Use of Low-Dose Decitabine with or without Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Advanced Phase Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia: A Systemic Review and Metaanalysis

Maureen Via M Comia^*, Charles Eryll S Sy and Jomell C Julian
^*Correspondence: Maureen Via M Comia, Department of Hematology, University of Santo Tomas Hospital, Espana, Manila, Philippines, Email:

Keywords

Chronic myelogenous leukemia • Decitabine • Advanced phase • Persistent Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) • MD Anderson Disease Center (MDACC)

Introduction

Persistent Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm, portrayed by the equal chromosomal movement between the long arms of chromosome 9 and 22 (t9;22) (q34;11), coming about to an abbreviated chromosome 22, otherwise called the Philadelphia chromosome [1,2]. The resultant combination oncogene BCR/ABL 1 encodes a constitutive dynamic yet faulty tyrosine kinase, which is a pathogenic driver equipped for starting and keeping up with the disease [3].

CML has an overall yearly occurrence pace of 0.87 to 1.52 per 100,000, and these frequency increments with age. Middle period of determination is 56 years of age, with slight male predominance. Clinical indications range from asymptomatic, as analyzed unexpectedly on routine complete blood count, to side effects connected with weakness and splenomegaly. These side effects are for the most part seen among patients with ongoing stage CML, with practically 90% of patients being analyzed in this phase. Side effects from hyperleukocytosis and hyperviscosity, like priapism, tinnitus, or trance, can likewise be seen.

Ongoing stage CML can advance to sped up and blastic stages, which manifest more troubling side effects like fever, bone and joint agonies, dying, contaminations and lymphadenopathy. Sped up stage CML can be characterized by a bunch of measures created by MD Anderson Disease Center (MDACC) and includes presence of unusual blood counts and extra clonal cytogenetic irregularities. A meaning of blastic stage CML was likewise given by Global Bone Marrow Library and includes presence of 30% impacts in fringe blood or bone marrow, or both, or presence of extramedullary penetrates of leukemic cells [4].

Improvement of cutting edge stage CML from ongoing stage has been broadly considered. In a concentrate by Bavaro et al., they portrayed that movement from constant stage to further developed stage includes block of separation and apoptosis, modifications in cell bond, enactment of elective flagging pathways, and a shift toward turning on articulation of qualities engaged with the nucleosome. BCR/ABL1 was additionally seen to increment as the illness advances, which then, at that point, advances beginning of auxiliary sub-atomic and chromosomal hits, prompting development of profoundly multiplying separation captured threatening cell clones. Be that as it may, when these hits have been obtained, repressing BCR/ABL1 alone frequently fizzles, as appeared by movement even with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) treatment. This shows that there are other a few BCR/ABL1 free components engaged with movement of CML to cutting edge phase. These discoveries were likewise pondered past investigations of Shet et al. and Callabretta and Perrotti [5,6]. Bavaro et al. additionally depicted the methylation changes making movement of persistent stage CML progressed stage CML. This hypermethylation has been related to imatinib opposition or narrow mindedness and viewed as a negative prognostic element free of imatinib reaction and from CML phase.

This tracking down prompted clinical preliminaries on utilization of a hypomethylating specialist, decitabine, on cutting edge stage CML. Decitabine likewise has a few different properties, for example, separation enlistment, hostile to leukemic viability and synergism with interferons and retinoids consequently, making it an appealing treatment choice for an apparently difficult to-treat progressed stage CML. This deliberate audit and meta-examination means to brief and research the confirmations in regards to the viability of decitabine in cutting edge stage CML, and evaluate its effect on our treatment dynamic in these sorts of p atients [7].

Targets

General goal: This foundational audit and meta-examination plans to research the job of low-portion decitabine among patients with cutting edge stage persistent myelogenous leukemia.

Explicit goals

• To decide viability of low-portion decitabine concerning hematologic reaction among patients with cutting edge stage CML.
• To decide adequacy of low-portion decitabine concerning cytogenetic reaction among patients with cutting edge stage CML.
• To decide adequacy of low-portion decitabine regarding endurance among patients with cutting edge stage CML [8].

