Data on efficacy and safety of azacitidine in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with >30 % bone marrow (BM) blasts are limited, and the drug can only be used off-label in these patients. We previously reported on the efficacy and safety of azacitidine in 155 AML patients treated within the Austrian Azacitidine Registry (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01595295). We herein update this report with a population almost twice as large (n = 302). This cohort included 172 patients with >30 % BM blasts; 93 % would have been excluded from the pivotal AZA-001 trial (which led to European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval of azacitidine for high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and AML with 20–30 % BM blasts). Despite this much more unfavorable profile, results are encouraging: overall response rate was 48 % in the total cohort and 72 % in patients evaluable according to MDS-IWG-2006 response criteria, respectively. Median OS was 9.6 (95 % CI 8.53–10.7) months. A clinically relevant OS benefit was observed with any form of disease stabilization (marrow stable disease (8.1 months), hematologic improvement (HI) (9.7 months), or the combination thereof (18.9 months)), as compared to patients without response and/or without disease stabilization (3.2 months). Age, white blood cell count, and BM blast count at start of therapy did not influence OS. The baseline factors LDH >225 U/l, ECOG ≥2, comorbidities ≥3, monosomal karyotype, and prior disease-modifying drugs, as well as the response-related factors hematologic improvement and further deepening of response after first response, were significant independent predictors of OS in multivariate analysis. Azacitidine seems effective in WHO-AML, including patients with >30 % BM blasts (currently off-label use). Although currently not regarded as standard form of response assessment in AML, disease stabilization and/or HI should be considered sufficient response to continue treatment with azacitidine.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00277-014-2126-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recent data suggest that azacitidine may be beneficial in CMML. We report on 48 CMML-patients treated with azacitidine. Overall response rates were high (70% according to IWG-criteria, including 22% complete responses). Monocyte count and cytogenetics adversely affected survival, whereas age, WHO-type, FAB-type, and spleen size did not. Matched-pair analyses revealed a trend for higher two-year-survival for azacitidine as compared to best supportive care (62% vs. 41%, p=0.067) and longer OS for azacitidine first-line vs. hydroxyurea first-line (p=0.072, median OS 27.7 vs. 6.2 months). This report reinforces existing evidence that azacitidine is safe and efficacious in both myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative CMML.

Background: Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) and FOLFIRINOX are standard first-line treatment options for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (aPDAC), but currently no prospective randomised head-to-head comparison between these treatments has yet been performed. Methods: We conducted a comparative propensity score (PS) analysis of overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in a tri-centre cohort of patients with aPDAC undergoing palliative first-line treatment with either GN or FOLFIRINOX. Results: In unadjusted analysis, OS and PFS were highly similar between patients treated with GN (n Z 297) and FOLFIRINOX (n Z 158). In detail, median, 1-and 2-year OS estimates were 10.1 months, 42% and 18% in the GN group, as compared to 11.2 months, 45% and

In our cohort, we describe the most promising markers to improve the NCCN-IPI. Anemia and high C-reactive protein levels retain their power in multivariate testing even in the era of the NCCN-IPI. The negative role of high bilirubin levels may be associated as a marker of liver function. Further studies are warranted to incorporate these markers into prognostic models and define their role opposite novel molecular markers.

Background:High levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), an acute phase protein, proofed being associated with decreased clinical outcome in small-scale studies in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of pretreatment CRP levels on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in a large bicentre study of DLBCL patients.Methods:Data from 477 DLBCL patients, diagnosed and treated between 2004 and 2013 at two Austrian centres, were evaluated retrospectively. The prognostic influence of CRP and other factors, including age, tumour stage, and revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) on 5-year OS and 5-year DFS, were studied by Kaplan–Meier curves as well as univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. Influence of CRP on the predictive accuracy of the R-IPI score was determined by the Harrell concordance index.Results:Kaplan–Meier curves revealed elevated CRP as a factor for decreased 5-year OS and DFS in DLBCL patients (P<0.001, log-rank test). An independent significant association between high CRP levels and poor clinical outcome in multivariate analysis for 5-year OS (HR=1.51, CI 95%=1.04–2.20, P=0.031) and for DFS (HR=1.91, CI 95%=1.28–2.85, P=0.002) was found. The estimated concordance index was 0.75 using the original R-IPI score and 0.79 when CRP was added.Conclusions:In the present study, we demonstrated high CRP levels at diagnosis of DLBCL as an independent poor prognostic factor for clinical outcome. Adding CRP to the well-established prognostic models such as the R-IPI score might improve their predictive ability.

Cytomegalovirus reactivation can be life threatening. However, little evidence on its incidence in solid cancers is available. Therefore our single center Cytomegalovirus polymerase chain reaction database with altogether 890 CMV positive blood serum samples of mainly hematological and oncological patients was retrospectively analyzed to examine the occurrence of Cytomegalovirus reactivation in patients with solid tumors, resulting in 107 patients tested positive for Cytomegalovirus reactivation. Seventeen patients with solid cancer and a positive CMV-PCR test were identified, of which eight patients had clinically relevant CMV disease and received prompt antiviral treatment. Five patients fully recovered, but despite prompt antiviral treatment three patients died. Among these three patients two had significant co-infections (in one case EBV and in the other case Aspergillus) indicating that that CMV reactivation was at least one factor contributing to sepsis. The patient with the EBV co-infection was treated in an adjuvant therapy setting for breast cancer and died due to Cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus associated pneumonia despite intensive therapy. The other two patients had progressive disease of an underlying pancreatic cancer at the time of CMV diagnosis. One patient died due to attendant uncontrollable Aspergillus pneumonia, the other patient most likely died independent from CMV disease because of massively progressive underlying disease.Cytomegalovirus reactivation and disease might be underestimated in routine clinical practice. In our retrospective analysis we show that approximately 50 % of our patients suffering from solid cancers with a positive Cytomegalovirus polymerase chain reaction also had clinically relevant Cytomegalovirus disease requiring antiviral therapy.

