AML

For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in need of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) offers a lower risk of infection than myeloablative conditioning (MAC), based on a retrospective study involving more than 1,700 patients.

OlegMalyshev/Getty Images

Within 100 days of treatment, patients who underwent MAC were significantly more likely to develop a bacterial infection, and develop it at an earlier date, than patients who had undergone RIC/NMA, reported lead author Celalettin Ustun, MD, of Rush University in Chicago, and colleagues.

“The incidence of infections, a common and often severe complication of alloHCT, is expected to be lower after RIC/NMA compared with MAC and thus contribute to the decreased [nonrelapse mortality],” the investigators wrote in Blood Advances, noting that this hypothesis has previously lacked supporting data, prompting the present study.

The retrospective analysis involved 1,755 patients with AML who were in first complete remission. Data were drawn from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The primary end point was incidence of infection within 100 days after T-cell replete alloHCT in patients receiving MAC (n = 978) versus those who underwent RIC/NMA (n = 777). Secondary end points included comparisons of infection types and infection density.

Patients who received RIC/NMA were generally older and more likely to have myelodysplastic syndrome than patients in the MAC group; the groups were otherwise similar, based on comorbidities, cytogenetic risks, and Karnofsky performance scores.

The proportion of patients who developed at least one infection was comparable between groups: 61% of MAC patients versus 58% of RIC/NMA patients (P = .21), but further analysis showed that MAC was in fact associated with some relatively increased risks. For instance, patients in the MAC group tended to develop infections sooner than patients treated with RIC/NMA (21 vs. 15 days), and more patients treated with MAC had at least one bacterial infection by day 100 (46% vs. 37%).

Although the proportion of patients developing at least one viral infection was slightly lower in the MAC group than the RIC/NMA group (34% vs. 39%), overall infection density was higher, which takes into account multiple infections.

The increased bacterial infections after MAC were caused by gram-positive bacteria, while the increased viral infections with RIC/NMA were caused by cytomegalovirus, the investigators reported.

“RIC/NMA alloHCT is associated with a decreased risk of any infection and particularly early bacterial infections,” the investigators wrote. “The risk of viral and fungal infections per days at risk is similar.”

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by grants from the U.S. government and several pharmaceutical companies. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ustun C et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Sep 10;3(17):2525-36.

For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in need of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) offers a lower risk of infection than myeloablative conditioning (MAC), based on a retrospective study involving more than 1,700 patients.

OlegMalyshev/Getty Images

Within 100 days of treatment, patients who underwent MAC were significantly more likely to develop a bacterial infection, and develop it at an earlier date, than patients who had undergone RIC/NMA, reported lead author Celalettin Ustun, MD, of Rush University in Chicago, and colleagues.

“The incidence of infections, a common and often severe complication of alloHCT, is expected to be lower after RIC/NMA compared with MAC and thus contribute to the decreased [nonrelapse mortality],” the investigators wrote in Blood Advances, noting that this hypothesis has previously lacked supporting data, prompting the present study.

The retrospective analysis involved 1,755 patients with AML who were in first complete remission. Data were drawn from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The primary end point was incidence of infection within 100 days after T-cell replete alloHCT in patients receiving MAC (n = 978) versus those who underwent RIC/NMA (n = 777). Secondary end points included comparisons of infection types and infection density.

Patients who received RIC/NMA were generally older and more likely to have myelodysplastic syndrome than patients in the MAC group; the groups were otherwise similar, based on comorbidities, cytogenetic risks, and Karnofsky performance scores.

The proportion of patients who developed at least one infection was comparable between groups: 61% of MAC patients versus 58% of RIC/NMA patients (P = .21), but further analysis showed that MAC was in fact associated with some relatively increased risks. For instance, patients in the MAC group tended to develop infections sooner than patients treated with RIC/NMA (21 vs. 15 days), and more patients treated with MAC had at least one bacterial infection by day 100 (46% vs. 37%).

Although the proportion of patients developing at least one viral infection was slightly lower in the MAC group than the RIC/NMA group (34% vs. 39%), overall infection density was higher, which takes into account multiple infections.

The increased bacterial infections after MAC were caused by gram-positive bacteria, while the increased viral infections with RIC/NMA were caused by cytomegalovirus, the investigators reported.

“RIC/NMA alloHCT is associated with a decreased risk of any infection and particularly early bacterial infections,” the investigators wrote. “The risk of viral and fungal infections per days at risk is similar.”

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by grants from the U.S. government and several pharmaceutical companies. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ustun C et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Sep 10;3(17):2525-36.

For patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in need of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) offers a lower risk of infection than myeloablative conditioning (MAC), based on a retrospective study involving more than 1,700 patients.

OlegMalyshev/Getty Images

Within 100 days of treatment, patients who underwent MAC were significantly more likely to develop a bacterial infection, and develop it at an earlier date, than patients who had undergone RIC/NMA, reported lead author Celalettin Ustun, MD, of Rush University in Chicago, and colleagues.

“The incidence of infections, a common and often severe complication of alloHCT, is expected to be lower after RIC/NMA compared with MAC and thus contribute to the decreased [nonrelapse mortality],” the investigators wrote in Blood Advances, noting that this hypothesis has previously lacked supporting data, prompting the present study.

The retrospective analysis involved 1,755 patients with AML who were in first complete remission. Data were drawn from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The primary end point was incidence of infection within 100 days after T-cell replete alloHCT in patients receiving MAC (n = 978) versus those who underwent RIC/NMA (n = 777). Secondary end points included comparisons of infection types and infection density.

Patients who received RIC/NMA were generally older and more likely to have myelodysplastic syndrome than patients in the MAC group; the groups were otherwise similar, based on comorbidities, cytogenetic risks, and Karnofsky performance scores.

The proportion of patients who developed at least one infection was comparable between groups: 61% of MAC patients versus 58% of RIC/NMA patients (P = .21), but further analysis showed that MAC was in fact associated with some relatively increased risks. For instance, patients in the MAC group tended to develop infections sooner than patients treated with RIC/NMA (21 vs. 15 days), and more patients treated with MAC had at least one bacterial infection by day 100 (46% vs. 37%).

Although the proportion of patients developing at least one viral infection was slightly lower in the MAC group than the RIC/NMA group (34% vs. 39%), overall infection density was higher, which takes into account multiple infections.

The increased bacterial infections after MAC were caused by gram-positive bacteria, while the increased viral infections with RIC/NMA were caused by cytomegalovirus, the investigators reported.

“RIC/NMA alloHCT is associated with a decreased risk of any infection and particularly early bacterial infections,” the investigators wrote. “The risk of viral and fungal infections per days at risk is similar.”

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research is supported by grants from the U.S. government and several pharmaceutical companies. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ustun C et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Sep 10;3(17):2525-36.

Researchers have characterized the clinical presentation, progression, and prognosis of leukemia cutis in a pediatric population, according to findings from a retrospective case series.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest reported case series of pediatric leukemia cutis,” wrote Elena Corina Andriescu of the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues. The results were published in Pediatric Dermatology.

The study included 31 children with histologically confirmed leukemia cutis at one of two pediatric institutions. The researchers reviewed medical records to distinguish common features among patients.

Various clinical data, including disease subtype, related symptoms, management, and prognosis, were collected from January 1993 to March 2014. The children in the case series ranged in age up to 19 years with a median age at diagnosis of 26.8 months.

After analysis, the researchers reported that the magnitude and morphology of disease lesions differed among pediatric patients, with the most common sites being the lower extremities and head. The most common morphologies were nodules and papules. Additionally, the researchers found that lesions were often erythematous, violaceous, or both colors.

The majority of patients (65%) presented with concomitant systemic leukemia and leukemia cutis. The most common types of leukemia associated with the skin condition were acute myeloid leukemia (in 74% of cases) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (in 16% of cases). The researchers saw no significant differences in leukemia cutis morphology or distribution based on the leukemia diagnosis.

“Most cases of leukemia cutis arose during initial leukemia episodes, rather than with relapsed leukemia,” they added.

Because of an insufficiency of specific genetic data, investigators were unable to make prognostic inferences in the majority of participants.

Two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and retrospective design. As a result, the investigators were unable to prospectively classify skin findings in a systematic manner. Despite these limitations, the authors noted that these findings add to the present knowledge of leukemia cutis in pediatric patients.

“Importantly, the presence of [leukemia cutis] changed the management of systemic leukemia in one‐third of patients,” the researchers wrote. “The potential for major changes in treatment plans such as adding radiation therapy and deferring hematopoietic stem cell transplantation underscores the importance of diagnosing [leukemia cutis].”

No funding sources were reported. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Andriescu EC et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1111/pde.13864.

Researchers have characterized the clinical presentation, progression, and prognosis of leukemia cutis in a pediatric population, according to findings from a retrospective case series.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest reported case series of pediatric leukemia cutis,” wrote Elena Corina Andriescu of the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues. The results were published in Pediatric Dermatology.

The study included 31 children with histologically confirmed leukemia cutis at one of two pediatric institutions. The researchers reviewed medical records to distinguish common features among patients.

Various clinical data, including disease subtype, related symptoms, management, and prognosis, were collected from January 1993 to March 2014. The children in the case series ranged in age up to 19 years with a median age at diagnosis of 26.8 months.

After analysis, the researchers reported that the magnitude and morphology of disease lesions differed among pediatric patients, with the most common sites being the lower extremities and head. The most common morphologies were nodules and papules. Additionally, the researchers found that lesions were often erythematous, violaceous, or both colors.

The majority of patients (65%) presented with concomitant systemic leukemia and leukemia cutis. The most common types of leukemia associated with the skin condition were acute myeloid leukemia (in 74% of cases) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (in 16% of cases). The researchers saw no significant differences in leukemia cutis morphology or distribution based on the leukemia diagnosis.

“Most cases of leukemia cutis arose during initial leukemia episodes, rather than with relapsed leukemia,” they added.

Because of an insufficiency of specific genetic data, investigators were unable to make prognostic inferences in the majority of participants.

Two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and retrospective design. As a result, the investigators were unable to prospectively classify skin findings in a systematic manner. Despite these limitations, the authors noted that these findings add to the present knowledge of leukemia cutis in pediatric patients.

“Importantly, the presence of [leukemia cutis] changed the management of systemic leukemia in one‐third of patients,” the researchers wrote. “The potential for major changes in treatment plans such as adding radiation therapy and deferring hematopoietic stem cell transplantation underscores the importance of diagnosing [leukemia cutis].”

No funding sources were reported. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Andriescu EC et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1111/pde.13864.

Researchers have characterized the clinical presentation, progression, and prognosis of leukemia cutis in a pediatric population, according to findings from a retrospective case series.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest reported case series of pediatric leukemia cutis,” wrote Elena Corina Andriescu of the University of Texas, Houston, and colleagues. The results were published in Pediatric Dermatology.

The study included 31 children with histologically confirmed leukemia cutis at one of two pediatric institutions. The researchers reviewed medical records to distinguish common features among patients.

Various clinical data, including disease subtype, related symptoms, management, and prognosis, were collected from January 1993 to March 2014. The children in the case series ranged in age up to 19 years with a median age at diagnosis of 26.8 months.

After analysis, the researchers reported that the magnitude and morphology of disease lesions differed among pediatric patients, with the most common sites being the lower extremities and head. The most common morphologies were nodules and papules. Additionally, the researchers found that lesions were often erythematous, violaceous, or both colors.

The majority of patients (65%) presented with concomitant systemic leukemia and leukemia cutis. The most common types of leukemia associated with the skin condition were acute myeloid leukemia (in 74% of cases) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (in 16% of cases). The researchers saw no significant differences in leukemia cutis morphology or distribution based on the leukemia diagnosis.

