User login
Precision medicine: A new approach to AML, other blood cancers
The emergence of precision medicine has ushered in a groundbreaking era for the treatment of myeloid malignancies, with the ability to integrate individual molecular data into patient care.
Over the past decade, insights from research focusing on the mutations driving the malignant transformation of myeloid cells have provided the basis for the development of novel targeted therapies.1 With the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of several novel therapies for different acute myeloid leukemia (AML) indications, the current treatment landscape for AML is evolving rapidly.2
In addition, there has been substantial progress in the development of novel therapeutic strategies for other myeloid neoplasms, with numerous molecularly based therapies in early clinical trials in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs). These advancements have been translated into optimized algorithms for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment.
AML: Historical perspective
AML comprises a heterogeneous group of blood cell malignancies that require different treatment approaches and confer different prognoses.2 These include acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core binding factor (CBF) AML, both of which have high rates of remission and prolonged survival. The remaining non-APL, non-CBF types can be divided by their cytogenetic-molecular profiles, as well as fitness for intensive chemotherapy. AML can also arise secondary to other myeloid neoplasms, especially after exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs), chemotherapy, or irradiation as prior treatment for the primary malignancy.
Historically, anthracycline- and cytarabine-based chemotherapy with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (allo-HSCT) was the standard of care in AML treatment with curative intent.1 In the palliative setting, low-dose cytarabine or HMAs were also treatment options. Despite 5 decades of clinical use of these options, researchers have continued to evaluate different dosing schedules of cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine or ara-C) and daunorubicin – the first two agents approved for the treatment of AML – during induction and consolidation treatment phases.
However, recent discoveries have led to the clinical development of targeted agents directed at isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), and BCL2.2 These developments, and the highly anticipated combinations arising from them, continue to challenge traditional treatment approaches, raising the question of whether intensive chemotherapy should remain the optimal standard of care.
Novel therapeutics in AML
Since 2017, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, including gemtuzumab ozogamicin, two FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib and midostaurin), two IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and enasidenib), a BCL2 inhibitor (venetoclax), an oral HMA agent (azacitidine), a hedgehog inhibitor (glasdegib), and a liposomal formulation of CPX351. In addition, oral decitabine/cedazuridine may be used as an alternative oral HMA in AML, but it is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and MDS.2 Because AML subsets are very heterogeneous, an open question remains about how to best integrate these new agents into frontline and salvage combination regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
APL composes 5%-10% of AML and is characterized by the cytogenetic translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17, which leads to the PML-RAR alpha fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein.2 Two therapies, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide, when administered in combination with chemotherapy during induction, have been shown to improve outcomes in APL. At present, the combination of idarubicin and ATRA is the standard-of-care treatment for APL. In addition, patients with high-risk disease have been shown to benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin or anthracyclines.
Core binding factor AML
CBF AML includes patients with the cytogenetic-molecular subsets of inversion 16. Chemotherapy combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin results in cure rates of 75% or higher and an estimated 5-year survival of 75%. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and consolidation, and an alternative treatment modality (for example, allo-HSCT), for persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve complete response (CR) is a commonly used regimen. Patients who cannot tolerate this regimen or who have persistent MRD may be treated with an HMA (for instance, decitabine or azacitidine) in combination with venetoclax and gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with the treatment duration adjusted according to MRD status or for 12 months or longer.
Mutations, such as N/KRAS (30%-50%), KIT (25%-30%), and FLT3 (15%-20%), also occur in CBF AML. Targeted agents may also be considered in some cases (for example, dasatinib or avapritinib for KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations).
Intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML
Several AML regimens have demonstrated better outcomes than the conventional “3 + 7 regimen” (3 days of daunorubicin plus 7 days of cytarabine). Recently, the treatment paradigm has shifted from intensive chemotherapy alone to multidrug combination regimens, including regimens that incorporate targeted therapies, such as FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML, and venetoclax and/or IDH inhibitors as indicated. In addition, the recent FDA approval of oral azacitidine as maintenance therapy for patients in first CR (CR duration, 4 months or less; patients unable to complete the curative intensive chemotherapy) may allow for expanded combination regimens.
Older/unfit patients with AML: Low-intensity therapy
Prior to 2000, the majority of older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive/palliative treatment. Today, the HMAs azacitidine and decitabine are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of older/unfit AML. Recently, the FDA approved an oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine for the treatment of CMML and MDS. This could provide an opportunity to investigate and develop an effective oral therapy regimen for older/unfit AML, such as oral decitabine/cedazuridine in combination with venetoclax, which may ease administration and improve quality of life for patients in CR post induction in the community setting.
Other studies have shown benefit for combining an HMA with venetoclax in patients with TP53-mutated AML. In addition, triplet regimens may also improve outcomes, with combinations such as HMA plus FLT3 inhibitor (for instance, midostaurin or gilteritinib) with or without venetoclax now being investigated. However, the potential increased risk of myelosuppression also needs to be considered with use of triplet regimens. The results of these and other combinatorial trials are greatly anticipated.
Two oral IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1 inhibitor) and enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor) were recently FDA approved as monotherapy for the treatment of IDH-mutated AML. Combination regimens of IDH inhibitors with chemotherapy are currently being investigated in patients with IDH-mutated AML and appear promising based on preliminary data demonstrating improved response rates and event-free survival.