Meaning of terms

• Advanced stage persistent myelogenous leukemia-CML that has advanced to sped up or blastic stage.
• Accelerated stage ongoing myelogenous leukemia-CML with fringe impact of 10-19%, fringe blood basophils>20%, thrombocytopenia of <100 × 109/L irrelevant to treatment and new clonal cytogenetic irregularities going with the Philadelphia chromosome.
• Blastic stage-CML develop to obvious intense leukemia, either myeloid or lymphoid.
• Complete hematologic reaction-complete standardization of fringe blood counts with leukocyte count of <10 × 109/L.
• Complete cytogenetic reaction-no philadelphia chromosomepositive metaphases.
• Molecular reaction-MR 4.5 (BCR/ABL1 proportion<0.0032% worldwide scale IS).
• Low-portion decitabine-depicted in a few clinical preliminaries as 5-20 mg/m²/day [9].

Materials and Methods

Study design

This foundational audit and meta-investigation was performed by the proclamation of Favored Revealing Things for Efficient Surveys and Meta-Examinations (PRISMA). The two creators autonomously played out the writing search, assessed concentrate on qualification, separated the important information, and surveyed the gamble of inclination of each review. Disparities were settled through conversation and interview with the third creator [10].

Qualification rules (consideration and rejection)

Distributed randomized controlled preliminaries and non-randomized examinations, either planned or review, were qualified for consideration with no base number of patients. The review populace comprised of patients determined to have progressed stage constant myelogenous leukemia getting low-portion decitabine chemotherapy regardless of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs). The essential results estimated were hematologic and cytogenetic reaction, and endurance. Auxiliary results were atomic reaction and antagonistic occasions [11].

There was rejection of distributions written in a language other than English, survey papers, and on-going clinical preliminaries. There were no limitations on sex, identity or clinical setting.

Search methodologies

A precise hunt of the information bases was led, using the PubMed and Cochrane Library to distinguish pertinent distributed writing to address the examination objective with a cutoff time of April 2022 [12]. The hunt terms utilized were "persistent myelogenous leukemia" OR "CML" AND "decitabine". Catalogs of pertinent investigations recognized were looked for extra material and creators.

Information assortment and examination choice of studies

The review determination process was led following the PRISMA rules. After the expulsion of duplications, articles were screened in view of the consideration and avoidance rules. The two writers autonomously evaluated the consequences of the quest systems for the qualification by perusing the digests [13].

Following this, the two writers evaluated freely the full-text articles of chosen examinations. Errors were settled through conversation and counsel with the third creator.

Information extraction and the board

The qualified examinations were checked on in full-text autonomously by the creators. Systemic quality and hazard of predisposition appraisal were finished for each included review. The information separated from the included examinations were article title, name of the author(s), date of distribution, concentrate on plan, strategic elements (randomization, designation covering, blinding measures), concentrate on populace, member attributes, TKI utilized, number of cycles and portion of decitabine, and results (hematologic, cytogenetic, and atomic reaction, endurance, and unfriendly occasions). The information acquired was summed up utilizing Microsoft succeed. All information was thought about for consistency.

Risk of bias assessment

The gamble of inclination of non-controlled non-randomized investigations of intercessions was evaluated involving the gamble of predisposition appraisal standards for observational examinations apparatus given by Cochrane Adolescence Malignant growth. This device incorporates six significant areas that ought to be thought of determination predisposition, whittling down inclination, discovery predisposition, puzzling inclination, detailing predisposition and examination inclination. Every one of the spaces was decided as low, muddled or high gamble of inclination, and a general grade for the gamble of predisposition will be finished up too [14].

Information union and evaluation of heterogeneity

For information investigation, clear insights were utilized to sum up the benchmark attributes. The kind of result is dichotomous for hematologic and cytogenetic reaction, and endurance. The factual technique utilized was Shelf Haenszel strategy, with impact proportion of chances proportion for hematologic and cytogenetic reaction, while converse change technique was utilized for endurance, with impact proportion of danger proportion. Woods plots, the chi-square test for heterogeneity, and the I2 measurement surveyed factual heterogeneity between reviews. Pipe plot/Begg's test was utilized to assess distribution inclination. Factual importance was set at 0.05. All factual examinations were performed utilizing Revman variant 5.4.1. Where meta-examination was not plausible, a story combination was given all things being equal.

Evaluation of the sureness of the proof

The creators utilized the reviewing of proposals, appraisal, improvement and assessments (GRADE) instrument to survey the assurance of the proof. GRADE distinguished its five classifications: Hazard of predisposition, imprecision, irregularity, aberrance, and distribution inclination. The conviction of proof for non-randomized examinations will begin from lowassurance proof.