“Most cases of leukemia cutis arose during initial leukemia episodes, rather than with relapsed leukemia,” they added.

Because of an insufficiency of specific genetic data, investigators were unable to make prognostic inferences in the majority of participants.

Two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and retrospective design. As a result, the investigators were unable to prospectively classify skin findings in a systematic manner. Despite these limitations, the authors noted that these findings add to the present knowledge of leukemia cutis in pediatric patients.

“Importantly, the presence of [leukemia cutis] changed the management of systemic leukemia in one‐third of patients,” the researchers wrote. “The potential for major changes in treatment plans such as adding radiation therapy and deferring hematopoietic stem cell transplantation underscores the importance of diagnosing [leukemia cutis].”

No funding sources were reported. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Andriescu EC et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1111/pde.13864.

AMSTERDAM – For patients with FLT3-mutated, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML), gilteritinib (Xospata) offers better median overall survival than salvage chemotherapy, according to results from the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial.

Patients treated with gilteritinib also more often responded to therapy and entered remission, reported lead author Alexander Perl, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

To overcome resistance mechanisms to existing FLT3 inhibitors, drug developers have been seeking agents with activity against both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-TKD mutations, Dr. Perl explained during his presentation at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. “Gilteritinib is one of these agents,” he said, noting a unique mechanism of action that also may limit toxicity concerns associated with existing FLT3 inhibitors.

The international ADMIRAL trial involved 371 patients with FLT3-mutated AML who had not responded to induction therapy or were untreated after first relapse.

The population was randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either gilteritinib 120 mg/day or one of four salvage chemotherapy regimens: azacitidine (AZA), low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC), mitoxantrone/etoposide/cytarabine (MEC), or fludarabine/cytarabine/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor/idarubicin (FLAG-IDA).

Coprimary endpoints were overall survival and the combined rate of complete remission and complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CR/CRh). Secondary endpoints were complete remission rate and event-free survival.

Demographic data showed that the median patient age was 62 years with a broad range (19-85 years). Most patients were positive for FLT3-ITD (88.4%), while fewer tested positive for FLT3-TKD (8.4%) or both mutations (1.9%). Relapsed AML was more common than refractory disease (60.6% vs. 39.4%).

The efficacy analysis revealed that patients treated with gilteritinib had a median overall survival of 9.3 months, significantly longer than the 5.6 months among those treated with salvage chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death = 0.637; P = .0007). The 1-year survival rate was 37.1% for the gilteritinib group, compared with 16.7% among those who received chemotherapy.

The superiority of gilteritinib was further supported by twofold higher rates of CR/CRh (34.0% vs. 15.3%) and complete remission (21.1% vs. 10.5%). Similarly, median event-free survival was significantly longer in the gilteritinib group (2.8 vs. 0.7 months). Most subgroups, such as age and sex, showed consistent benefit.

Overall, gilteritinib demonstrated a favorable safety profile. After adjusting for exposure duration, serious treatment related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy group than the gilteritinib group (9.2% vs. 7.1%). Common grade 3 or higher adverse events related to gilteritinib were anemia (19.5%), febrile neutropenia (15.4%), thrombocytopenia (12.2%), and decreased platelet count (12.2%).

“We were able to give [gilteritinib] in an outpatient setting,” Dr. Perl said.

Although comparisons between responses based on mutation type were not possible, owing to small sample sizes, Dr. Perl highlighted that gilteritinib showed activity against both FLT3 mutation subtypes.

“This drug has been approved on the results of this study,” Dr. Perl said. “Because of this, we have a new standard of care for this population.”

The study was funded by Astellas. The investigators reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bayer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Perl A et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S876.

AMSTERDAM – For patients with FLT3-mutated, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML), gilteritinib (Xospata) offers better median overall survival than salvage chemotherapy, according to results from the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial.

Patients treated with gilteritinib also more often responded to therapy and entered remission, reported lead author Alexander Perl, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

To overcome resistance mechanisms to existing FLT3 inhibitors, drug developers have been seeking agents with activity against both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-TKD mutations, Dr. Perl explained during his presentation at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. “Gilteritinib is one of these agents,” he said, noting a unique mechanism of action that also may limit toxicity concerns associated with existing FLT3 inhibitors.

The international ADMIRAL trial involved 371 patients with FLT3-mutated AML who had not responded to induction therapy or were untreated after first relapse.

The population was randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either gilteritinib 120 mg/day or one of four salvage chemotherapy regimens: azacitidine (AZA), low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC), mitoxantrone/etoposide/cytarabine (MEC), or fludarabine/cytarabine/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor/idarubicin (FLAG-IDA).

Coprimary endpoints were overall survival and the combined rate of complete remission and complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CR/CRh). Secondary endpoints were complete remission rate and event-free survival.

Demographic data showed that the median patient age was 62 years with a broad range (19-85 years). Most patients were positive for FLT3-ITD (88.4%), while fewer tested positive for FLT3-TKD (8.4%) or both mutations (1.9%). Relapsed AML was more common than refractory disease (60.6% vs. 39.4%).

The efficacy analysis revealed that patients treated with gilteritinib had a median overall survival of 9.3 months, significantly longer than the 5.6 months among those treated with salvage chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death = 0.637; P = .0007). The 1-year survival rate was 37.1% for the gilteritinib group, compared with 16.7% among those who received chemotherapy.

The superiority of gilteritinib was further supported by twofold higher rates of CR/CRh (34.0% vs. 15.3%) and complete remission (21.1% vs. 10.5%). Similarly, median event-free survival was significantly longer in the gilteritinib group (2.8 vs. 0.7 months). Most subgroups, such as age and sex, showed consistent benefit.

Overall, gilteritinib demonstrated a favorable safety profile. After adjusting for exposure duration, serious treatment related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy group than the gilteritinib group (9.2% vs. 7.1%). Common grade 3 or higher adverse events related to gilteritinib were anemia (19.5%), febrile neutropenia (15.4%), thrombocytopenia (12.2%), and decreased platelet count (12.2%).

“We were able to give [gilteritinib] in an outpatient setting,” Dr. Perl said.

Although comparisons between responses based on mutation type were not possible, owing to small sample sizes, Dr. Perl highlighted that gilteritinib showed activity against both FLT3 mutation subtypes.

“This drug has been approved on the results of this study,” Dr. Perl said. “Because of this, we have a new standard of care for this population.”

The study was funded by Astellas. The investigators reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bayer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Perl A et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S876.

AMSTERDAM – For patients with FLT3-mutated, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML), gilteritinib (Xospata) offers better median overall survival than salvage chemotherapy, according to results from the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial.

Patients treated with gilteritinib also more often responded to therapy and entered remission, reported lead author Alexander Perl, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

To overcome resistance mechanisms to existing FLT3 inhibitors, drug developers have been seeking agents with activity against both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-TKD mutations, Dr. Perl explained during his presentation at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. “Gilteritinib is one of these agents,” he said, noting a unique mechanism of action that also may limit toxicity concerns associated with existing FLT3 inhibitors.

The international ADMIRAL trial involved 371 patients with FLT3-mutated AML who had not responded to induction therapy or were untreated after first relapse.

The population was randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either gilteritinib 120 mg/day or one of four salvage chemotherapy regimens: azacitidine (AZA), low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC), mitoxantrone/etoposide/cytarabine (MEC), or fludarabine/cytarabine/granulocyte colony-stimulating factor/idarubicin (FLAG-IDA).

Coprimary endpoints were overall survival and the combined rate of complete remission and complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CR/CRh). Secondary endpoints were complete remission rate and event-free survival.

Demographic data showed that the median patient age was 62 years with a broad range (19-85 years). Most patients were positive for FLT3-ITD (88.4%), while fewer tested positive for FLT3-TKD (8.4%) or both mutations (1.9%). Relapsed AML was more common than refractory disease (60.6% vs. 39.4%).

The efficacy analysis revealed that patients treated with gilteritinib had a median overall survival of 9.3 months, significantly longer than the 5.6 months among those treated with salvage chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death = 0.637; P = .0007). The 1-year survival rate was 37.1% for the gilteritinib group, compared with 16.7% among those who received chemotherapy.

The superiority of gilteritinib was further supported by twofold higher rates of CR/CRh (34.0% vs. 15.3%) and complete remission (21.1% vs. 10.5%). Similarly, median event-free survival was significantly longer in the gilteritinib group (2.8 vs. 0.7 months). Most subgroups, such as age and sex, showed consistent benefit.

Overall, gilteritinib demonstrated a favorable safety profile. After adjusting for exposure duration, serious treatment related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy group than the gilteritinib group (9.2% vs. 7.1%). Common grade 3 or higher adverse events related to gilteritinib were anemia (19.5%), febrile neutropenia (15.4%), thrombocytopenia (12.2%), and decreased platelet count (12.2%).

“We were able to give [gilteritinib] in an outpatient setting,” Dr. Perl said.

Although comparisons between responses based on mutation type were not possible, owing to small sample sizes, Dr. Perl highlighted that gilteritinib showed activity against both FLT3 mutation subtypes.

“This drug has been approved on the results of this study,” Dr. Perl said. “Because of this, we have a new standard of care for this population.”

The study was funded by Astellas. The investigators reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bayer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Perl A et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S876.

AMSTERDAM – For treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for chemotherapy, guadecitabine offers similar efficacy to other standard treatment options until four cycles are administered, after which guadecitabine offers a slight survival advantage, based on results from the phase 3 ASTRAL-1 trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Complete responders also derived greater benefit from guadecitabine, a new hypomethylating agent, reported lead author Pierre Fenaux, MD, PhD, of the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris.

With 815 patients, ASTRAL-1 was the largest global, randomized trial to compare low-intensity therapy options in this elderly, unfit population – specifically, patients who were at least 75 years old or had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 3 or more, Dr. Fenaux said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive guadecitabine or one of three other treatment options: azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were complete response rate and median overall survival. Safety measures were also investigated.

A demographic analysis showed that almost two-thirds of patients were at least 75 years old (62%), and about half had an ECOG status of 2 or 3, or bone marrow blasts. Approximately one-third of patients had poor-risk cytogenetics and a slightly higher proportion had secondary AML.

After a median follow-up of 25.5 months, patients had received, on average, five cycles of therapy. However, many patients (42%) received three or fewer cycles because of early death or disease progression. This therapy cessation rate was similar between the guadecitabine group (42.4%) and the other treatment group (40.8%).

The study failed to meet either coprimary endpoint across the entire patient population. Median overall survival was 7.10 months for guadecitabine versus 8.47 months for the other treatments, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .73). Similarly, the complete response rate was slightly higher for guadecitabine (19.4% vs. 17.4%), but again, this finding carried a nonsignificant P value (P = .48).

The benefit offered by guadecitabine was realized only with extended treatment and in complete responders.

Patients who received a minimum of four cycles of guadecitabine had a median overall survival of 15.6 months, compared with 13.0 months for other treatments (P = .02). This benefit became more pronounced in those who received at least six cycles, which was associated with median overall survival of 19.5 months versus 14.9 months (P = .002). Complete responders also had extended survival when treated with guadecitabine, although this benefit was of a lesser magnitude (22.6 vs. 20.6 months; P = .07).

Most subgroup analyses, accounting for various clinical and genetic factors, showed no significant differences in primary outcomes between treatment arms, with one exception: TP53 mutations were associated with poor responses to guadecitabine, and a lack of the TP53 mutation predicted better responses to guadecitabine.

Adverse events were common, although most measures were not significantly different between treatment arms. For example, serious adverse events occurred in 81% and 75.5% of patients treated with guadecitabine and other options, respectively, while grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 91.5% of guadecitabine patients and 87.5% of patients treated with other options, but neither difference was statistically significant.