Other FDA-approved therapies in AML
CPX-351 is a nanoscale liposome with a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Results from a phase 3 trial showed that CPX-351 resulted in higher response rates and longer survival compared with 3 + 7 chemotherapy in patients with secondary AML, a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis. Additional studies are ongoing, combining CPX-351 with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, venetoclax, and other targeted agents.
Results from a phase 2 trial led to the FDA approval of the hedgehog inhibitor glasdegib when given with low-dose cytarabine. The combination improved survival compared with low-dose cytarabine alone in older/unfit AML and high-risk MDS. However, because of poor survival relative to venetoclax-based combinations, glasdegib is not widely used in clinical practice; other trials exploring combinations with azacitidine and with intensive chemotherapy are ongoing.
Expert perspectives: Future of AML therapy
Amir T. Fathi, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Farhad Ravandi, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, are coauthors of a recent review that summarized the current treatment landscape in AML, including areas of evolving research.1
“In the next several years, I am hopeful there will be a series of regulatory approvals of novel, effective agents for myeloid malignancies,” Dr. Fathi explained. “Even if approvals are not as numerous as we’ve seen in AML, any additional effective options would be very welcome.”
Dr. Ravandi also noted that increased understanding of the biology underlying myeloid neoplasms has helped to develop novel therapies.
“As we’ve increased our understanding of the biology of these blood cancers, particularly the mechanisms of leukemogenesis and neoplastic change, we’ve been able to develop more effective therapies in AML,” Dr. Ravandi said.
“In the future, we are likely to see a similar trend in other myeloid neoplasms, such as MDSs and MPNs, as we better understand their underlying pathogenesis,” he further explained.
They both acknowledged that the future treatment paradigm in AML will focus on maximizing the potential of new drug approvals, largely through the development of new combination regimens; however, this could be limited by timely validation and regulatory concerns as the disease has become increasingly segmented into smaller subgroups, each with access to a variety of potentially effective therapies.
Dr. Fathi reported consulting/advisory services for Agios, BMS/Celgene, Astellas, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He also reported receiving research support from Agios, BMS/Celgene, and AbbVie. Dr. Ravandi reported no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Westermann J and Bullinger L. Cancer Biol. 2021 April;S1044-579X(21)00084-5.
2. Kantarjian HM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 Sept;21(9):580-97.
The emergence of precision medicine has ushered in a groundbreaking era for the treatment of myeloid malignancies, with the ability to integrate individual molecular data into patient care.
Over the past decade, insights from research focusing on the mutations driving the malignant transformation of myeloid cells have provided the basis for the development of novel targeted therapies.1 With the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of several novel therapies for different acute myeloid leukemia (AML) indications, the current treatment landscape for AML is evolving rapidly.2
In addition, there has been substantial progress in the development of novel therapeutic strategies for other myeloid neoplasms, with numerous molecularly based therapies in early clinical trials in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs). These advancements have been translated into optimized algorithms for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment.
AML: Historical perspective
AML comprises a heterogeneous group of blood cell malignancies that require different treatment approaches and confer different prognoses.2 These include acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core binding factor (CBF) AML, both of which have high rates of remission and prolonged survival. The remaining non-APL, non-CBF types can be divided by their cytogenetic-molecular profiles, as well as fitness for intensive chemotherapy. AML can also arise secondary to other myeloid neoplasms, especially after exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs), chemotherapy, or irradiation as prior treatment for the primary malignancy.
Historically, anthracycline- and cytarabine-based chemotherapy with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (allo-HSCT) was the standard of care in AML treatment with curative intent.1 In the palliative setting, low-dose cytarabine or HMAs were also treatment options. Despite 5 decades of clinical use of these options, researchers have continued to evaluate different dosing schedules of cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine or ara-C) and daunorubicin – the first two agents approved for the treatment of AML – during induction and consolidation treatment phases.
However, recent discoveries have led to the clinical development of targeted agents directed at isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), and BCL2.2 These developments, and the highly anticipated combinations arising from them, continue to challenge traditional treatment approaches, raising the question of whether intensive chemotherapy should remain the optimal standard of care.
Novel therapeutics in AML
Since 2017, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, including gemtuzumab ozogamicin, two FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib and midostaurin), two IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and enasidenib), a BCL2 inhibitor (venetoclax), an oral HMA agent (azacitidine), a hedgehog inhibitor (glasdegib), and a liposomal formulation of CPX351. In addition, oral decitabine/cedazuridine may be used as an alternative oral HMA in AML, but it is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and MDS.2 Because AML subsets are very heterogeneous, an open question remains about how to best integrate these new agents into frontline and salvage combination regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
APL composes 5%-10% of AML and is characterized by the cytogenetic translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17, which leads to the PML-RAR alpha fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein.2 Two therapies, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide, when administered in combination with chemotherapy during induction, have been shown to improve outcomes in APL. At present, the combination of idarubicin and ATRA is the standard-of-care treatment for APL. In addition, patients with high-risk disease have been shown to benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin or anthracyclines.
Core binding factor AML
CBF AML includes patients with the cytogenetic-molecular subsets of inversion 16. Chemotherapy combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin results in cure rates of 75% or higher and an estimated 5-year survival of 75%. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and consolidation, and an alternative treatment modality (for example, allo-HSCT), for persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve complete response (CR) is a commonly used regimen. Patients who cannot tolerate this regimen or who have persistent MRD may be treated with an HMA (for instance, decitabine or azacitidine) in combination with venetoclax and gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with the treatment duration adjusted according to MRD status or for 12 months or longer.
