A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing azacitidine and decitabine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome

Abstract Background Hypomethylating agents (HMA), azacitidine, and decitabine are frequently used in the management of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, there are no clinical trials that have directly compared these agents. We conducted a systematic review and indirectly compared the efficacy of azacitidine to decitabine in MDS. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus) through June 28, 2018, without language or time restrictions. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers, and differences were resolved by consensus. The fixed effect model and adjusted indirect comparison methods were used to pool relative risks (RR) of major outcomes of interest (mortality, response rate, quality of life, hematologic improvement, hospitalization, leukemia transformation, transfusion independence). Results Only four trials met the eligibility criteria. Two trials compared azacitidine to the best supportive care (BSC) and included 549 patients, and the other two compared decitabine to BSC and included 403 patients. The risk of bias was unclear overall. Compared to BSC, azacitidine was significantly associated with lower mortality (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.74–0.94, I 2 = 89%) whereas decitabine did not significantly reduce mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77–1.00, I 2 = 53%). Both drugs were associated with higher partial and complete response compared to BSC. Indirect comparisons were not statistically significant for all the studied outcomes, except for complete response where azacitidine was less likely to induce complete response compared to decitabine (RR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.01–0.86, very low-certainty evidence). Conclusions Azacitidine and decitabine are both associated with improved outcomes compared to BSC. The available indirect evidence comparing the two agents warrants very low certainty and cannot reliably confirm the superiority of either agent. Head-to-head trials are needed. In the meantime, the choice of agent should be driven by patient preferences, adverse effects, drug availability, and cost

CanStem111P trial: a Phase III study of napabucasin plus nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine

Napabucasin (also known as BBI-608 or BBI608) is an investigational, oral agent hypothesized to inhibit multiple oncogenic pathways. In this article, we describe the design and rationale for the CanStem111P clinical trial, a multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase III study designed to determine the efficacy and safety of combining napabucasin with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NCT02993731). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive weekly gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel with or without napabucasin. The results of this study will help define the role of this novel agent in the management of advanced pancreatic cancer.status: publishe