Adverse events leading to death occurred in 28.7% of patients treated with guadecitabine versus 29.8% of other patients, a nonsignificant difference. In contrast, Dr. Fenaux noted that patients treated with guadecitabine were significantly more likely to develop febrile neutropenia (33.9% vs. 26.5%), neutropenia (27.4% vs. 20.7%), and pneumonia (29.4% vs. 19.6%).

“In those patients [that received at least four cycles], there seemed to be some advantage of guadecitabine, which needs to be further explored,” Dr. Fenaux said. “But at least [this finding] suggests once more that for a hypomethylating agent to be efficacious, it requires a certain number of cycles, and whenever possible, at least 6 cycles to have full efficacy.”

The study was funded by Astex and Otsuka. The investigators reported additional relationships with Celgene, Janssen, and other companies.

SOURCE: Fenaux P et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S879.

AMSTERDAM – For treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for chemotherapy, guadecitabine offers similar efficacy to other standard treatment options until four cycles are administered, after which guadecitabine offers a slight survival advantage, based on results from the phase 3 ASTRAL-1 trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Complete responders also derived greater benefit from guadecitabine, a new hypomethylating agent, reported lead author Pierre Fenaux, MD, PhD, of the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris.

With 815 patients, ASTRAL-1 was the largest global, randomized trial to compare low-intensity therapy options in this elderly, unfit population – specifically, patients who were at least 75 years old or had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 3 or more, Dr. Fenaux said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive guadecitabine or one of three other treatment options: azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were complete response rate and median overall survival. Safety measures were also investigated.

A demographic analysis showed that almost two-thirds of patients were at least 75 years old (62%), and about half had an ECOG status of 2 or 3, or bone marrow blasts. Approximately one-third of patients had poor-risk cytogenetics and a slightly higher proportion had secondary AML.

After a median follow-up of 25.5 months, patients had received, on average, five cycles of therapy. However, many patients (42%) received three or fewer cycles because of early death or disease progression. This therapy cessation rate was similar between the guadecitabine group (42.4%) and the other treatment group (40.8%).

The study failed to meet either coprimary endpoint across the entire patient population. Median overall survival was 7.10 months for guadecitabine versus 8.47 months for the other treatments, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .73). Similarly, the complete response rate was slightly higher for guadecitabine (19.4% vs. 17.4%), but again, this finding carried a nonsignificant P value (P = .48).

The benefit offered by guadecitabine was realized only with extended treatment and in complete responders.

Patients who received a minimum of four cycles of guadecitabine had a median overall survival of 15.6 months, compared with 13.0 months for other treatments (P = .02). This benefit became more pronounced in those who received at least six cycles, which was associated with median overall survival of 19.5 months versus 14.9 months (P = .002). Complete responders also had extended survival when treated with guadecitabine, although this benefit was of a lesser magnitude (22.6 vs. 20.6 months; P = .07).

Most subgroup analyses, accounting for various clinical and genetic factors, showed no significant differences in primary outcomes between treatment arms, with one exception: TP53 mutations were associated with poor responses to guadecitabine, and a lack of the TP53 mutation predicted better responses to guadecitabine.

Adverse events were common, although most measures were not significantly different between treatment arms. For example, serious adverse events occurred in 81% and 75.5% of patients treated with guadecitabine and other options, respectively, while grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 91.5% of guadecitabine patients and 87.5% of patients treated with other options, but neither difference was statistically significant.

Adverse events leading to death occurred in 28.7% of patients treated with guadecitabine versus 29.8% of other patients, a nonsignificant difference. In contrast, Dr. Fenaux noted that patients treated with guadecitabine were significantly more likely to develop febrile neutropenia (33.9% vs. 26.5%), neutropenia (27.4% vs. 20.7%), and pneumonia (29.4% vs. 19.6%).

“In those patients [that received at least four cycles], there seemed to be some advantage of guadecitabine, which needs to be further explored,” Dr. Fenaux said. “But at least [this finding] suggests once more that for a hypomethylating agent to be efficacious, it requires a certain number of cycles, and whenever possible, at least 6 cycles to have full efficacy.”

The study was funded by Astex and Otsuka. The investigators reported additional relationships with Celgene, Janssen, and other companies.

SOURCE: Fenaux P et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S879.

AMSTERDAM – For treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for chemotherapy, guadecitabine offers similar efficacy to other standard treatment options until four cycles are administered, after which guadecitabine offers a slight survival advantage, based on results from the phase 3 ASTRAL-1 trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Complete responders also derived greater benefit from guadecitabine, a new hypomethylating agent, reported lead author Pierre Fenaux, MD, PhD, of the Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris.

With 815 patients, ASTRAL-1 was the largest global, randomized trial to compare low-intensity therapy options in this elderly, unfit population – specifically, patients who were at least 75 years old or had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 3 or more, Dr. Fenaux said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive guadecitabine or one of three other treatment options: azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were complete response rate and median overall survival. Safety measures were also investigated.

A demographic analysis showed that almost two-thirds of patients were at least 75 years old (62%), and about half had an ECOG status of 2 or 3, or bone marrow blasts. Approximately one-third of patients had poor-risk cytogenetics and a slightly higher proportion had secondary AML.

After a median follow-up of 25.5 months, patients had received, on average, five cycles of therapy. However, many patients (42%) received three or fewer cycles because of early death or disease progression. This therapy cessation rate was similar between the guadecitabine group (42.4%) and the other treatment group (40.8%).

The study failed to meet either coprimary endpoint across the entire patient population. Median overall survival was 7.10 months for guadecitabine versus 8.47 months for the other treatments, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .73). Similarly, the complete response rate was slightly higher for guadecitabine (19.4% vs. 17.4%), but again, this finding carried a nonsignificant P value (P = .48).

The benefit offered by guadecitabine was realized only with extended treatment and in complete responders.

Patients who received a minimum of four cycles of guadecitabine had a median overall survival of 15.6 months, compared with 13.0 months for other treatments (P = .02). This benefit became more pronounced in those who received at least six cycles, which was associated with median overall survival of 19.5 months versus 14.9 months (P = .002). Complete responders also had extended survival when treated with guadecitabine, although this benefit was of a lesser magnitude (22.6 vs. 20.6 months; P = .07).

Most subgroup analyses, accounting for various clinical and genetic factors, showed no significant differences in primary outcomes between treatment arms, with one exception: TP53 mutations were associated with poor responses to guadecitabine, and a lack of the TP53 mutation predicted better responses to guadecitabine.

Adverse events were common, although most measures were not significantly different between treatment arms. For example, serious adverse events occurred in 81% and 75.5% of patients treated with guadecitabine and other options, respectively, while grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 91.5% of guadecitabine patients and 87.5% of patients treated with other options, but neither difference was statistically significant.

Adverse events leading to death occurred in 28.7% of patients treated with guadecitabine versus 29.8% of other patients, a nonsignificant difference. In contrast, Dr. Fenaux noted that patients treated with guadecitabine were significantly more likely to develop febrile neutropenia (33.9% vs. 26.5%), neutropenia (27.4% vs. 20.7%), and pneumonia (29.4% vs. 19.6%).

“In those patients [that received at least four cycles], there seemed to be some advantage of guadecitabine, which needs to be further explored,” Dr. Fenaux said. “But at least [this finding] suggests once more that for a hypomethylating agent to be efficacious, it requires a certain number of cycles, and whenever possible, at least 6 cycles to have full efficacy.”

The study was funded by Astex and Otsuka. The investigators reported additional relationships with Celgene, Janssen, and other companies.

SOURCE: Fenaux P et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S879.

AMSTERDAM – A new clinical prediction model can determine the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with leukemia, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The scoring system, which incorporates historical, morphological, and cytologic factors, was internally validated at multiple time points over the course of a year, reported lead author, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.

“It is important that we can predict or anticipate which patients [with acute leukemia] will develop venous thrombosis so that we can develop preventions and aim for better surveillance strategies,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk modeling is available for patients with solid tumors, but a similar prognostic tool for leukemia patients has been missing.

To fill this practice gap, Dr. Lazo-Langner and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 501 patients with acute leukemia who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Of these patients, 427 (85.2%) had myeloid lineage and 74 (14.8%) had lymphoblastic disease. VTE outcomes of interest included proximal lower- and upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; and thrombosis of unusual sites, such as splanchnic and cerebral. Patients were followed until last follow-up, VTE, or death. Single variable and multiple variable logistic regression were used sequentially to evaluate and confirm potential predictive factors, with nonparametric bootstrapping for internal validation.

After last follow-up, 77 patients (15.3%) had developed VTE; specifically, 44 patients had upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, 28 had lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and 5 had cerebral vein thrombosis. The median time from leukemia diagnosis to VTE was approximately 2 months (64 days). Out of 20 possible predictive factors, 7 were included in the multivariable model, and 3 constitute the final model. These three factors are platelet count greater than 50 x 10⁹/L at time of diagnosis (1 point), lymphoblastic leukemia (2 points), and previous history of venous thromboembolism (3 points).

Dr. Lazo-Langner explained that leukemia patients at high risk of VTE are those with a score of 3 or more points. Using this risk threshold, the investigators found that the overall cumulative incidence of VTE in the high-risk group was 44.0%, compared with 10.5% in the low-risk group. Temporal analysis showed a widening disparity between the two groups, from 3 months (28.8% vs. 6.3%), to 6 months (41.1% vs. 7.9%), and 12 months (42.5% vs. 9.3%).

When asked if treatment type was evaluated, Dr. Lazo-Langner said that treatment type was evaluated but proved unfruitful for the model, which is designed for universal use in leukemia.

“We did include a number of different chemotherapy regimens,” he said. “The problem is, because we included both AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and ALL [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] lineage, and the cornerstone of treatment is different for both lineages. It’s difficult to actually include what kind of chemotherapy [patients had]. For instance, it is known that anthracyclines increase risk of thrombosis, but in both lineages, you use anthracyclines, so you really cannot use that as a predictor.”

Looking to the future, the next step will be validation in other cohorts. If this is successful, then Dr. Lazo-Langner speculated that clinicians could use the scoring system to direct monitoring and treatment. For example, patients with high scores and low platelet counts could receive earlier transfusional support, while all high-risk patients could be placed under more intensive surveillance and given additional education about thrombosis.

“I think recognizing symptoms early is important,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said, “and that would be training not only clinicians, but also nursing personnel and the patients themselves to be aware of the symptoms, so they can actually recognize them sooner.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lazo-Langner is an investigator with the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Trials and Outcomes Research (CanVECTOR) Network.

SOURCE: Lazo-Langner A et al. EHA 2019, Abstract S1642.

AMSTERDAM – A new clinical prediction model can determine the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with leukemia, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The scoring system, which incorporates historical, morphological, and cytologic factors, was internally validated at multiple time points over the course of a year, reported lead author, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.

“It is important that we can predict or anticipate which patients [with acute leukemia] will develop venous thrombosis so that we can develop preventions and aim for better surveillance strategies,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk modeling is available for patients with solid tumors, but a similar prognostic tool for leukemia patients has been missing.

To fill this practice gap, Dr. Lazo-Langner and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 501 patients with acute leukemia who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Of these patients, 427 (85.2%) had myeloid lineage and 74 (14.8%) had lymphoblastic disease. VTE outcomes of interest included proximal lower- and upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; and thrombosis of unusual sites, such as splanchnic and cerebral. Patients were followed until last follow-up, VTE, or death. Single variable and multiple variable logistic regression were used sequentially to evaluate and confirm potential predictive factors, with nonparametric bootstrapping for internal validation.