Mutations, such as N/KRAS (30%-50%), KIT (25%-30%), and FLT3 (15%-20%), also occur in CBF AML. Targeted agents may also be considered in some cases (for example, dasatinib or avapritinib for KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations).
Intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML
Several AML regimens have demonstrated better outcomes than the conventional “3 + 7 regimen” (3 days of daunorubicin plus 7 days of cytarabine). Recently, the treatment paradigm has shifted from intensive chemotherapy alone to multidrug combination regimens, including regimens that incorporate targeted therapies, such as FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML, and venetoclax and/or IDH inhibitors as indicated. In addition, the recent FDA approval of oral azacitidine as maintenance therapy for patients in first CR (CR duration, 4 months or less; patients unable to complete the curative intensive chemotherapy) may allow for expanded combination regimens.
Older/unfit patients with AML: Low-intensity therapy
Prior to 2000, the majority of older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive/palliative treatment. Today, the HMAs azacitidine and decitabine are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of older/unfit AML. Recently, the FDA approved an oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine for the treatment of CMML and MDS. This could provide an opportunity to investigate and develop an effective oral therapy regimen for older/unfit AML, such as oral decitabine/cedazuridine in combination with venetoclax, which may ease administration and improve quality of life for patients in CR post induction in the community setting.
Other studies have shown benefit for combining an HMA with venetoclax in patients with TP53-mutated AML. In addition, triplet regimens may also improve outcomes, with combinations such as HMA plus FLT3 inhibitor (for instance, midostaurin or gilteritinib) with or without venetoclax now being investigated. However, the potential increased risk of myelosuppression also needs to be considered with use of triplet regimens. The results of these and other combinatorial trials are greatly anticipated.
Two oral IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1 inhibitor) and enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor) were recently FDA approved as monotherapy for the treatment of IDH-mutated AML. Combination regimens of IDH inhibitors with chemotherapy are currently being investigated in patients with IDH-mutated AML and appear promising based on preliminary data demonstrating improved response rates and event-free survival.
Other FDA-approved therapies in AML
CPX-351 is a nanoscale liposome with a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Results from a phase 3 trial showed that CPX-351 resulted in higher response rates and longer survival compared with 3 + 7 chemotherapy in patients with secondary AML, a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis. Additional studies are ongoing, combining CPX-351 with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, venetoclax, and other targeted agents.
Results from a phase 2 trial led to the FDA approval of the hedgehog inhibitor glasdegib when given with low-dose cytarabine. The combination improved survival compared with low-dose cytarabine alone in older/unfit AML and high-risk MDS. However, because of poor survival relative to venetoclax-based combinations, glasdegib is not widely used in clinical practice; other trials exploring combinations with azacitidine and with intensive chemotherapy are ongoing.
Expert perspectives: Future of AML therapy
Amir T. Fathi, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Farhad Ravandi, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, are coauthors of a recent review that summarized the current treatment landscape in AML, including areas of evolving research.1
“In the next several years, I am hopeful there will be a series of regulatory approvals of novel, effective agents for myeloid malignancies,” Dr. Fathi explained. “Even if approvals are not as numerous as we’ve seen in AML, any additional effective options would be very welcome.”
Dr. Ravandi also noted that increased understanding of the biology underlying myeloid neoplasms has helped to develop novel therapies.
“As we’ve increased our understanding of the biology of these blood cancers, particularly the mechanisms of leukemogenesis and neoplastic change, we’ve been able to develop more effective therapies in AML,” Dr. Ravandi said.
“In the future, we are likely to see a similar trend in other myeloid neoplasms, such as MDSs and MPNs, as we better understand their underlying pathogenesis,” he further explained.
They both acknowledged that the future treatment paradigm in AML will focus on maximizing the potential of new drug approvals, largely through the development of new combination regimens; however, this could be limited by timely validation and regulatory concerns as the disease has become increasingly segmented into smaller subgroups, each with access to a variety of potentially effective therapies.
Dr. Fathi reported consulting/advisory services for Agios, BMS/Celgene, Astellas, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He also reported receiving research support from Agios, BMS/Celgene, and AbbVie. Dr. Ravandi reported no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Westermann J and Bullinger L. Cancer Biol. 2021 April;S1044-579X(21)00084-5.
2. Kantarjian HM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 Sept;21(9):580-97.
The emergence of precision medicine has ushered in a groundbreaking era for the treatment of myeloid malignancies, with the ability to integrate individual molecular data into patient care.
Over the past decade, insights from research focusing on the mutations driving the malignant transformation of myeloid cells have provided the basis for the development of novel targeted therapies.1 With the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of several novel therapies for different acute myeloid leukemia (AML) indications, the current treatment landscape for AML is evolving rapidly.2
In addition, there has been substantial progress in the development of novel therapeutic strategies for other myeloid neoplasms, with numerous molecularly based therapies in early clinical trials in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs). These advancements have been translated into optimized algorithms for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment.
AML: Historical perspective
AML comprises a heterogeneous group of blood cell malignancies that require different treatment approaches and confer different prognoses.2 These include acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and core binding factor (CBF) AML, both of which have high rates of remission and prolonged survival. The remaining non-APL, non-CBF types can be divided by their cytogenetic-molecular profiles, as well as fitness for intensive chemotherapy. AML can also arise secondary to other myeloid neoplasms, especially after exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs), chemotherapy, or irradiation as prior treatment for the primary malignancy.