BackgroundThe MDS-IWG and NCCN currently endorse both FAB and WHO classifications of MDS and AML, thus allowing patients with 20–30 % bone marrow blasts (AML20–30, formerly MDS-RAEB-t) to be categorised and treated as either MDS or AML. In addition, an artificial distinction between AML20–30 and AML30+ was made by regulatory agencies by initially restricting approval of azacitidine to AML20–30. Thus, uncertainty prevails regarding the diagnosis, prognosis and optimal treatment timing and strategy for patients with AML20–30. Here, we aim to provide clarification for patients treated with azacitidine front-line.MethodsThe Austrian Azacitidine Registry is a multicentre database (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01595295). For this analysis, we selected 339 patients treated with azacitidine front-line. According to the WHO classification 53, 96 and 190 patients had MDS-RAEB-I, MDS-RAEB-II and AML (AML20–30: n = 79; AML30+: n = 111), respectively. According to the FAB classification, 131, 101 and 111 patients had MDS-RAEB, MDS-RAEB-t and AML, respectively.ResultsThe median ages of patients with MDS and AML were 72 (range 37–87) and 77 (range 23–93) years, respectively. Overall, 80 % of classifiable patients (≤30 % bone marrow blasts) had intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS scores. Most other baseline, treatment and response characteristics were similar between patients diagnosed with MDS or AML. WHO-classified patients with AML20–30 had significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB-II (13.1 vs 18.9 months; p = 0.010), but similar OS to patients with AML30+ (10.9 vs 13.1 months; p = 0.238). AML patients that showed MDS-related features did not have worse outcomes compared with patients who did not (13.2 vs 8.9 months; p = 0.104). FAB-classified patients with MDS-RAEB-t had similar survival to patients with AML30+ (12.8 vs 10.9 months; p = 0.376), but significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB (10.9 vs 24.4 months; p < 0.001).ConclusionsOur data demonstrate the validity of the WHO classification of MDS and AML, and its superiority over the former FAB classification, for patients treated with azacitidine front-line. Neither bone marrow blast count nor presence of MDS-related features had an adverse prognostic impact on survival. Patients with AML20–30 should therefore be regarded as having ‘true AML’ and in our opinion treatment should be initiated without delay.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13045-016-0263-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We recently published a clinically-meaningful improvement in median overall survival (OS) for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), >30% bone marrow (BM) blasts and white blood cell (WBC) count ≤15 G/L, treated with front-line azacitidine versus conventional care regimens within a phase 3 clinical trial (AZA-AML-001; NCT01074047; registered: February 2010). As results obtained in clinical trials are facing increased pressure to be confirmed by real-world data, we aimed to test whether data obtained in the AZA-AML-001 trial accurately represent observations made in routine clinical practice by analysing additional AML patients treated with azacitidine front-line within the Austrian Azacitidine Registry (AAR; NCT01595295; registered: May 2012) and directly comparing patient-level data of both cohorts. We assessed the efficacy of front-line azacitidine in a total of 407 patients with newly-diagnosed AML. Firstly, we compared data from AML patients with WBC ≤ 15 G/L and >30% BM blasts included within the AZA-AML-001 trial treated with azacitidine (“AML-001” cohort; n = 214) with AAR patients meeting the same inclusion criteria (“AAR (001-like)” cohort; n = 95). The current analysis thus represents a new sub-analysis of the AML-001 trial, which is directly compared with a new sub-analysis of the AAR. Baseline characteristics, azacitidine application, response rates and OS were comparable between all patient cohorts within the trial or registry setting. Median OS was 9.9 versus 10.8 months (p = 0.616) for “AML-001” versus “AAR (001-like)” cohorts, respectively. Secondly, we pooled data from both cohorts (n = 309) and assessed the outcome. Median OS of the pooled cohorts was 10.3 (95% confidence interval: 8.7, 12.6) months, and the one-year survival rate was 45.8%. Thirdly, we compared data from AAR patients meeting AZA-AML-001 trial inclusion criteria (n = 95) versus all AAR patients with World Health Organization (WHO)-defined AML (“AAR (WHO-AML)” cohort; n = 193). Within the registry population, median OS for AAR patients meeting trial inclusion criteria versus all WHO-AML patients was 10.8 versus 11.8 months (p = 0.599), respectively. We thus tested and confirmed the efficacy of azacitidine as a front-line agent in patients with AML, >30% BM blasts and WBC ≤ 15 G/L in a routine clinical practice setting. We further show that the efficacy of azacitidine does not appear to be limited to AML patients who meet stringent clinical trial inclusion criteria, but instead appears efficacious as front-line treatment in all patients with WHO-AML.