After last follow-up, 77 patients (15.3%) had developed VTE; specifically, 44 patients had upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, 28 had lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and 5 had cerebral vein thrombosis. The median time from leukemia diagnosis to VTE was approximately 2 months (64 days). Out of 20 possible predictive factors, 7 were included in the multivariable model, and 3 constitute the final model. These three factors are platelet count greater than 50 x 10⁹/L at time of diagnosis (1 point), lymphoblastic leukemia (2 points), and previous history of venous thromboembolism (3 points).

Dr. Lazo-Langner explained that leukemia patients at high risk of VTE are those with a score of 3 or more points. Using this risk threshold, the investigators found that the overall cumulative incidence of VTE in the high-risk group was 44.0%, compared with 10.5% in the low-risk group. Temporal analysis showed a widening disparity between the two groups, from 3 months (28.8% vs. 6.3%), to 6 months (41.1% vs. 7.9%), and 12 months (42.5% vs. 9.3%).

When asked if treatment type was evaluated, Dr. Lazo-Langner said that treatment type was evaluated but proved unfruitful for the model, which is designed for universal use in leukemia.

“We did include a number of different chemotherapy regimens,” he said. “The problem is, because we included both AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and ALL [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] lineage, and the cornerstone of treatment is different for both lineages. It’s difficult to actually include what kind of chemotherapy [patients had]. For instance, it is known that anthracyclines increase risk of thrombosis, but in both lineages, you use anthracyclines, so you really cannot use that as a predictor.”

Looking to the future, the next step will be validation in other cohorts. If this is successful, then Dr. Lazo-Langner speculated that clinicians could use the scoring system to direct monitoring and treatment. For example, patients with high scores and low platelet counts could receive earlier transfusional support, while all high-risk patients could be placed under more intensive surveillance and given additional education about thrombosis.

“I think recognizing symptoms early is important,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said, “and that would be training not only clinicians, but also nursing personnel and the patients themselves to be aware of the symptoms, so they can actually recognize them sooner.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lazo-Langner is an investigator with the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Trials and Outcomes Research (CanVECTOR) Network.

SOURCE: Lazo-Langner A et al. EHA 2019, Abstract S1642.

AMSTERDAM – A new clinical prediction model can determine the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with leukemia, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The scoring system, which incorporates historical, morphological, and cytologic factors, was internally validated at multiple time points over the course of a year, reported lead author, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.

“It is important that we can predict or anticipate which patients [with acute leukemia] will develop venous thrombosis so that we can develop preventions and aim for better surveillance strategies,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk modeling is available for patients with solid tumors, but a similar prognostic tool for leukemia patients has been missing.

To fill this practice gap, Dr. Lazo-Langner and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 501 patients with acute leukemia who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Of these patients, 427 (85.2%) had myeloid lineage and 74 (14.8%) had lymphoblastic disease. VTE outcomes of interest included proximal lower- and upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; and thrombosis of unusual sites, such as splanchnic and cerebral. Patients were followed until last follow-up, VTE, or death. Single variable and multiple variable logistic regression were used sequentially to evaluate and confirm potential predictive factors, with nonparametric bootstrapping for internal validation.

After last follow-up, 77 patients (15.3%) had developed VTE; specifically, 44 patients had upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, 28 had lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and 5 had cerebral vein thrombosis. The median time from leukemia diagnosis to VTE was approximately 2 months (64 days). Out of 20 possible predictive factors, 7 were included in the multivariable model, and 3 constitute the final model. These three factors are platelet count greater than 50 x 10⁹/L at time of diagnosis (1 point), lymphoblastic leukemia (2 points), and previous history of venous thromboembolism (3 points).

Dr. Lazo-Langner explained that leukemia patients at high risk of VTE are those with a score of 3 or more points. Using this risk threshold, the investigators found that the overall cumulative incidence of VTE in the high-risk group was 44.0%, compared with 10.5% in the low-risk group. Temporal analysis showed a widening disparity between the two groups, from 3 months (28.8% vs. 6.3%), to 6 months (41.1% vs. 7.9%), and 12 months (42.5% vs. 9.3%).

When asked if treatment type was evaluated, Dr. Lazo-Langner said that treatment type was evaluated but proved unfruitful for the model, which is designed for universal use in leukemia.

“We did include a number of different chemotherapy regimens,” he said. “The problem is, because we included both AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and ALL [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] lineage, and the cornerstone of treatment is different for both lineages. It’s difficult to actually include what kind of chemotherapy [patients had]. For instance, it is known that anthracyclines increase risk of thrombosis, but in both lineages, you use anthracyclines, so you really cannot use that as a predictor.”

Looking to the future, the next step will be validation in other cohorts. If this is successful, then Dr. Lazo-Langner speculated that clinicians could use the scoring system to direct monitoring and treatment. For example, patients with high scores and low platelet counts could receive earlier transfusional support, while all high-risk patients could be placed under more intensive surveillance and given additional education about thrombosis.

“I think recognizing symptoms early is important,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said, “and that would be training not only clinicians, but also nursing personnel and the patients themselves to be aware of the symptoms, so they can actually recognize them sooner.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lazo-Langner is an investigator with the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Trials and Outcomes Research (CanVECTOR) Network.

SOURCE: Lazo-Langner A et al. EHA 2019, Abstract S1642.

AMSTERDAM – Patients with acute myeloid leukemia who were in morphological complete remission prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant but had genomic evidence of a lingering AML variant had worse posttransplant outcomes when they underwent reduced-intensity conditioning, rather than myeloablative conditioning, investigators reported.

Among adults with AML in remission after induction therapy who were randomized in a clinical trial to either reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) or myeloablative conditioning prior to transplant, those with known AML variants detected with ultra-deep genomic sequencing who underwent RIC had significantly greater risk for relapse, decreased disease-free survival (DFS), and worse overall survival (OS), compared with similar patients who underwent myeloablative conditioning (MAC), reported Christopher S. Hourigan, DM, DPhil, of the Laboratory of Myeloid Malignancies at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md.

The findings suggest that those patients with pretransplant AML variants who can tolerate MAC should get it, and that investigators need to find new options for patients who can’t, he said in an interview at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“If I wasn’t a lab investigator and was a clinical trialist, I would be very excited about doing some randomized trials now to try see about novel targeted agents. For example, we have FLT3 inhibitors, we have IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors, and I would be looking to try to combine reduced-intensity conditioning with additional therapy to try to lower the relapse rate for that group at the highest risk,” he said.

Previous studies have shown that, regardless of the method used – flow cytometry, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or next-generation sequencing – minimal residual disease (MRD) detected in patients with AML in complete remission prior to transplant is associated with both cumulative incidence of relapse and worse overall survival.
 

Measurable, not minimal

Dr. Hourigan contends that the word “minimal” – the “M” in “MRD” – is a misnomer and should be replaced by the word “measurable,” because MRD really reflects the limitations of disease-detection technology.

“If you tell patients ‘you have minimal residual disease, and you have a huge chance of dying over the next few years,’ there’s nothing minimal about that,” he said.

The fundamental question that Dr. Hourigan and colleagues asked is, “is MRD just useful for predicting prognosis? Is this fate, or can we as doctors do something about it?”

To get answers, they examined whole-blood samples from patients enrolled in the BMT CTN 0901 trial, which compared survival and other outcomes following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (allo-HSCT) with either RIC or MAC for pretransplant conditioning in patients with AML or the myelodysplastic syndrome.

The trial was halted early after just 272 of a planned 356 patients were enrolled, following evidence of a significantly higher relapse rate among patients who had undergone RIC.

“Strikingly, over half the AML patients receiving RIC relapsed within 18 months after getting transplants,” Dr. Hourigan said.
 

Relapse, survival differences

For this substudy, the National Institutes of Health investigators developed a custom 13-gene panel that would detect at least one AML variant in approximately 80% of patients who were included in a previous study of genomic classification and prognosis in AML.

They used ultra-deep genomic sequencing to look for variants in blood samples from 188 patients in BMT CTN 0901. There were no variants detected in the blood of 31% of patients who had undergone MAC or in 33% of those who had undergone RIC.

Among patients who did have detectable variants, the average number of variants per patient was 2.5.

In this cohort, transplant-related mortality (TRM) was higher with MAC at 27% vs. 20% with RIC at 3 years, but there were no differences in TRM within conditioning arms for patients, with or without AML variants.

Relapse rates in the cohort studied by Dr. Hourigan and his colleagues were virtually identical to those seen in the full study set, with an 18-month relapse rate of 16% for patients treated with MAC vs. 51% for those treated with RIC.

Among patients randomized to RIC, 3-year relapse rates were 57% for patients with detectable pretransplant AML variants, compared with 32% for those without variants (P less than .001).

Although there were no significant differences in 3-year OS by variant status among patients assigned to MAC, variant-positive patients assigned to RIC had significantly worse 3-year OS than those without variants (P = .04).

Among patients with no detectable variants, there were no significant differences in OS between the MAC or RIC arms. However, among patients with variants, survival was significantly worse with RIC (P = .02).

In multivariate analysis controlling for disease risk and donor group among patients who tested positive for an AML variant pretransplant, RIC was significantly associated with an increased risk for relapse (hazard ratio, 5.98; P less than .001); decreased DFS (HR, 2.80; P less than .001), and worse OS (HR, 2.16; P = .003).

“This study provides evidence that intervention for AML patients with evidence of MRD can result in improved survival,” Dr. Hourigan said.

Questions that still need to be addressed include whether variants in different genes confer different degrees of relapse risk, whether next-generation sequencing positivity is equivalent to MRD positivity, and whether the 13-gene panel could be improved upon to lower the chance for false negatives, he said.

The study was supported by the NIH. Dr. Hourigan reported research funding from Merck and Sellas Life Sciences AG, research collaboration with Qiagen and Archer, advisory board participation as an NIH official duty for Janssen and Novartis, and part-time employment with the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

SOURCE: Hourigan CS et al. EHA Congress, Abstract LB2600.

AMSTERDAM – Patients with acute myeloid leukemia who were in morphological complete remission prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant but had genomic evidence of a lingering AML variant had worse posttransplant outcomes when they underwent reduced-intensity conditioning, rather than myeloablative conditioning, investigators reported.

Among adults with AML in remission after induction therapy who were randomized in a clinical trial to either reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) or myeloablative conditioning prior to transplant, those with known AML variants detected with ultra-deep genomic sequencing who underwent RIC had significantly greater risk for relapse, decreased disease-free survival (DFS), and worse overall survival (OS), compared with similar patients who underwent myeloablative conditioning (MAC), reported Christopher S. Hourigan, DM, DPhil, of the Laboratory of Myeloid Malignancies at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md.

The findings suggest that those patients with pretransplant AML variants who can tolerate MAC should get it, and that investigators need to find new options for patients who can’t, he said in an interview at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“If I wasn’t a lab investigator and was a clinical trialist, I would be very excited about doing some randomized trials now to try see about novel targeted agents. For example, we have FLT3 inhibitors, we have IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors, and I would be looking to try to combine reduced-intensity conditioning with additional therapy to try to lower the relapse rate for that group at the highest risk,” he said.

Previous studies have shown that, regardless of the method used – flow cytometry, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or next-generation sequencing – minimal residual disease (MRD) detected in patients with AML in complete remission prior to transplant is associated with both cumulative incidence of relapse and worse overall survival.
 

Measurable, not minimal

Dr. Hourigan contends that the word “minimal” – the “M” in “MRD” – is a misnomer and should be replaced by the word “measurable,” because MRD really reflects the limitations of disease-detection technology.

“If you tell patients ‘you have minimal residual disease, and you have a huge chance of dying over the next few years,’ there’s nothing minimal about that,” he said.