Results

Study selection

The writing search yielded 82 articles from PubMed and four (4) from the Cochrane library. Four examinations were prohibited for copies. Twelve examinations were screened in light of their titles and edited compositions. Subsequent to looking into the articles, four distributions didn't meet the review objective and were avoided. A sum of four examinations from the choice cycle was remembered for this concentrate as delineated in Figure 1. Full-text duplicates of the included investigations were gotten for a more nitty gritty assessment.

Study characteristics

The four articles included were distributed somewhere in the range of 2004 and 2020. A sum of 81 high level stage persistent myelogenous leukemia grown-up patients was remembered for this survey. The attributes of the examinations remembered for this audit are summed up in Table 1. All included examinations were distributed in English, and all were either stage I or stage II preliminaries. Decitabine portions change among the included examinations going from 10 mg/m² to 15 mg/m² IV for 10 days.

Table 1. General characteristics of included studies.

Patient qualities, their detailed reactions with low-portion decitabine, middle endurance in weeks for the two responders and non-responders, and generally speaking number of patients with revealed unfavorable occasions, for both hematologic and non-hematologic, are totally summed up in Tables 2-4, separately, for every one of the included examinations.

Table 2. Patient characteristics and response in included studies.

Table 3. Median survival in weeks.

Table 4. Overall number of patients with reported adverse events in included studies.

Risk of bias in included studies

Involving the gamble of predisposition appraisal models for observational examinations instrument given by Cochrane adolescence malignant growth, the creators made a decision about the general gamble of inclination inside and across the investigations to be moderate. The full judgment for the examinations is introduced in Table 5.

Table 5. Risk of bias assessment.

Meta-analysis

Essential results estimated in this metanalysis are hematologic and cytogenetic reaction, and endurance.

Figure 2 shows the woodland plot depicting the hematologic reaction as surveyed among every one of the patients remembered for the four examinations. Each of the four examinations is non-randomized, planned investigations; and included patients were looked at in light of presence of generally hematologic reaction, including total and halfway hematologic reaction, and hematologic improvement, and non-reaction. Chances proportion was processed between the two gatherings on every one of the examinations, with certainty time period. As found in the backwoods plot, three out of four examinations have an expanded recurrence of in general hematologic reaction upon openness with low-portion decitabine. Generally assessed impact was additionally genuinely critical, inclining toward hematologic reaction among cutting edge stage CML patients upon openness with low-portion decitabine.

Heterogeneity is likewise depicted in this woods plot. On Chi-squared test, p esteem was under 0.1%, in this manner homogeneity among review can be expected; nonetheless, I2 measurement assessed each of the four examinations with significant heterogeneity. This could be made sense of by the idea of the examinations being non-randomized, and can most likely be overcomed by doing a subgroup investigation among the hematologic reactions of these patients.

Figure 3 is the pipe plot for the result of hematologic reaction, and has fixed impact outline gauge at 1.95. Standard mistake is moving toward nothing, with three examinations being powerful than one review. This could be brought about by a more modest example size on this review. Nonetheless, this pipe plot is deviated, and most likely because of the significant heterogeneity found in these examinations, and not really because of any distribution predisposition. A goal test for channel plot unevenness should be possible beside an eyeball test.

Figure 4 shows the backwoods plot for cytogenetic reaction among the included patients. Just three out of four examinations announced this result. As the chart is appearing, cytogenetic reaction isn't leaned toward, and recurrence of non-reaction is fundamentally more dominating at p worth of 0.003. Heterogeneity is moderate among the investigations; and could be made sense of by the idea of the studies being non-randomized, and could most likely be overcome with subgroup examination.

Figure 5 is the funnel plot for cytogenetic response, and is symmetric with standard error approaching to zero. Included studies are almost of equal power, with no publication bias detected.

Endurance result was estimated by means of danger proportion. Not each of the four examinations was incorporated, as one review didn't report endurance result. Figure 6 shows the woodland plot and depicts that endurance occasions should be visible more among responders to lowportion decitabine versus non-responders, with negative log risk proportion demonstrating that there is diminished peril and expanded endurance times among these responders. Notwithstanding, this is non-critical with a p worth of 0.12. Heterogeneity upon I2 measurement is zero, inferring that the included examinations are homogenous with one another.

Figure 7 is the funnel plot for survival, and is symmetric with standard error approaching to zero. Included studies are scattered according to power, with no publication bias detected.

Certainty of evidence

We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the following outcomes: Hematologic response and survival. We assessed the certainty of evidence for non-controlled non-randomized studies of intervention starting from low-certainty evidence. The certainty of evidence in the reported outcomes was further reduced to very low because of the very small information size and moderate risk of bias of included studies.

