introduction of new classification systems for AML by the international consensus classification and the world health organization, both emphasizing molecular classification of the disease. In addition, the introduction of agents such as venetoclax and targeted therapies have changed the treatment paradigm in older patients ineligible for intensive therapy. In this review, we cover the rationale and evidence behind these regimens and provide insights into the newer agents.
Acute Myeloid leukemia (AML) is a clinically heterogeneous disease with a 5-year overall survival of 32% between 2012 to 2018. The above number severely dwindles with age and adverse risk of disease, presenting opportunities for new drug development and is an area of dire unmet need. Basic science and clinical investigators across the world have been working on many new and old molecule formulations and combination strategies to improve outcomes in this disease. In this review, we discuss select promising novel agents in various stages of clinical development for patients with AML.
1 March 2018 in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Background: There has been an overall decline in intensive care unit mortality over the past 2 decades, including in patients undergoing intubation and mechanical ventilation (MV). Whether this decline extends to patients with metastatic cancer remains unknown. We analyzed the outcomes of patients with metastatic cancer undergoing intubation/MV using the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) database from 2001 to 2010. Methods: Diagnosis and procedure codes were used to identify patients with metastatic cancer who underwent intubation/MV. Demographics, diagnoses, length of stay (LOS), and discharge information were abstracted. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models with weighted analysis were conducted to study trends in outcomes. Results: During the 10-year study period, 200,350 patients with metastatic cancer and who underwent intubation/MV were identified; the mean age was 65.3 years and 46.2% were men. There was an increase in the total number of patients with metastatic cancer who underwent intubation/MV during the study period, from 36,881 in 2001-2002 to 51,003 in 2009-2010 (P<.001). The overall inpatient mortality rate was 57.3%, discharge to a care facility ( DTCF) rate was 40.9% among patients alive at discharge, and mean LOS was 11.1 days. No significant trends were seen in rates of mortality, DTCF, or LOS from 2001 to 2010. Conclusions: In this national database, there was an increase in the number of patients with metastatic cancer who underwent intubation/MV. These patients had high rates of inpatient mortality and DTCF, which did not improve during the study period. Therefore, novel solutions are required to improve outcomes for these patients.