The fundamental question that Dr. Hourigan and colleagues asked is, “is MRD just useful for predicting prognosis? Is this fate, or can we as doctors do something about it?”

To get answers, they examined whole-blood samples from patients enrolled in the BMT CTN 0901 trial, which compared survival and other outcomes following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (allo-HSCT) with either RIC or MAC for pretransplant conditioning in patients with AML or the myelodysplastic syndrome.

The trial was halted early after just 272 of a planned 356 patients were enrolled, following evidence of a significantly higher relapse rate among patients who had undergone RIC.

“Strikingly, over half the AML patients receiving RIC relapsed within 18 months after getting transplants,” Dr. Hourigan said.
 

Relapse, survival differences

For this substudy, the National Institutes of Health investigators developed a custom 13-gene panel that would detect at least one AML variant in approximately 80% of patients who were included in a previous study of genomic classification and prognosis in AML.

They used ultra-deep genomic sequencing to look for variants in blood samples from 188 patients in BMT CTN 0901. There were no variants detected in the blood of 31% of patients who had undergone MAC or in 33% of those who had undergone RIC.

Among patients who did have detectable variants, the average number of variants per patient was 2.5.

In this cohort, transplant-related mortality (TRM) was higher with MAC at 27% vs. 20% with RIC at 3 years, but there were no differences in TRM within conditioning arms for patients, with or without AML variants.

Relapse rates in the cohort studied by Dr. Hourigan and his colleagues were virtually identical to those seen in the full study set, with an 18-month relapse rate of 16% for patients treated with MAC vs. 51% for those treated with RIC.

Among patients randomized to RIC, 3-year relapse rates were 57% for patients with detectable pretransplant AML variants, compared with 32% for those without variants (P less than .001).

Although there were no significant differences in 3-year OS by variant status among patients assigned to MAC, variant-positive patients assigned to RIC had significantly worse 3-year OS than those without variants (P = .04).

Among patients with no detectable variants, there were no significant differences in OS between the MAC or RIC arms. However, among patients with variants, survival was significantly worse with RIC (P = .02).

In multivariate analysis controlling for disease risk and donor group among patients who tested positive for an AML variant pretransplant, RIC was significantly associated with an increased risk for relapse (hazard ratio, 5.98; P less than .001); decreased DFS (HR, 2.80; P less than .001), and worse OS (HR, 2.16; P = .003).

“This study provides evidence that intervention for AML patients with evidence of MRD can result in improved survival,” Dr. Hourigan said.

Questions that still need to be addressed include whether variants in different genes confer different degrees of relapse risk, whether next-generation sequencing positivity is equivalent to MRD positivity, and whether the 13-gene panel could be improved upon to lower the chance for false negatives, he said.

The study was supported by the NIH. Dr. Hourigan reported research funding from Merck and Sellas Life Sciences AG, research collaboration with Qiagen and Archer, advisory board participation as an NIH official duty for Janssen and Novartis, and part-time employment with the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

SOURCE: Hourigan CS et al. EHA Congress, Abstract LB2600.

AMSTERDAM – Patients with acute myeloid leukemia who were in morphological complete remission prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant but had genomic evidence of a lingering AML variant had worse posttransplant outcomes when they underwent reduced-intensity conditioning, rather than myeloablative conditioning, investigators reported.

Among adults with AML in remission after induction therapy who were randomized in a clinical trial to either reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) or myeloablative conditioning prior to transplant, those with known AML variants detected with ultra-deep genomic sequencing who underwent RIC had significantly greater risk for relapse, decreased disease-free survival (DFS), and worse overall survival (OS), compared with similar patients who underwent myeloablative conditioning (MAC), reported Christopher S. Hourigan, DM, DPhil, of the Laboratory of Myeloid Malignancies at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md.

The findings suggest that those patients with pretransplant AML variants who can tolerate MAC should get it, and that investigators need to find new options for patients who can’t, he said in an interview at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“If I wasn’t a lab investigator and was a clinical trialist, I would be very excited about doing some randomized trials now to try see about novel targeted agents. For example, we have FLT3 inhibitors, we have IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors, and I would be looking to try to combine reduced-intensity conditioning with additional therapy to try to lower the relapse rate for that group at the highest risk,” he said.

Previous studies have shown that, regardless of the method used – flow cytometry, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or next-generation sequencing – minimal residual disease (MRD) detected in patients with AML in complete remission prior to transplant is associated with both cumulative incidence of relapse and worse overall survival.
 

Measurable, not minimal

Dr. Hourigan contends that the word “minimal” – the “M” in “MRD” – is a misnomer and should be replaced by the word “measurable,” because MRD really reflects the limitations of disease-detection technology.

“If you tell patients ‘you have minimal residual disease, and you have a huge chance of dying over the next few years,’ there’s nothing minimal about that,” he said.

The fundamental question that Dr. Hourigan and colleagues asked is, “is MRD just useful for predicting prognosis? Is this fate, or can we as doctors do something about it?”

To get answers, they examined whole-blood samples from patients enrolled in the BMT CTN 0901 trial, which compared survival and other outcomes following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (allo-HSCT) with either RIC or MAC for pretransplant conditioning in patients with AML or the myelodysplastic syndrome.

The trial was halted early after just 272 of a planned 356 patients were enrolled, following evidence of a significantly higher relapse rate among patients who had undergone RIC.

“Strikingly, over half the AML patients receiving RIC relapsed within 18 months after getting transplants,” Dr. Hourigan said.
 

Relapse, survival differences

For this substudy, the National Institutes of Health investigators developed a custom 13-gene panel that would detect at least one AML variant in approximately 80% of patients who were included in a previous study of genomic classification and prognosis in AML.

They used ultra-deep genomic sequencing to look for variants in blood samples from 188 patients in BMT CTN 0901. There were no variants detected in the blood of 31% of patients who had undergone MAC or in 33% of those who had undergone RIC.

Among patients who did have detectable variants, the average number of variants per patient was 2.5.

In this cohort, transplant-related mortality (TRM) was higher with MAC at 27% vs. 20% with RIC at 3 years, but there were no differences in TRM within conditioning arms for patients, with or without AML variants.

Relapse rates in the cohort studied by Dr. Hourigan and his colleagues were virtually identical to those seen in the full study set, with an 18-month relapse rate of 16% for patients treated with MAC vs. 51% for those treated with RIC.

Among patients randomized to RIC, 3-year relapse rates were 57% for patients with detectable pretransplant AML variants, compared with 32% for those without variants (P less than .001).

Although there were no significant differences in 3-year OS by variant status among patients assigned to MAC, variant-positive patients assigned to RIC had significantly worse 3-year OS than those without variants (P = .04).

Among patients with no detectable variants, there were no significant differences in OS between the MAC or RIC arms. However, among patients with variants, survival was significantly worse with RIC (P = .02).

In multivariate analysis controlling for disease risk and donor group among patients who tested positive for an AML variant pretransplant, RIC was significantly associated with an increased risk for relapse (hazard ratio, 5.98; P less than .001); decreased DFS (HR, 2.80; P less than .001), and worse OS (HR, 2.16; P = .003).

“This study provides evidence that intervention for AML patients with evidence of MRD can result in improved survival,” Dr. Hourigan said.

Questions that still need to be addressed include whether variants in different genes confer different degrees of relapse risk, whether next-generation sequencing positivity is equivalent to MRD positivity, and whether the 13-gene panel could be improved upon to lower the chance for false negatives, he said.

The study was supported by the NIH. Dr. Hourigan reported research funding from Merck and Sellas Life Sciences AG, research collaboration with Qiagen and Archer, advisory board participation as an NIH official duty for Janssen and Novartis, and part-time employment with the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

SOURCE: Hourigan CS et al. EHA Congress, Abstract LB2600.

AMSTERDAM – Patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may be more likely to respond when selinexor is added to standard chemotherapy, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In a recent phase 2 trial, selinexor given with cytarabine and idarubicin led to a 50% overall response rate, reported lead author Walter Fiedler, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). This response rate is at the upper end of what has been seen in published studies, Dr. Fiedler said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

He also noted that giving a flat dose of selinexor improved tolerability in the trial, a significant finding in light of common adverse events and recent concerns from the Food and Drug Administration about the safety of selinexor for patients with multiple myeloma.

“The rationale to employ selinexor in this study is that there is a synergy between anthracyclines and selinexor,” Dr. Fiedler said, which may restore anthracycline sensitivity in relapsed or refractory patients. “Secondly, there is a c-myc reduction pathway that leads to a reduction of DNA damage repair genes such as Rad51 and Chk1, and this might result in inhibition of homologous recombination.”

The study involved 44 patients with relapsed or refractory AML, of whom 17 (39%) had previously received stem cell transplantation and 11 (25%) exhibited therapy-induced or secondary disease. The median patient age was 59.5 years.

Patients were given idarubicin 10 mg/m² on days 1, 3, and 5, and cytarabine 100 mg/m² on days 1-7. Initially, selinexor was given at a dose of 40 mg/m² twice per week for 4 weeks, but this led to high rates of febrile neutropenia and grade 3 or higher diarrhea, along with prolonged aplasia. In response to this issue, after the first 27 patients, the dose was reduced to a flat amount of 60 mg, given twice weekly for 3 weeks.

For patients not undergoing transplantation after the first or second induction cycle, selinexor maintenance monotherapy was offered for up to 1 year.

The primary endpoint was overall remission rate, reported as complete remission, complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, and morphological leukemia-free status. Secondary endpoints included the rate of partial remissions, percentage of patients being transplanted after induction, early death rate, overall survival, event-free survival, and relapse-free survival.

The efficacy analysis revealed an overall response rate of 50%. A total of 9 patients had complete remission (21.4%), 11 achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (26.2%), and 1 exhibited morphological leukemia-free status (2.4%). Of note, almost half of the patients (47%) who had relapsed after previous stem cell transplantation responded, as did three-quarters who tested positive for an NPM1 mutation. After a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the median overall survival was 8.2 months, relapse-free survival was 17.7 months, and event-free survival was 4.9 months.

Adverse events occurred frequently, with a majority of patients experiencing nausea (86%), diarrhea (83%), vomiting (74%), decreased appetite (71%), febrile neutropenia (67%), fatigue (64%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), or anemia (60%).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were almost as common, and included febrile neutropenia (67%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), anemia (57%), and diarrhea (50%). Reducing the dose did improve tolerability, with notable drops in the rate of severe diarrhea (56% vs. 40%) and febrile neutropenia (85% vs. 33%). In total, 19% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

A total of 25 patients (60%) died during the study, with about half dying from disease progression (n = 12), and fewer succumbing to infectious complications, graft-versus-host disease, multiorgan failure, multiple brain infarct, or asystole. Two deaths, one from suspected hemophagocytosis and another from systemic inflammatory response syndrome, were considered possibly related to selinexor.

“The results should be further evaluated in a phase 3 study,” Dr. Fiedler said. However, plans for this are not yet underway, he said, adding that Karyopharm Therapeutics will be focusing its efforts on selinexor for myeloma first.

The study was funded by Karyopharm. Dr. Fielder reported financial relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and other companies.

SOURCE: Fiedler W et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S880.

AMSTERDAM – Patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may be more likely to respond when selinexor is added to standard chemotherapy, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In a recent phase 2 trial, selinexor given with cytarabine and idarubicin led to a 50% overall response rate, reported lead author Walter Fiedler, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). This response rate is at the upper end of what has been seen in published studies, Dr. Fiedler said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

He also noted that giving a flat dose of selinexor improved tolerability in the trial, a significant finding in light of common adverse events and recent concerns from the Food and Drug Administration about the safety of selinexor for patients with multiple myeloma.