Discussion

Persistent Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) in cutting edge stage has been customarily difficult to oversee as the sickness can foster obstruction towards TKIs as it advances, and some of the time with expansion of a more forceful chromosomal variation. The original TKI, imatinib, can in any case be utilized in cutting edge stage CML, with reaction going from as low as 0% in blastic stage to as high as 90% in sped up stage. Endurance is seen at 50-60% at 5 years. Higher ages of TKIs, especially bosutinib and ponatinib, are liked and utilized for cutting edge stage CML, particularly after imatinib disappointment. Reaction goes from 11% to 57%, with endurance rate going from 60% at 4 years for bosutinib to 84% at 1 year for Ponatinib. These reactions were likewise reflected in a previous review done by Bonifacio et al. Be that as it may, other treatment modalities, similar to chemotherapy, and if conceivable, hematopoietic undifferentiated organism transplantation (HSCT), are by and large suggested in cutting edge stage CML, particularly in blastic stage. A few chemotherapy routine choices were concentrated on in little, review studies and included cytarabine-based regimens (7+3 and Banner Ida) for myeloid impact emergency, and Hyper-CVAD with Dasatinib in lymphoid impact emergency. These regimens created a better endurance rates looked at than TKI alone.

In light of one of the systems of illness movement in CML, decitabine has been investigated even in the pre-TKI time, to address hypermethylation seen in cutting edge ease CML. In a prior concentrate by Kantarjian et al., 37 patients with cutting edge stage CML were treated with 75 to 100 mg/ m2 decitabine for 10 portions. A general reaction pace of 53% for sped up stage was seen, with a lower rate at 25% for blastic stage. Delayed myelosuppression supposedly was the main side effect. These unobtrusive outcomes were reflected in follow-up examinations done by Kantarjian et al. along with Sacchi et al., and recorded better endurance among patients treated with decitabine. These examinations, notwithstanding, involved a lot higher portions when contrasted with the examinations remembered for this meta-investigation. It created drawn out and serious myelosuppression that can influence endurance among these patients. In a concentrate by Issa and Byrd, they summed up examinations utilizing a much lower portion of decitabine, given in delayed openness schedule. These investigations showed a fundamentally less reactions in patients treated with higher dosages, and lower dosages were more endured. Issa et al. depicted in his review that low-portion decitabine influences hushing by distorted methylation and standardizes the quality articulation profile of threatening cells, while high portion decitabine makes DNA adducts at last bringing about cytotoxicity, making sense of the delayed myelosuppression in high doses.

Concerning by and large hematologic reaction, concentrates on remembered for this meta-examination leaned toward hematologic reaction and created practically comparative humble outcomes (40% to 59%) with low-portion decitabine among sped up stage CML patients when contrasted with higher dosages. Higher reactions (30% to half), nonetheless, were seen among blastic stage CML patients given low-portion decitabine contrasted with higher dosages. A benefit of more passable myelosuppression was likewise seen. In the concentrate by Abaza et al. a lot higher generally hematologic reaction (56% to 83%) for sped up and blastic stages was seen. This may be credited to the utilization of Dasatinib among these patients, owing the better reaction to the collaboration of hypomethylating specialists and TKIs.

Cytogenetic reactions were likewise explored in a large portion of the included examinations. Absolute cytogenetic reactions among these investigations range from 2% to 52%. When contrasted with higherportion decitabine studies, higher-portion concentrates on detailed lower cytogenetic reaction rates (0% to 9%). Nonetheless, this result supposedly was not good towards reaction in this meta-examination. Abaza et al. examined that achieving cytogenetic and sub-atomic reaction are low even with mix treatment, and should have been visible more among patients that are in ongoing stage.

Endurance, in the meantime, was leaned toward among responders to low-portion decitabine in this meta-examination. Middle endurance in weeks among responders in these examinations was basically as high as 86 weeks, contrasted with 18.6 weeks in non-responders. Higher-portion decitabine, in the meantime, likewise showed better endurance among the patients; however rates were more unobtrusive when contrasted with those given with low-portion decitabine, attributable to a huger myelosuppression seen in higher-portion decitabine. Moreover, these examinations were generally finished in the pre-TKI time.