Historically, anthracycline- and cytarabine-based chemotherapy with or without allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant (allo-HSCT) was the standard of care in AML treatment with curative intent.1 In the palliative setting, low-dose cytarabine or HMAs were also treatment options. Despite 5 decades of clinical use of these options, researchers have continued to evaluate different dosing schedules of cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine or ara-C) and daunorubicin – the first two agents approved for the treatment of AML – during induction and consolidation treatment phases.
However, recent discoveries have led to the clinical development of targeted agents directed at isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), and BCL2.2 These developments, and the highly anticipated combinations arising from them, continue to challenge traditional treatment approaches, raising the question of whether intensive chemotherapy should remain the optimal standard of care.
Novel therapeutics in AML
Since 2017, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of AML, including gemtuzumab ozogamicin, two FLT3 inhibitors (gilteritinib and midostaurin), two IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and enasidenib), a BCL2 inhibitor (venetoclax), an oral HMA agent (azacitidine), a hedgehog inhibitor (glasdegib), and a liposomal formulation of CPX351. In addition, oral decitabine/cedazuridine may be used as an alternative oral HMA in AML, but it is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and MDS.2 Because AML subsets are very heterogeneous, an open question remains about how to best integrate these new agents into frontline and salvage combination regimens.
Acute promyelocytic leukemia
APL composes 5%-10% of AML and is characterized by the cytogenetic translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17, which leads to the PML-RAR alpha fusion oncogene and its encoded oncoprotein.2 Two therapies, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide, when administered in combination with chemotherapy during induction, have been shown to improve outcomes in APL. At present, the combination of idarubicin and ATRA is the standard-of-care treatment for APL. In addition, patients with high-risk disease have been shown to benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin or anthracyclines.
Core binding factor AML
CBF AML includes patients with the cytogenetic-molecular subsets of inversion 16. Chemotherapy combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin results in cure rates of 75% or higher and an estimated 5-year survival of 75%. Fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and consolidation, and an alternative treatment modality (for example, allo-HSCT), for persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve complete response (CR) is a commonly used regimen. Patients who cannot tolerate this regimen or who have persistent MRD may be treated with an HMA (for instance, decitabine or azacitidine) in combination with venetoclax and gemtuzumab ozogamicin, with the treatment duration adjusted according to MRD status or for 12 months or longer.
Mutations, such as N/KRAS (30%-50%), KIT (25%-30%), and FLT3 (15%-20%), also occur in CBF AML. Targeted agents may also be considered in some cases (for example, dasatinib or avapritinib for KIT mutations; FLT3 inhibitors for FLT3 mutations).
Intensive chemotherapy in younger/fit AML
Several AML regimens have demonstrated better outcomes than the conventional “3 + 7 regimen” (3 days of daunorubicin plus 7 days of cytarabine). Recently, the treatment paradigm has shifted from intensive chemotherapy alone to multidrug combination regimens, including regimens that incorporate targeted therapies, such as FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3-mutated AML, and venetoclax and/or IDH inhibitors as indicated. In addition, the recent FDA approval of oral azacitidine as maintenance therapy for patients in first CR (CR duration, 4 months or less; patients unable to complete the curative intensive chemotherapy) may allow for expanded combination regimens.
Older/unfit patients with AML: Low-intensity therapy
Prior to 2000, the majority of older/unfit patients with AML were offered supportive/palliative treatment. Today, the HMAs azacitidine and decitabine are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of older/unfit AML. Recently, the FDA approved an oral formulation of decitabine plus oral cedazuridine for the treatment of CMML and MDS. This could provide an opportunity to investigate and develop an effective oral therapy regimen for older/unfit AML, such as oral decitabine/cedazuridine in combination with venetoclax, which may ease administration and improve quality of life for patients in CR post induction in the community setting.
Other studies have shown benefit for combining an HMA with venetoclax in patients with TP53-mutated AML. In addition, triplet regimens may also improve outcomes, with combinations such as HMA plus FLT3 inhibitor (for instance, midostaurin or gilteritinib) with or without venetoclax now being investigated. However, the potential increased risk of myelosuppression also needs to be considered with use of triplet regimens. The results of these and other combinatorial trials are greatly anticipated.
Two oral IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1 inhibitor) and enasidenib (IDH2 inhibitor) were recently FDA approved as monotherapy for the treatment of IDH-mutated AML. Combination regimens of IDH inhibitors with chemotherapy are currently being investigated in patients with IDH-mutated AML and appear promising based on preliminary data demonstrating improved response rates and event-free survival.
Other FDA-approved therapies in AML
CPX-351 is a nanoscale liposome with a fixed 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Results from a phase 3 trial showed that CPX-351 resulted in higher response rates and longer survival compared with 3 + 7 chemotherapy in patients with secondary AML, a subgroup of patients with a very poor prognosis. Additional studies are ongoing, combining CPX-351 with gemtuzumab ozogamicin, venetoclax, and other targeted agents.
Results from a phase 2 trial led to the FDA approval of the hedgehog inhibitor glasdegib when given with low-dose cytarabine. The combination improved survival compared with low-dose cytarabine alone in older/unfit AML and high-risk MDS. However, because of poor survival relative to venetoclax-based combinations, glasdegib is not widely used in clinical practice; other trials exploring combinations with azacitidine and with intensive chemotherapy are ongoing.