“The rationale to employ selinexor in this study is that there is a synergy between anthracyclines and selinexor,” Dr. Fiedler said, which may restore anthracycline sensitivity in relapsed or refractory patients. “Secondly, there is a c-myc reduction pathway that leads to a reduction of DNA damage repair genes such as Rad51 and Chk1, and this might result in inhibition of homologous recombination.”

The study involved 44 patients with relapsed or refractory AML, of whom 17 (39%) had previously received stem cell transplantation and 11 (25%) exhibited therapy-induced or secondary disease. The median patient age was 59.5 years.

Patients were given idarubicin 10 mg/m² on days 1, 3, and 5, and cytarabine 100 mg/m² on days 1-7. Initially, selinexor was given at a dose of 40 mg/m² twice per week for 4 weeks, but this led to high rates of febrile neutropenia and grade 3 or higher diarrhea, along with prolonged aplasia. In response to this issue, after the first 27 patients, the dose was reduced to a flat amount of 60 mg, given twice weekly for 3 weeks.

For patients not undergoing transplantation after the first or second induction cycle, selinexor maintenance monotherapy was offered for up to 1 year.

The primary endpoint was overall remission rate, reported as complete remission, complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, and morphological leukemia-free status. Secondary endpoints included the rate of partial remissions, percentage of patients being transplanted after induction, early death rate, overall survival, event-free survival, and relapse-free survival.

The efficacy analysis revealed an overall response rate of 50%. A total of 9 patients had complete remission (21.4%), 11 achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (26.2%), and 1 exhibited morphological leukemia-free status (2.4%). Of note, almost half of the patients (47%) who had relapsed after previous stem cell transplantation responded, as did three-quarters who tested positive for an NPM1 mutation. After a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the median overall survival was 8.2 months, relapse-free survival was 17.7 months, and event-free survival was 4.9 months.

Adverse events occurred frequently, with a majority of patients experiencing nausea (86%), diarrhea (83%), vomiting (74%), decreased appetite (71%), febrile neutropenia (67%), fatigue (64%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), or anemia (60%).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were almost as common, and included febrile neutropenia (67%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), anemia (57%), and diarrhea (50%). Reducing the dose did improve tolerability, with notable drops in the rate of severe diarrhea (56% vs. 40%) and febrile neutropenia (85% vs. 33%). In total, 19% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

A total of 25 patients (60%) died during the study, with about half dying from disease progression (n = 12), and fewer succumbing to infectious complications, graft-versus-host disease, multiorgan failure, multiple brain infarct, or asystole. Two deaths, one from suspected hemophagocytosis and another from systemic inflammatory response syndrome, were considered possibly related to selinexor.

“The results should be further evaluated in a phase 3 study,” Dr. Fiedler said. However, plans for this are not yet underway, he said, adding that Karyopharm Therapeutics will be focusing its efforts on selinexor for myeloma first.

The study was funded by Karyopharm. Dr. Fielder reported financial relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and other companies.

SOURCE: Fiedler W et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S880.

AMSTERDAM – Patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may be more likely to respond when selinexor is added to standard chemotherapy, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In a recent phase 2 trial, selinexor given with cytarabine and idarubicin led to a 50% overall response rate, reported lead author Walter Fiedler, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). This response rate is at the upper end of what has been seen in published studies, Dr. Fiedler said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

He also noted that giving a flat dose of selinexor improved tolerability in the trial, a significant finding in light of common adverse events and recent concerns from the Food and Drug Administration about the safety of selinexor for patients with multiple myeloma.

“The rationale to employ selinexor in this study is that there is a synergy between anthracyclines and selinexor,” Dr. Fiedler said, which may restore anthracycline sensitivity in relapsed or refractory patients. “Secondly, there is a c-myc reduction pathway that leads to a reduction of DNA damage repair genes such as Rad51 and Chk1, and this might result in inhibition of homologous recombination.”

The study involved 44 patients with relapsed or refractory AML, of whom 17 (39%) had previously received stem cell transplantation and 11 (25%) exhibited therapy-induced or secondary disease. The median patient age was 59.5 years.

Patients were given idarubicin 10 mg/m² on days 1, 3, and 5, and cytarabine 100 mg/m² on days 1-7. Initially, selinexor was given at a dose of 40 mg/m² twice per week for 4 weeks, but this led to high rates of febrile neutropenia and grade 3 or higher diarrhea, along with prolonged aplasia. In response to this issue, after the first 27 patients, the dose was reduced to a flat amount of 60 mg, given twice weekly for 3 weeks.

For patients not undergoing transplantation after the first or second induction cycle, selinexor maintenance monotherapy was offered for up to 1 year.

The primary endpoint was overall remission rate, reported as complete remission, complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, and morphological leukemia-free status. Secondary endpoints included the rate of partial remissions, percentage of patients being transplanted after induction, early death rate, overall survival, event-free survival, and relapse-free survival.

The efficacy analysis revealed an overall response rate of 50%. A total of 9 patients had complete remission (21.4%), 11 achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery (26.2%), and 1 exhibited morphological leukemia-free status (2.4%). Of note, almost half of the patients (47%) who had relapsed after previous stem cell transplantation responded, as did three-quarters who tested positive for an NPM1 mutation. After a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the median overall survival was 8.2 months, relapse-free survival was 17.7 months, and event-free survival was 4.9 months.

Adverse events occurred frequently, with a majority of patients experiencing nausea (86%), diarrhea (83%), vomiting (74%), decreased appetite (71%), febrile neutropenia (67%), fatigue (64%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), or anemia (60%).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were almost as common, and included febrile neutropenia (67%), leukopenia (62%), thrombocytopenia (62%), anemia (57%), and diarrhea (50%). Reducing the dose did improve tolerability, with notable drops in the rate of severe diarrhea (56% vs. 40%) and febrile neutropenia (85% vs. 33%). In total, 19% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

A total of 25 patients (60%) died during the study, with about half dying from disease progression (n = 12), and fewer succumbing to infectious complications, graft-versus-host disease, multiorgan failure, multiple brain infarct, or asystole. Two deaths, one from suspected hemophagocytosis and another from systemic inflammatory response syndrome, were considered possibly related to selinexor.

“The results should be further evaluated in a phase 3 study,” Dr. Fiedler said. However, plans for this are not yet underway, he said, adding that Karyopharm Therapeutics will be focusing its efforts on selinexor for myeloma first.

The study was funded by Karyopharm. Dr. Fielder reported financial relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and other companies.

SOURCE: Fiedler W et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S880.

CHICAGO – A novel antibody against CD47 – the “do not eat me” protein – is well tolerated and active in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to initial results of a phase 1b study.

Combined with azacitidine, the antibody Hu5F9-G4 (5F9) produced an overall response rate of 64% in untreated AML (9 of 14 patients) and 91% in untreated MDS (10 of 11 patients), according to investigator David A. Sallman, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla.

With a median follow-up of 3.8 months, none of those patients had yet progressed on the 5F9/azacitidine combination, Dr. Sallman reported during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A maximum tolerated dose of 5F9 plus the hypomethylating agent was not reached in the study, according to the investigators.

“This was a well-tolerated and safe combination, with encouraging efficacy data in this small cohort that hasn’t been followed for too, too long,” Tara L. Lin, MD, of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, said during a poster discussion session.

“Most interesting is the fact that the combination seems to eliminate the leukemia stem cell population in those patients who respond,” she added.

The fact that 5F9 plus azacitidine eradicated leukemia stem cells in responding patients provides a mechanism for potential long-term durability of response, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.

This first-in-class antibody targets CD47, a “do not eat me” macrophage checkpoint that is overexpressed on tumors, enabling immune invasion, they reported.

However, since CD47 is also expressed on older red blood cells, 5F9 is associated with transient anemia in the first cycle of treatment, Dr. Sallman told attendees at the poster discussion session.

“We do mitigate that with a priming dose of 5F9 that saturates these old red blood cells,” he said. “Over time, going along with the response, the patients have marked hemoglobin improvement, and we do not see worsening of other infection-related complications or cytopenias outside of anemia.”

Based on these results, expansion cohorts have been initiated in both AML and MDS, according to the investigators’ report.

When asked if 5F9 could be tolerable as part of more intensive regimens for fit patients, Dr. Sallman said there are a “whole host of combinations” that may possibly make sense.

“How chemotherapies and other novel agents impact these ‘eat me’ signals – I think some of that needs to be further investigated to come up with the most rational combination,” he said during a question and answer session.

Research funding for the study came from Forty Seven and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Salman reported having no relationships to disclose. Study coauthors reported relationships with Abbvie, Agios, Celgene, Incyte, and Novartis, among other companies.

SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7009.

CHICAGO – A novel antibody against CD47 – the “do not eat me” protein – is well tolerated and active in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to initial results of a phase 1b study.

Combined with azacitidine, the antibody Hu5F9-G4 (5F9) produced an overall response rate of 64% in untreated AML (9 of 14 patients) and 91% in untreated MDS (10 of 11 patients), according to investigator David A. Sallman, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla.

With a median follow-up of 3.8 months, none of those patients had yet progressed on the 5F9/azacitidine combination, Dr. Sallman reported during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A maximum tolerated dose of 5F9 plus the hypomethylating agent was not reached in the study, according to the investigators.

“This was a well-tolerated and safe combination, with encouraging efficacy data in this small cohort that hasn’t been followed for too, too long,” Tara L. Lin, MD, of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, said during a poster discussion session.

“Most interesting is the fact that the combination seems to eliminate the leukemia stem cell population in those patients who respond,” she added.

The fact that 5F9 plus azacitidine eradicated leukemia stem cells in responding patients provides a mechanism for potential long-term durability of response, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.

This first-in-class antibody targets CD47, a “do not eat me” macrophage checkpoint that is overexpressed on tumors, enabling immune invasion, they reported.

However, since CD47 is also expressed on older red blood cells, 5F9 is associated with transient anemia in the first cycle of treatment, Dr. Sallman told attendees at the poster discussion session.

“We do mitigate that with a priming dose of 5F9 that saturates these old red blood cells,” he said. “Over time, going along with the response, the patients have marked hemoglobin improvement, and we do not see worsening of other infection-related complications or cytopenias outside of anemia.”

Based on these results, expansion cohorts have been initiated in both AML and MDS, according to the investigators’ report.

When asked if 5F9 could be tolerable as part of more intensive regimens for fit patients, Dr. Sallman said there are a “whole host of combinations” that may possibly make sense.

“How chemotherapies and other novel agents impact these ‘eat me’ signals – I think some of that needs to be further investigated to come up with the most rational combination,” he said during a question and answer session.

Research funding for the study came from Forty Seven and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Salman reported having no relationships to disclose. Study coauthors reported relationships with Abbvie, Agios, Celgene, Incyte, and Novartis, among other companies.

SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7009.

CHICAGO – A novel antibody against CD47 – the “do not eat me” protein – is well tolerated and active in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to initial results of a phase 1b study.

Combined with azacitidine, the antibody Hu5F9-G4 (5F9) produced an overall response rate of 64% in untreated AML (9 of 14 patients) and 91% in untreated MDS (10 of 11 patients), according to investigator David A. Sallman, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla.

With a median follow-up of 3.8 months, none of those patients had yet progressed on the 5F9/azacitidine combination, Dr. Sallman reported during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A maximum tolerated dose of 5F9 plus the hypomethylating agent was not reached in the study, according to the investigators.

“This was a well-tolerated and safe combination, with encouraging efficacy data in this small cohort that hasn’t been followed for too, too long,” Tara L. Lin, MD, of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, said during a poster discussion session.

“Most interesting is the fact that the combination seems to eliminate the leukemia stem cell population in those patients who respond,” she added.

