User login
ORLANDO – Reduced-intensity conditioning regimens failed to show a significant survival benefit over high-intensity regimens in myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia in the phase III MAVERICK trial.
Pretransplant reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) also resulted in a significantly higher risk of relapse and inferior relapse-free survival vs. myeloablative conditioning (MAC).
The findings, reported in the late-breaking abstract (LBA-8) session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, generated a lively debate over the study construct and whether its conclusion that MAC remain “the treatment of choice” in appropriate candidates should be applied to both diseases.
Session comoderator Dr. David P. Steensma, a myelodysplasia physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in an interview that the data will not change his practice and that physicians should continue to “push the envelope” and provide as intense a conditioning regimen as their patients can tolerate.
“The take-home message is that using a reduced conditioning regimen whatever your choice might be, even though it is gentler on the patient and may be easier for them to go through the transplant, the biggest risk is still the disease, the underlying leukemia or myelodysplasia coming back. And the benefit from reduced intensity is not enough to outweigh that risk.”
To sort out this complex trial, we spoke with study author Dr. Bart L. Scott of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center at the University of Washington, Seattle.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
ORLANDO – Reduced-intensity conditioning regimens failed to show a significant survival benefit over high-intensity regimens in myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia in the phase III MAVERICK trial.
Pretransplant reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) also resulted in a significantly higher risk of relapse and inferior relapse-free survival vs. myeloablative conditioning (MAC).
The findings, reported in the late-breaking abstract (LBA-8) session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, generated a lively debate over the study construct and whether its conclusion that MAC remain “the treatment of choice” in appropriate candidates should be applied to both diseases.
Session comoderator Dr. David P. Steensma, a myelodysplasia physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in an interview that the data will not change his practice and that physicians should continue to “push the envelope” and provide as intense a conditioning regimen as their patients can tolerate.
“The take-home message is that using a reduced conditioning regimen whatever your choice might be, even though it is gentler on the patient and may be easier for them to go through the transplant, the biggest risk is still the disease, the underlying leukemia or myelodysplasia coming back. And the benefit from reduced intensity is not enough to outweigh that risk.”
To sort out this complex trial, we spoke with study author Dr. Bart L. Scott of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center at the University of Washington, Seattle.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
ORLANDO – Reduced-intensity conditioning regimens failed to show a significant survival benefit over high-intensity regimens in myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia in the phase III MAVERICK trial.
Pretransplant reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) also resulted in a significantly higher risk of relapse and inferior relapse-free survival vs. myeloablative conditioning (MAC).
The findings, reported in the late-breaking abstract (LBA-8) session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, generated a lively debate over the study construct and whether its conclusion that MAC remain “the treatment of choice” in appropriate candidates should be applied to both diseases.
Session comoderator Dr. David P. Steensma, a myelodysplasia physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in an interview that the data will not change his practice and that physicians should continue to “push the envelope” and provide as intense a conditioning regimen as their patients can tolerate.
“The take-home message is that using a reduced conditioning regimen whatever your choice might be, even though it is gentler on the patient and may be easier for them to go through the transplant, the biggest risk is still the disease, the underlying leukemia or myelodysplasia coming back. And the benefit from reduced intensity is not enough to outweigh that risk.”
To sort out this complex trial, we spoke with study author Dr. Bart L. Scott of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center at the University of Washington, Seattle.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT ASH 2015