Expert perspectives: Future of AML therapy
Amir T. Fathi, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Farhad Ravandi, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, are coauthors of a recent review that summarized the current treatment landscape in AML, including areas of evolving research.1
“In the next several years, I am hopeful there will be a series of regulatory approvals of novel, effective agents for myeloid malignancies,” Dr. Fathi explained. “Even if approvals are not as numerous as we’ve seen in AML, any additional effective options would be very welcome.”
Dr. Ravandi also noted that increased understanding of the biology underlying myeloid neoplasms has helped to develop novel therapies.
“As we’ve increased our understanding of the biology of these blood cancers, particularly the mechanisms of leukemogenesis and neoplastic change, we’ve been able to develop more effective therapies in AML,” Dr. Ravandi said.
“In the future, we are likely to see a similar trend in other myeloid neoplasms, such as MDSs and MPNs, as we better understand their underlying pathogenesis,” he further explained.
They both acknowledged that the future treatment paradigm in AML will focus on maximizing the potential of new drug approvals, largely through the development of new combination regimens; however, this could be limited by timely validation and regulatory concerns as the disease has become increasingly segmented into smaller subgroups, each with access to a variety of potentially effective therapies.
Dr. Fathi reported consulting/advisory services for Agios, BMS/Celgene, Astellas, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. He also reported receiving research support from Agios, BMS/Celgene, and AbbVie. Dr. Ravandi reported no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Westermann J and Bullinger L. Cancer Biol. 2021 April;S1044-579X(21)00084-5.
2. Kantarjian HM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 Sept;21(9):580-97.
Myeloid patients respond robustly to Moderna COVID vaccine
Factors including age, gender, race, disease status, lower-intensity active treatment, baseline neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and past history of stem cell transplant had no effects on seroconversion in the study, which, despite its small numbers, is one of the largest series to date among patients with myeloid cancers. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
COVID vaccination “appears to induce a strong antibody response” in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), unlike with B-cell malignancies. “It indicates we should be aggressive about vaccinating such patients,” said senior investigator Jeffrey Lancet, MD, a blood cancer specialist at Moffitt, when he presented the findings at the meeting.
Presentation moderator Laura Michaelis, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, agreed.
The “strong antibody response in this group,” coupled with its high risk for severe COVID, “confirm the importance of these patients getting vaccinated,” she said.
Thirty patients with AML and 16 with MDS were included in the review. Most patients were in remission at the time of vaccination, but a third were in active treatment, including six on hypomethylating agents, six on targeted therapies, two on luspatercept, and one on lenalidomide. Thirty-two patients (69.6%) were a median of 17 months past allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Overall, 69.6% of patients developed IgG against spike proteins after the first shot and 95.7% of patients after the second dose, with a large increase in titer levels from the first to the second dose, from a mean of 315 AU/mL to 3,806.5 AU/mL following the second dose.
“Lab and clinical variables did not affect the antibody positivity rate after the second dose,” but patients on steroids and other immunosuppressants seemed less likely to respond to the first shot, Dr. Lancet said.
The study, conducted in early 2021, did not include acutely ill patients or those undergoing cheomotherapy induction and other aggressive treatments, because such patients were not being vaccinated at Moffitt during the study period.
The investigators measured anti-spike IgG by ELISA at baseline, then again about a month after the first shot and a month after the second shot.
Side effects were common and typically mild, including injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and arm swelling. Two patients with AML relapsed after vaccination.
Patients were a median of 68 years old when they were vaccinated; 58.7% were men; and almost all of the subjects were White. The median time from diagnosis to the first shot was 2 years.
The next step in the project is to study the timing of vaccination and response to it among patients on aggressive treatment and to perform neutralizing antibody assays to correlate IgG response with protection from COVID.
No funding was reported for the study. Investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Lancet, a consultant for Celgene/BMS, Millenium Pharma/Takeda, AbbVie, and other firms. Dr. Michaelis didn’t have any disclosures.
[email protected]
Factors including age, gender, race, disease status, lower-intensity active treatment, baseline neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and past history of stem cell transplant had no effects on seroconversion in the study, which, despite its small numbers, is one of the largest series to date among patients with myeloid cancers. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
COVID vaccination “appears to induce a strong antibody response” in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), unlike with B-cell malignancies. “It indicates we should be aggressive about vaccinating such patients,” said senior investigator Jeffrey Lancet, MD, a blood cancer specialist at Moffitt, when he presented the findings at the meeting.
Presentation moderator Laura Michaelis, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, agreed.
The “strong antibody response in this group,” coupled with its high risk for severe COVID, “confirm the importance of these patients getting vaccinated,” she said.
Thirty patients with AML and 16 with MDS were included in the review. Most patients were in remission at the time of vaccination, but a third were in active treatment, including six on hypomethylating agents, six on targeted therapies, two on luspatercept, and one on lenalidomide. Thirty-two patients (69.6%) were a median of 17 months past allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Overall, 69.6% of patients developed IgG against spike proteins after the first shot and 95.7% of patients after the second dose, with a large increase in titer levels from the first to the second dose, from a mean of 315 AU/mL to 3,806.5 AU/mL following the second dose.
“Lab and clinical variables did not affect the antibody positivity rate after the second dose,” but patients on steroids and other immunosuppressants seemed less likely to respond to the first shot, Dr. Lancet said.
The study, conducted in early 2021, did not include acutely ill patients or those undergoing cheomotherapy induction and other aggressive treatments, because such patients were not being vaccinated at Moffitt during the study period.