The fact that 5F9 plus azacitidine eradicated leukemia stem cells in responding patients provides a mechanism for potential long-term durability of response, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.

This first-in-class antibody targets CD47, a “do not eat me” macrophage checkpoint that is overexpressed on tumors, enabling immune invasion, they reported.

However, since CD47 is also expressed on older red blood cells, 5F9 is associated with transient anemia in the first cycle of treatment, Dr. Sallman told attendees at the poster discussion session.

“We do mitigate that with a priming dose of 5F9 that saturates these old red blood cells,” he said. “Over time, going along with the response, the patients have marked hemoglobin improvement, and we do not see worsening of other infection-related complications or cytopenias outside of anemia.”

Based on these results, expansion cohorts have been initiated in both AML and MDS, according to the investigators’ report.

When asked if 5F9 could be tolerable as part of more intensive regimens for fit patients, Dr. Sallman said there are a “whole host of combinations” that may possibly make sense.

“How chemotherapies and other novel agents impact these ‘eat me’ signals – I think some of that needs to be further investigated to come up with the most rational combination,” he said during a question and answer session.

Research funding for the study came from Forty Seven and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Salman reported having no relationships to disclose. Study coauthors reported relationships with Abbvie, Agios, Celgene, Incyte, and Novartis, among other companies.

SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 7009.

CHICAGO – Administering CPX-351 prior to a three-drug regimen produced a high response rate in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first relapse.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

In a phase 1/2 trial, CPX-351 followed by fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim (FLAG) produced an overall response rate of 81%, and 70% of responders had their best response while receiving CPX-351.

“This is the best response rate published in North America for those [pediatric AML patients] in first relapse,” said Todd Cooper, DO, of Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

Dr. Cooper presented results from the phase 1/2 AAML1421 trial (NCT02642965) at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The primary objective of phase 1 was to determine the recommended phase 2 dose and toxicities of CPX-351, a liposomal preparation of cytarabine and daunorubicin. The primary objective of phase 2 was to assess the best response in patients who received CPX-351 in cycle 1 and FLAG in cycle 2.

The trial enrolled 38 AML patients, 6 in the dose-finding phase and 32 in the efficacy phase. The patients’ median age at study entry was 11.91 years (range, 1.81-21.5). Most patients (88.9%) had CNS 1 disease, and most (73.7%) had not received a transplant.

Half of patients had a first complete response (CR) that lasted 180 to 365 days, 13.2% had a first CR lasting less than 180 days, and 36.8% had a first CR lasting more than 1 year.

Dosing and toxicity

During the dose-finding portion of the study, the first dose level of CPX-351 was 135 units/m² on days 1, 3, and 5. There was one dose-limiting toxicity — grade 3 decrease in ejection fraction — so 135 units/m² was deemed the recommended phase 2 dose.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events observed with CPX-351 in cycle 1 were infections and infestations (47.4%), febrile neutropenia (44.7%), maculopapular rash (39.5%), and prolonged QT interval (18.4%).

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events observed with FLAG in cycle 2 were febrile neutropenia (23.1%), prolonged QT interval (23.1%), and infections and infestations (19.2%).

Response and survival

There were 37 patients evaluable for response. The overall response rate was defined as CR plus CR without platelet recovery (CRp) plus CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi).

The overall response rate was 81.1% (n = 30), which included 20 CRs (54.1%), 5 CRps (13.5%), and 5 CRis (13.5%). Five patients had a partial response (13.5%), and two patients had treatment failure (5.4%).

During CPX-351 treatment (n = 37), the CR rate was 37.8% (n = 14), the CRp rate was 5.4% (n = 2), and the CRi rate was 32.4% (n = 12).

During FLAG treatment (n = 27), the CR rate was 48.1% (n = 13), the CRp rate was 25.9% (n = 7), and the CRi rate was 7.4% (n = 2).

Of the 25 patients who achieved a CR or CRp at any time, 21 (84%) were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. Twelve patients were minimal residual disease negative after cycle 1.

Most patients who achieved a CRi or better (83.3%) went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The 2-year overall survival was 47% for all patients and 60% for responders. None of the non-responders were still alive 2 years after therapy.

“The results certainly warrant a phase 3 study of CPX-351,” Dr. Cooper said. “In fact, it is the lead molecule that’s going to be incorporated into the next COG phase 3 study.”

AAML1421 was sponsored by the Children’s Oncology Group in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cooper TM et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 10003.

CHICAGO – Administering CPX-351 prior to a three-drug regimen produced a high response rate in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first relapse.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

In a phase 1/2 trial, CPX-351 followed by fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim (FLAG) produced an overall response rate of 81%, and 70% of responders had their best response while receiving CPX-351.

“This is the best response rate published in North America for those [pediatric AML patients] in first relapse,” said Todd Cooper, DO, of Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

Dr. Cooper presented results from the phase 1/2 AAML1421 trial (NCT02642965) at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The primary objective of phase 1 was to determine the recommended phase 2 dose and toxicities of CPX-351, a liposomal preparation of cytarabine and daunorubicin. The primary objective of phase 2 was to assess the best response in patients who received CPX-351 in cycle 1 and FLAG in cycle 2.

The trial enrolled 38 AML patients, 6 in the dose-finding phase and 32 in the efficacy phase. The patients’ median age at study entry was 11.91 years (range, 1.81-21.5). Most patients (88.9%) had CNS 1 disease, and most (73.7%) had not received a transplant.

Half of patients had a first complete response (CR) that lasted 180 to 365 days, 13.2% had a first CR lasting less than 180 days, and 36.8% had a first CR lasting more than 1 year.

Dosing and toxicity

During the dose-finding portion of the study, the first dose level of CPX-351 was 135 units/m² on days 1, 3, and 5. There was one dose-limiting toxicity — grade 3 decrease in ejection fraction — so 135 units/m² was deemed the recommended phase 2 dose.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events observed with CPX-351 in cycle 1 were infections and infestations (47.4%), febrile neutropenia (44.7%), maculopapular rash (39.5%), and prolonged QT interval (18.4%).

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events observed with FLAG in cycle 2 were febrile neutropenia (23.1%), prolonged QT interval (23.1%), and infections and infestations (19.2%).

Response and survival

There were 37 patients evaluable for response. The overall response rate was defined as CR plus CR without platelet recovery (CRp) plus CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi).

The overall response rate was 81.1% (n = 30), which included 20 CRs (54.1%), 5 CRps (13.5%), and 5 CRis (13.5%). Five patients had a partial response (13.5%), and two patients had treatment failure (5.4%).

During CPX-351 treatment (n = 37), the CR rate was 37.8% (n = 14), the CRp rate was 5.4% (n = 2), and the CRi rate was 32.4% (n = 12).

During FLAG treatment (n = 27), the CR rate was 48.1% (n = 13), the CRp rate was 25.9% (n = 7), and the CRi rate was 7.4% (n = 2).

Of the 25 patients who achieved a CR or CRp at any time, 21 (84%) were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. Twelve patients were minimal residual disease negative after cycle 1.

Most patients who achieved a CRi or better (83.3%) went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The 2-year overall survival was 47% for all patients and 60% for responders. None of the non-responders were still alive 2 years after therapy.

“The results certainly warrant a phase 3 study of CPX-351,” Dr. Cooper said. “In fact, it is the lead molecule that’s going to be incorporated into the next COG phase 3 study.”

AAML1421 was sponsored by the Children’s Oncology Group in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cooper TM et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 10003.

CHICAGO – Administering CPX-351 prior to a three-drug regimen produced a high response rate in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first relapse.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

In a phase 1/2 trial, CPX-351 followed by fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim (FLAG) produced an overall response rate of 81%, and 70% of responders had their best response while receiving CPX-351.

“This is the best response rate published in North America for those [pediatric AML patients] in first relapse,” said Todd Cooper, DO, of Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

Dr. Cooper presented results from the phase 1/2 AAML1421 trial (NCT02642965) at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The primary objective of phase 1 was to determine the recommended phase 2 dose and toxicities of CPX-351, a liposomal preparation of cytarabine and daunorubicin. The primary objective of phase 2 was to assess the best response in patients who received CPX-351 in cycle 1 and FLAG in cycle 2.

The trial enrolled 38 AML patients, 6 in the dose-finding phase and 32 in the efficacy phase. The patients’ median age at study entry was 11.91 years (range, 1.81-21.5). Most patients (88.9%) had CNS 1 disease, and most (73.7%) had not received a transplant.

Half of patients had a first complete response (CR) that lasted 180 to 365 days, 13.2% had a first CR lasting less than 180 days, and 36.8% had a first CR lasting more than 1 year.

Dosing and toxicity

During the dose-finding portion of the study, the first dose level of CPX-351 was 135 units/m² on days 1, 3, and 5. There was one dose-limiting toxicity — grade 3 decrease in ejection fraction — so 135 units/m² was deemed the recommended phase 2 dose.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events observed with CPX-351 in cycle 1 were infections and infestations (47.4%), febrile neutropenia (44.7%), maculopapular rash (39.5%), and prolonged QT interval (18.4%).

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events observed with FLAG in cycle 2 were febrile neutropenia (23.1%), prolonged QT interval (23.1%), and infections and infestations (19.2%).

Response and survival

There were 37 patients evaluable for response. The overall response rate was defined as CR plus CR without platelet recovery (CRp) plus CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi).

The overall response rate was 81.1% (n = 30), which included 20 CRs (54.1%), 5 CRps (13.5%), and 5 CRis (13.5%). Five patients had a partial response (13.5%), and two patients had treatment failure (5.4%).

During CPX-351 treatment (n = 37), the CR rate was 37.8% (n = 14), the CRp rate was 5.4% (n = 2), and the CRi rate was 32.4% (n = 12).

During FLAG treatment (n = 27), the CR rate was 48.1% (n = 13), the CRp rate was 25.9% (n = 7), and the CRi rate was 7.4% (n = 2).

Of the 25 patients who achieved a CR or CRp at any time, 21 (84%) were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. Twelve patients were minimal residual disease negative after cycle 1.

Most patients who achieved a CRi or better (83.3%) went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The 2-year overall survival was 47% for all patients and 60% for responders. None of the non-responders were still alive 2 years after therapy.

“The results certainly warrant a phase 3 study of CPX-351,” Dr. Cooper said. “In fact, it is the lead molecule that’s going to be incorporated into the next COG phase 3 study.”

AAML1421 was sponsored by the Children’s Oncology Group in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cooper TM et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 10003.

SILVER SPRING, MD. – Daiichi Sankyo failed to make the case for approval of its investigational tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib for patients with acute myeloid leukemia bearing the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted 8-3 not to recommend approval of the drug at this time, despite the prevailing sentiment among oncologists on the panel that, as one stated, “I need this drug. I want this drug.”

The prevailing majority of committee members agreed that the drug may have a place in the treatment of patients with FLT3-mutated AML, but that more robust data were needed to prove it.

Currently, only one agent, gilteritinib (Xospata) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.

QuANTUM-R

Daiichi Sankyo sought approval for quizartinib based on results of the phase 3 randomized QuANTUM-R trial. In this trial, single-agent therapy with quizartinib slightly but significantly prolonged survival – compared with salvage chemotherapy – of patients with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD positive AML.

Median overall survival (OS), the trial’s primary endpoint, was 6.2 months for 245 patients randomized to quizartinib, compared with 4.7 months for 122 patients assigned to salvage chemotherapy, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.76 (P = .0177).

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either quizartinib or salvage chemotherapy. Quizartinib was dosed 30 mg per day for 15 days, which could be titrated upward to 60 mg daily if the corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) was 450 ms or less on day 16.

