Prognostic Importance of Duration of MDS Prior to Randomization Between Decitabine (DAC) Vs. Best Supportive Care (BSC) In Elderly IPSS Intermediate-2 and High Risk MDS Patients: Results of the 06011 EORTC-GMDSSG Phase III Trial

Abstract 4024 [][1] Background: The hypomethylating agents 5-azacytidine (Vidaza) and 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (Decitabine, DAC) are active in different MDS subtypes. Compared to other response predictors to DAC, prior MDS duration has received only limited attention (1, 2), with conflicting results. Based on our finding that long duration of MDS prior to DAC treatment may be a novel factor linked to a better outcome (1), we now assess its value in the phase III trial 06011 (DAC versus BSC [3]). Immediate enrolment after diagnosis was allowed in that trial, median MDS duration prior to randomization thus only 3 months (mths). Methods: Comparison of progression-free (PFS), AML-free (AMLFS) and overall survival (OS) according to MDS duration >= vs. <3 mths in 233 patients (pts) with higher-risk MDS (median age 70 years) randomized to DAC (n=119) or BSC (n=114). Comparisons by long-rank test and multivariate analyses by Cox regression (Performance Status [PS], cytogenetics and IPSS high risk N/Y) were performed retrospectively: MDS duration had not yet been known as possible stratification factor at time of study initiation, and the trial thus not been powered to detect significant differences with regard to this discriminator. Results: A better prognosis of patients with MDS duration >=3 vs =3 mths (B vs D). In both arms (n=233), Mult. indicated that MDS duration (>=3 vs <3 mths) adjusted for treatment, PS, cytogenetics and IPSS group was an independent prognostic factor regarding PFS (HR=0.75, 95%CI 0.58–0.99), AMLFS (HR=0.68, 95%CI 0.51–0.90), and OS (HR=0.75, 95%CI 0.56–0.99). The tests for interaction treatment × duration of MDS were not significant for 3 endpoints: PFS (p=0.38), AMLFS (p=0.90), OS (p=0.67). Conclusion: In intermediate-2 and high-risk MDS pts, long duration from MDS diagnosis to start of DAC or BSC appeared to be associated with a better outcome. This finding is in sharp contrast to the adverse prognostic impact of antecedent disease duration in patients who received intensive chemotherapy (4). It is supported by a similar analysis of pts with AML from MDS treated on the 00331 DAC phase II multicenter trial: those with longer MDS duration prior to DAC also had better outcome (5). Application of this discriminator in the evaluation also of other DAC schedules and MDS treatments therefore appears warranted. References: 1. Wijermans et al., Ann. Hematol. 84 (suppl. 1): 9–14, 2005 2. Kantarjian et al., Cancer 109:265-73, 2007 3. Wijermans et al., Blood 112 (suppl. 1): abs. 226, 2008 4. Estey et al., Blood 90:2969-77, 1997 5. Lubbert, Schmoor et al., abstract submitted, ASH 2010 Disclosures: Platzbecker: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Salih: Pfizer: Research Funding. Muus: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. View this table: Table 1: Outcome according to MDS duration and treatment arm. View this table: Table 2: Impact of MDS duration or treatment on outcome: hazard ratio (p-value). [1]: #fn-3