The investigators measured anti-spike IgG by ELISA at baseline, then again about a month after the first shot and a month after the second shot.
Side effects were common and typically mild, including injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and arm swelling. Two patients with AML relapsed after vaccination.
Patients were a median of 68 years old when they were vaccinated; 58.7% were men; and almost all of the subjects were White. The median time from diagnosis to the first shot was 2 years.
The next step in the project is to study the timing of vaccination and response to it among patients on aggressive treatment and to perform neutralizing antibody assays to correlate IgG response with protection from COVID.
No funding was reported for the study. Investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Lancet, a consultant for Celgene/BMS, Millenium Pharma/Takeda, AbbVie, and other firms. Dr. Michaelis didn’t have any disclosures.
[email protected]
Factors including age, gender, race, disease status, lower-intensity active treatment, baseline neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and past history of stem cell transplant had no effects on seroconversion in the study, which, despite its small numbers, is one of the largest series to date among patients with myeloid cancers. The findings were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
COVID vaccination “appears to induce a strong antibody response” in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), unlike with B-cell malignancies. “It indicates we should be aggressive about vaccinating such patients,” said senior investigator Jeffrey Lancet, MD, a blood cancer specialist at Moffitt, when he presented the findings at the meeting.
Presentation moderator Laura Michaelis, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, agreed.
The “strong antibody response in this group,” coupled with its high risk for severe COVID, “confirm the importance of these patients getting vaccinated,” she said.
Thirty patients with AML and 16 with MDS were included in the review. Most patients were in remission at the time of vaccination, but a third were in active treatment, including six on hypomethylating agents, six on targeted therapies, two on luspatercept, and one on lenalidomide. Thirty-two patients (69.6%) were a median of 17 months past allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Overall, 69.6% of patients developed IgG against spike proteins after the first shot and 95.7% of patients after the second dose, with a large increase in titer levels from the first to the second dose, from a mean of 315 AU/mL to 3,806.5 AU/mL following the second dose.
“Lab and clinical variables did not affect the antibody positivity rate after the second dose,” but patients on steroids and other immunosuppressants seemed less likely to respond to the first shot, Dr. Lancet said.
The study, conducted in early 2021, did not include acutely ill patients or those undergoing cheomotherapy induction and other aggressive treatments, because such patients were not being vaccinated at Moffitt during the study period.
The investigators measured anti-spike IgG by ELISA at baseline, then again about a month after the first shot and a month after the second shot.
Side effects were common and typically mild, including injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and arm swelling. Two patients with AML relapsed after vaccination.
Patients were a median of 68 years old when they were vaccinated; 58.7% were men; and almost all of the subjects were White. The median time from diagnosis to the first shot was 2 years.
The next step in the project is to study the timing of vaccination and response to it among patients on aggressive treatment and to perform neutralizing antibody assays to correlate IgG response with protection from COVID.
No funding was reported for the study. Investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Lancet, a consultant for Celgene/BMS, Millenium Pharma/Takeda, AbbVie, and other firms. Dr. Michaelis didn’t have any disclosures.
[email protected]
FROM ASH 2021
For leukemias, COVID-19 death risks tied to poor prognoses, ICU deferrals
, results of an American Society of Hematology (ASH) COVID-19 registry study suggest.
Rates of severe COVID-19 were significantly higher among patients who had active disease or neutropenia at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Mortality related to COVID-19 was linked to neutropenia, primary disease prognosis of less than 6 months, and deferral of recommended ICU care, study results show.
By contrast, mortality was not associated with active primary disease or its treatment, according to researcher Pinkal Desai, MD, MPH.
Taken together, these findings provide preliminary evidence to support the use of aggressive supportive treatment of COVID-19 in patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes, said Dr. Desai, a hematologist-oncologist with Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian in New York.
“If desired by patients, aggressive support for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is appropriate, regardless of remission status, given the results of our study,” Dr. Desai said in a press conference during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In non-cancer patient populations, advanced age and cytopenias have been associated with mortality related to COVID-19, Dr. Desai said. Likewise, patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndrome are generally older and have disease- or treatment-related cytopenias, which might affect the severity of and mortality from COVID-19, she added.
With that concern in mind, Dr. Desai and co-investigators looked at predictors of severe COVID-19 disease and death among patients in the ASH Research Collaborative (ASH RC) COVID-19 Registry for Hematology.
This registry was started in the early days of the pandemic to provide real-time observational COVID-19 data to clinicians, according to an ASH news release.
The analysis by Dr. Desai and co-authors included 257 patients with COVID-19 as determined by their physician, including 135 with a primary diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia, 82 with acute lymphocytic leukemia, and 40 with myelodysplastic syndromes. Sixty percent of the patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19.
At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 46% of patients were in remission, and 44% had active disease, according to the report.
Both neutropenia and active disease status at COVID-19 diagnosis were linked to severe COVID-19, defined as ICU admission due to a COVID-19-related reason, according to results of multivariable analysis. Among patients with severe COVID-19, 67% had active disease, meaning just 33% were in remission, Dr. Desai noted.
In multivariable analysis, two factors were significantly associated with mortality, she added: having an estimated pre-COVID-19 prognosis from the primary disease of less than 6 months, and deferral of ICU care when it was recommended to the patient.
Mortality was 21% overall, higher than would be expected in a non-cancer population, Dr. Desai said. For patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the mortality rate was 34% and for those patients who did go to the ICU, the mortality rate was 68%.