Besides myelosuppression, other minor antagonistic occasions were accounted for in the included examinations. By and large, treatment with low-portion decitabine was very much endured. Non-serious unfavorable occasions incorporate queasiness, heaving, loose bowels, mucositis, skin rashes, and gentle heights in liver compounds and creatinine. Not thinking about the extreme myelosuppression in higher-dosages, decitabine can be considered as a protected treatment choice, particularly whenever given in low-portion.

Conclusion

Implications for practice: There are restricted choices on successful therapy choices for cutting edge stage CML, but this meta-examination shows that low-portion decitabine can be a compelling and safe therapy choice, particularly in additional delicate patients that couldn't endure more escalated chemotherapy regimens.

Implications for research: Just couple of studies was accessible in regards to this point. Further randomized controlled preliminaries can be researched to characterize the job of decitabine and its ideal portion among this subset of patients.

Limitations

There are a few limits in this meta-examination to be thought of. There are a predetermined number of related investigations, and most had not many example sizes. The majority of the investigations included were performed previously or at the early long periods of TKI treatment; subsequently a few members were not given TKI as a feature of their treatment, which may had impacted their results and endurance.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare regarding the publication of this article.

Funding

None.

References

1. Salesse, Stephanie, and Catherine M Verfaillie. "BCR/ABL: from molecular mechanisms of leukemia induction to treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia." Oncogene 21 (2002): 8547-8559.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

2. Bavaro, Luana, Margherita Martelli, Michele Cavo, and Simona Soverini, et al. "Mechanisms of disease progression and resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in chronic myeloid leukemia: an update." Int J Mol Sci 20 (2019): 6141.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

3. Shet AS, BN Jahagirdar, and CM Verfaillie. "Chronic myelogenous leukemia: mechanisms underlying disease progression." Leukemia 16 (2002): 1402-1411.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

4. Calabretta, Bruno, and Danilo Perrotti. "The biology of CML blast crisis." Blood 103 (2004): 4010-4022.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

5. Kantarjian HM, SM O’Brien, M Keating, and M Beran, et al. "Results of decitabine therapy in the accelerated and blastic phases of chronic myelogenous leukemia." Leukemia 11 (1997): 1617-1620.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

6. Issa, Jean-Pierre J, Guillermo Garcia-Manero, Francis J Giles, and Rajan Mannari, et al. "Phase 1 study of low-dose prolonged exposure schedules of the hypomethylating agent 5-aza-2-deoxycytidine (decitabine) in hematopoietic malignancies." Blood 103 (2004): 1635-1640.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

7. Issa, Jean-Pierre J, Vazganush Gharibyan, Jorge Cortes, and Jaroslav Jelinek, et al. "Phase II study of low-dose decitabine in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia resistant to imatinib mesylate." J Clin Oncol 23 (2005): 3948-3956.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

8. Oki, Yasuhiro, Hagop M Kantarjian, Vazganush Gharibyan, and Dan Jones, et al. "Phase II study of low‐dose decitabine in combination with imatinib mesylate in patients with accelerated or myeloid blastic phase of chronic myelogenous leukemia." Cancer 109 (2007): 899-906.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

9. Abaza, Yasmin, Hagop Kantarjian, Yasmin Alwash, and Gautam Borthakur, et al. "Phase I/II study of dasatinib in combination with decitabine in patients with accelerated or blast phase chronic myeloid leukemia." Am J Hematol 95 (2020): 1288-1295.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

10. How, Joan, Vinayak Venkataraman, and Gabriela Soriano Hobbs. "Blast and accelerated phase CML: room for improvement." Hematology 2021 (2021): 122-128.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

11. Bonifacio, Massimiliano, Fabio Stagno, Luigi Scaffidi, and Mauro Krampera, et al. "Management of chronic myeloid leukemia in advanced phase." Front Oncol 9 (2019): 1132.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

12. Kantarjian, Hagop M, Susan O'Brien, Jorge Cortes, and Francis J Giles, et al. "Results of decitabine (5-aza-2-deoxycytidine) therapy in 130 patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia." Cancer 98 (2003): 522-528.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

13. Sacchi, Stefano, Hagop M Kantarjian, Susan O'Brien, and Jorge Cortes, et al. "Chronic myelogenous leukemia in nonlymphoid blastic phase: analysis of the results of first salvage therapy with three different treatment approaches for 162 patients." Cancer 86 (1999): 2632-2641.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

14. Issa, Jean-Pierre J, and John C Byrd. "Decitabine in chronic leukemias." Semin Hematol 42 (2005): S43-S49.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]