Chemotherapy was the investigator’s choice of one of three specified regimens: either low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; quizartinib and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or until the patient went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Principal investigator Jorge Cortes, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, speaking in support of the application, said that combined with the phase 2 study results, “these data support a clear and clinically meaningful benefit of quizartinib in this patient population.”

Mark Levis, MD. PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, also spoke in support of the FLT3 inhibitor.

“I have studied both in the lab and in the clinic most FLT3 inhibitors that have been developed, including lestaurtinib, midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib. Quizartinib is the most highly potent and selective FLT3 inhibitor I have ever worked with,” Dr. Levis said.

FDA: Data not up to snuff

But as FDA staff member Kunthel By, PhD, a statistical reviewer in the Office of Biostatistics, pointed out, the upper limit of the hazard ratio favoring quizartinib over chemotherapy was 0.99, and the difference in median overall survival was just 6.5 weeks.

Additionally, the trial data lacked internal consistency, showing no benefits for the drug in either event-free survival (EFS) or in complete response rates.

There were also imbalances in the number of patients with subsequent HSCT between the arms, with more patients on quizartinib undergoing HSCT despite not having a complete remission, than in the chemotherapy group. Also, there were differences in the number of patients who were randomized but not treated and in those censored early. And statistical stress tests indicated “a lack of robustness in the estimated treatment effect,” he said.

Safety issues raised in QuANTUM-R included slow potassium channel (IKs) blockade and related cardiac toxicitites, as well as the differentiation syndrome, acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and cytopenias, said Aviva Krauss, MD, a clinical reviewer in the FDA’s Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

“Quizartinib therapy is associated with significant and unique safety concerns in the [proposed population], including the risk of fatal cardiac events that cannot be predicted with certainty using routine QTc measurements,” she said.

She noted that the events occurred in QuANTUM-R despite dose modifications and concomitant medications guidelines in the study protocol.

Reviewers recommended that should the drug receive approval, the package labeling should include contraindication for use with other QT-prolonging agents, and a recommendation for prophylactic beta blockage, although the panelists in general felt that the latter recommendation was not necessary.

‘I believe in this drug’

The ODAC meeting was convened to answer questions about whether the overall survival results were credible based on a single clinical trial and outweighed the risks of treatment with quizartinib, and to assess risk strategies for reducing risks of potentially fatal cardiac toxicities, primarily prolongation of the QT interval.

A. Michael Lincoff, MD, a cardiologist at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, both in Cleveland, Ohio, voted in favor of approval.

“I’m less concerned about the risk and I do think on the balance there is benefit,” he said.

But most committee members echoed the comments of Anthony D. Sung, MD, from the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“My vote is based purely on the data I’m shown, and my vote is no,” he said. “But I want the FDA to know that I believe in this drug, and I think it should get approved, and I want to use it.”

The trial was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Cortes reported research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Arog, Astellas Pharma and Novartis, and consulting activities for all of the same companies except Arog. Dr. Levis is a paid consultant for Daiichi Sankyo. He and Dr. Cortes stated that they had no financial interests in the outcome of the ODAC meeting.

SILVER SPRING, MD. – Daiichi Sankyo failed to make the case for approval of its investigational tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib for patients with acute myeloid leukemia bearing the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted 8-3 not to recommend approval of the drug at this time, despite the prevailing sentiment among oncologists on the panel that, as one stated, “I need this drug. I want this drug.”

The prevailing majority of committee members agreed that the drug may have a place in the treatment of patients with FLT3-mutated AML, but that more robust data were needed to prove it.

Currently, only one agent, gilteritinib (Xospata) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.

QuANTUM-R

Daiichi Sankyo sought approval for quizartinib based on results of the phase 3 randomized QuANTUM-R trial. In this trial, single-agent therapy with quizartinib slightly but significantly prolonged survival – compared with salvage chemotherapy – of patients with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD positive AML.

Median overall survival (OS), the trial’s primary endpoint, was 6.2 months for 245 patients randomized to quizartinib, compared with 4.7 months for 122 patients assigned to salvage chemotherapy, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.76 (P = .0177).

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either quizartinib or salvage chemotherapy. Quizartinib was dosed 30 mg per day for 15 days, which could be titrated upward to 60 mg daily if the corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) was 450 ms or less on day 16.

Chemotherapy was the investigator’s choice of one of three specified regimens: either low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; quizartinib and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or until the patient went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Principal investigator Jorge Cortes, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, speaking in support of the application, said that combined with the phase 2 study results, “these data support a clear and clinically meaningful benefit of quizartinib in this patient population.”

Mark Levis, MD. PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, also spoke in support of the FLT3 inhibitor.

“I have studied both in the lab and in the clinic most FLT3 inhibitors that have been developed, including lestaurtinib, midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib. Quizartinib is the most highly potent and selective FLT3 inhibitor I have ever worked with,” Dr. Levis said.

FDA: Data not up to snuff

But as FDA staff member Kunthel By, PhD, a statistical reviewer in the Office of Biostatistics, pointed out, the upper limit of the hazard ratio favoring quizartinib over chemotherapy was 0.99, and the difference in median overall survival was just 6.5 weeks.

Additionally, the trial data lacked internal consistency, showing no benefits for the drug in either event-free survival (EFS) or in complete response rates.

There were also imbalances in the number of patients with subsequent HSCT between the arms, with more patients on quizartinib undergoing HSCT despite not having a complete remission, than in the chemotherapy group. Also, there were differences in the number of patients who were randomized but not treated and in those censored early. And statistical stress tests indicated “a lack of robustness in the estimated treatment effect,” he said.

Safety issues raised in QuANTUM-R included slow potassium channel (IKs) blockade and related cardiac toxicitites, as well as the differentiation syndrome, acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and cytopenias, said Aviva Krauss, MD, a clinical reviewer in the FDA’s Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

“Quizartinib therapy is associated with significant and unique safety concerns in the [proposed population], including the risk of fatal cardiac events that cannot be predicted with certainty using routine QTc measurements,” she said.

She noted that the events occurred in QuANTUM-R despite dose modifications and concomitant medications guidelines in the study protocol.

Reviewers recommended that should the drug receive approval, the package labeling should include contraindication for use with other QT-prolonging agents, and a recommendation for prophylactic beta blockage, although the panelists in general felt that the latter recommendation was not necessary.

‘I believe in this drug’

The ODAC meeting was convened to answer questions about whether the overall survival results were credible based on a single clinical trial and outweighed the risks of treatment with quizartinib, and to assess risk strategies for reducing risks of potentially fatal cardiac toxicities, primarily prolongation of the QT interval.

A. Michael Lincoff, MD, a cardiologist at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, both in Cleveland, Ohio, voted in favor of approval.

“I’m less concerned about the risk and I do think on the balance there is benefit,” he said.

But most committee members echoed the comments of Anthony D. Sung, MD, from the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“My vote is based purely on the data I’m shown, and my vote is no,” he said. “But I want the FDA to know that I believe in this drug, and I think it should get approved, and I want to use it.”

The trial was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Cortes reported research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Arog, Astellas Pharma and Novartis, and consulting activities for all of the same companies except Arog. Dr. Levis is a paid consultant for Daiichi Sankyo. He and Dr. Cortes stated that they had no financial interests in the outcome of the ODAC meeting.

SILVER SPRING, MD. – Daiichi Sankyo failed to make the case for approval of its investigational tyrosine kinase inhibitor quizartinib for patients with acute myeloid leukemia bearing the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation.

Members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the Food and Drug Administration voted 8-3 not to recommend approval of the drug at this time, despite the prevailing sentiment among oncologists on the panel that, as one stated, “I need this drug. I want this drug.”

The prevailing majority of committee members agreed that the drug may have a place in the treatment of patients with FLT3-mutated AML, but that more robust data were needed to prove it.

Currently, only one agent, gilteritinib (Xospata) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML.

QuANTUM-R

Daiichi Sankyo sought approval for quizartinib based on results of the phase 3 randomized QuANTUM-R trial. In this trial, single-agent therapy with quizartinib slightly but significantly prolonged survival – compared with salvage chemotherapy – of patients with relapsed/refractory FLT3-ITD positive AML.

Median overall survival (OS), the trial’s primary endpoint, was 6.2 months for 245 patients randomized to quizartinib, compared with 4.7 months for 122 patients assigned to salvage chemotherapy, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 0.76 (P = .0177).

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either quizartinib or salvage chemotherapy. Quizartinib was dosed 30 mg per day for 15 days, which could be titrated upward to 60 mg daily if the corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) was 450 ms or less on day 16.

Chemotherapy was the investigator’s choice of one of three specified regimens: either low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC); mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (MEC); or fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with idarubicin (FLAG-IDA). Up to 2 cycles of MEC or FLAG-IDA were permitted; quizartinib and LoDAC were given until lack of benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or until the patient went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

Principal investigator Jorge Cortes, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, speaking in support of the application, said that combined with the phase 2 study results, “these data support a clear and clinically meaningful benefit of quizartinib in this patient population.”

Mark Levis, MD. PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, also spoke in support of the FLT3 inhibitor.

“I have studied both in the lab and in the clinic most FLT3 inhibitors that have been developed, including lestaurtinib, midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib. Quizartinib is the most highly potent and selective FLT3 inhibitor I have ever worked with,” Dr. Levis said.

FDA: Data not up to snuff

But as FDA staff member Kunthel By, PhD, a statistical reviewer in the Office of Biostatistics, pointed out, the upper limit of the hazard ratio favoring quizartinib over chemotherapy was 0.99, and the difference in median overall survival was just 6.5 weeks.

Additionally, the trial data lacked internal consistency, showing no benefits for the drug in either event-free survival (EFS) or in complete response rates.

There were also imbalances in the number of patients with subsequent HSCT between the arms, with more patients on quizartinib undergoing HSCT despite not having a complete remission, than in the chemotherapy group. Also, there were differences in the number of patients who were randomized but not treated and in those censored early. And statistical stress tests indicated “a lack of robustness in the estimated treatment effect,” he said.

Safety issues raised in QuANTUM-R included slow potassium channel (IKs) blockade and related cardiac toxicitites, as well as the differentiation syndrome, acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, and cytopenias, said Aviva Krauss, MD, a clinical reviewer in the FDA’s Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

“Quizartinib therapy is associated with significant and unique safety concerns in the [proposed population], including the risk of fatal cardiac events that cannot be predicted with certainty using routine QTc measurements,” she said.

She noted that the events occurred in QuANTUM-R despite dose modifications and concomitant medications guidelines in the study protocol.

Reviewers recommended that should the drug receive approval, the package labeling should include contraindication for use with other QT-prolonging agents, and a recommendation for prophylactic beta blockage, although the panelists in general felt that the latter recommendation was not necessary.

‘I believe in this drug’

The ODAC meeting was convened to answer questions about whether the overall survival results were credible based on a single clinical trial and outweighed the risks of treatment with quizartinib, and to assess risk strategies for reducing risks of potentially fatal cardiac toxicities, primarily prolongation of the QT interval.

A. Michael Lincoff, MD, a cardiologist at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic, both in Cleveland, Ohio, voted in favor of approval.

“I’m less concerned about the risk and I do think on the balance there is benefit,” he said.

But most committee members echoed the comments of Anthony D. Sung, MD, from the division of hematologic malignancies and cellular therapy at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

“My vote is based purely on the data I’m shown, and my vote is no,” he said. “But I want the FDA to know that I believe in this drug, and I think it should get approved, and I want to use it.”

The trial was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Cortes reported research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Arog, Astellas Pharma and Novartis, and consulting activities for all of the same companies except Arog. Dr. Levis is a paid consultant for Daiichi Sankyo. He and Dr. Cortes stated that they had no financial interests in the outcome of the ODAC meeting.