By contrast, there was no significant association between mortality and active disease as compared to disease in remission, Dr. Desai noted in her presentation. Likewise, mortality was not associated with active treatment at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis as compared to no treatment.
Gwen Nichols, MD, executive vice president and chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, said those are reassuring data for patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes and their healthcare providers.
“From our point of view, it helps us say, ‘do not stop your treatment because of worries about COVID-19—it’s more important that you treat your cancer,” Dr. Nichols said in an interview. “We now know we can help people through COVID-19, and I think this is just really important data to back that up,” she added.
Dr. Desai provided disclosures related to Agios, Kura Oncology, and Bristol Myers Squibb (consultancy), and to Janssen R&D and Astex (research funding).
, results of an American Society of Hematology (ASH) COVID-19 registry study suggest.
Rates of severe COVID-19 were significantly higher among patients who had active disease or neutropenia at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Mortality related to COVID-19 was linked to neutropenia, primary disease prognosis of less than 6 months, and deferral of recommended ICU care, study results show.
By contrast, mortality was not associated with active primary disease or its treatment, according to researcher Pinkal Desai, MD, MPH.
Taken together, these findings provide preliminary evidence to support the use of aggressive supportive treatment of COVID-19 in patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes, said Dr. Desai, a hematologist-oncologist with Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian in New York.
“If desired by patients, aggressive support for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is appropriate, regardless of remission status, given the results of our study,” Dr. Desai said in a press conference during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In non-cancer patient populations, advanced age and cytopenias have been associated with mortality related to COVID-19, Dr. Desai said. Likewise, patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndrome are generally older and have disease- or treatment-related cytopenias, which might affect the severity of and mortality from COVID-19, she added.
With that concern in mind, Dr. Desai and co-investigators looked at predictors of severe COVID-19 disease and death among patients in the ASH Research Collaborative (ASH RC) COVID-19 Registry for Hematology.
This registry was started in the early days of the pandemic to provide real-time observational COVID-19 data to clinicians, according to an ASH news release.
The analysis by Dr. Desai and co-authors included 257 patients with COVID-19 as determined by their physician, including 135 with a primary diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia, 82 with acute lymphocytic leukemia, and 40 with myelodysplastic syndromes. Sixty percent of the patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19.
At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 46% of patients were in remission, and 44% had active disease, according to the report.
Both neutropenia and active disease status at COVID-19 diagnosis were linked to severe COVID-19, defined as ICU admission due to a COVID-19-related reason, according to results of multivariable analysis. Among patients with severe COVID-19, 67% had active disease, meaning just 33% were in remission, Dr. Desai noted.
In multivariable analysis, two factors were significantly associated with mortality, she added: having an estimated pre-COVID-19 prognosis from the primary disease of less than 6 months, and deferral of ICU care when it was recommended to the patient.
Mortality was 21% overall, higher than would be expected in a non-cancer population, Dr. Desai said. For patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the mortality rate was 34% and for those patients who did go to the ICU, the mortality rate was 68%.
By contrast, there was no significant association between mortality and active disease as compared to disease in remission, Dr. Desai noted in her presentation. Likewise, mortality was not associated with active treatment at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis as compared to no treatment.
Gwen Nichols, MD, executive vice president and chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, said those are reassuring data for patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes and their healthcare providers.
“From our point of view, it helps us say, ‘do not stop your treatment because of worries about COVID-19—it’s more important that you treat your cancer,” Dr. Nichols said in an interview. “We now know we can help people through COVID-19, and I think this is just really important data to back that up,” she added.
Dr. Desai provided disclosures related to Agios, Kura Oncology, and Bristol Myers Squibb (consultancy), and to Janssen R&D and Astex (research funding).
, results of an American Society of Hematology (ASH) COVID-19 registry study suggest.
Rates of severe COVID-19 were significantly higher among patients who had active disease or neutropenia at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Mortality related to COVID-19 was linked to neutropenia, primary disease prognosis of less than 6 months, and deferral of recommended ICU care, study results show.
By contrast, mortality was not associated with active primary disease or its treatment, according to researcher Pinkal Desai, MD, MPH.
Taken together, these findings provide preliminary evidence to support the use of aggressive supportive treatment of COVID-19 in patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes, said Dr. Desai, a hematologist-oncologist with Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian in New York.
“If desired by patients, aggressive support for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is appropriate, regardless of remission status, given the results of our study,” Dr. Desai said in a press conference during the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In non-cancer patient populations, advanced age and cytopenias have been associated with mortality related to COVID-19, Dr. Desai said. Likewise, patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndrome are generally older and have disease- or treatment-related cytopenias, which might affect the severity of and mortality from COVID-19, she added.
With that concern in mind, Dr. Desai and co-investigators looked at predictors of severe COVID-19 disease and death among patients in the ASH Research Collaborative (ASH RC) COVID-19 Registry for Hematology.
This registry was started in the early days of the pandemic to provide real-time observational COVID-19 data to clinicians, according to an ASH news release.
The analysis by Dr. Desai and co-authors included 257 patients with COVID-19 as determined by their physician, including 135 with a primary diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia, 82 with acute lymphocytic leukemia, and 40 with myelodysplastic syndromes. Sixty percent of the patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19.
At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 46% of patients were in remission, and 44% had active disease, according to the report.
Both neutropenia and active disease status at COVID-19 diagnosis were linked to severe COVID-19, defined as ICU admission due to a COVID-19-related reason, according to results of multivariable analysis. Among patients with severe COVID-19, 67% had active disease, meaning just 33% were in remission, Dr. Desai noted.
In multivariable analysis, two factors were significantly associated with mortality, she added: having an estimated pre-COVID-19 prognosis from the primary disease of less than 6 months, and deferral of ICU care when it was recommended to the patient.
Mortality was 21% overall, higher than would be expected in a non-cancer population, Dr. Desai said. For patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the mortality rate was 34% and for those patients who did go to the ICU, the mortality rate was 68%.
By contrast, there was no significant association between mortality and active disease as compared to disease in remission, Dr. Desai noted in her presentation. Likewise, mortality was not associated with active treatment at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis as compared to no treatment.
Gwen Nichols, MD, executive vice president and chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, said those are reassuring data for patients with acute leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes and their healthcare providers.
“From our point of view, it helps us say, ‘do not stop your treatment because of worries about COVID-19—it’s more important that you treat your cancer,” Dr. Nichols said in an interview. “We now know we can help people through COVID-19, and I think this is just really important data to back that up,” she added.
Dr. Desai provided disclosures related to Agios, Kura Oncology, and Bristol Myers Squibb (consultancy), and to Janssen R&D and Astex (research funding).
FROM ASH 2021
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: AML December 2021
This month, the phase II randomized study of azacitidine vs. azacitidine + enasidenib was reported by Dinardo et al.1 The primary endpoint was overall response rate. The study included 101 adult patients with newly diagnosed mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. They were randomly assigned to enasidenib and azacitidine (Ena-AZA, n = 68) or azacitidine alone (AZA, n = 33). The overall response rate was significantly higher in patients receiving Ena-AZA vs. AZA (74% vs. 36%; odds ratio 4.9; P = .0003). More importantly, the rates of complete remission/complete remission with partial hematologic recovery was higher with Ena-AZA vs. AZA (57% vs. 18% P = .0001). The duration of response was 24.1 months vs 9.9 months for the Ena-AZA vs AZA group. Despite the higher and more durable responses with Ena+AZA, there was no difference in overall survival. The authors attributed that to patients receiving other effective therapies after disease progression. Overall patients tolerated the combination therapy well. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 events in the Ena-AZA vs. AZA groups were thrombocytopenia (37% vs. 19%) and neutropenia (37% vs. 25%).
Another study from the NCRI AML 16 trial demonstrated that reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone improved survival in older patients with AML who lacked favorable risk cytogenetics and were considered fit for intensive treatment. During a median follow-up of 60 months from remission, patients receiving RIC transplant vs. no transplant had superior survival (37% vs. 20%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; P < .001). Survival benefit with transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone was observed across all Wheatley risk groups (adjusted HR 0.68; P < .001). The trial including 932 patients (age 60-70 years) with AML who entered remission and lacked favorable risk. Of these, 144 underwent RIC transplants from either matched sibling donors (n = 52) or matched unrelated donors (n = 92).
The outcome of patients with AML and central nervous system (CNS) involvement at presentation was reported by Ganzel et al. In that study, the investigators evaluated the incidence of CNS involvement in 11 consecutive Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) clinical trials. The incidence of CNS incolvement was 1.111 % (36 of 3240 patients). CNS involvement had no effect on remission rates or survival.
References
- Dinardo CD et al. Enasidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia (AG221-AML-005): a single-arm, phase 1b and randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(11):P1597-1608 (Nov 1).
- Russell NH et al. Outcomes of older patients aged 60 to 70 years undergoing reduced intensity transplant for acute myeloblastic leukemia: results of the NCRI acute myeloid leukemia 16 trial. Haematologica. 2021(Oct 14).
- Ganzel C et al. CNS involvement in AML at diagnosis is rare and does not affect response or survival: data from 11 ECOG-ACRIN trials. Blood Adv. 2021(Nov 12);5(22):4560-4568. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004999.
This month, the phase II randomized study of azacitidine vs. azacitidine + enasidenib was reported by Dinardo et al.1 The primary endpoint was overall response rate. The study included 101 adult patients with newly diagnosed mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. They were randomly assigned to enasidenib and azacitidine (Ena-AZA, n = 68) or azacitidine alone (AZA, n = 33). The overall response rate was significantly higher in patients receiving Ena-AZA vs. AZA (74% vs. 36%; odds ratio 4.9; P = .0003). More importantly, the rates of complete remission/complete remission with partial hematologic recovery was higher with Ena-AZA vs. AZA (57% vs. 18% P = .0001). The duration of response was 24.1 months vs 9.9 months for the Ena-AZA vs AZA group. Despite the higher and more durable responses with Ena+AZA, there was no difference in overall survival. The authors attributed that to patients receiving other effective therapies after disease progression. Overall patients tolerated the combination therapy well. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 events in the Ena-AZA vs. AZA groups were thrombocytopenia (37% vs. 19%) and neutropenia (37% vs. 25%).
Another study from the NCRI AML 16 trial demonstrated that reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone improved survival in older patients with AML who lacked favorable risk cytogenetics and were considered fit for intensive treatment. During a median follow-up of 60 months from remission, patients receiving RIC transplant vs. no transplant had superior survival (37% vs. 20%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; P < .001). Survival benefit with transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone was observed across all Wheatley risk groups (adjusted HR 0.68; P < .001). The trial including 932 patients (age 60-70 years) with AML who entered remission and lacked favorable risk. Of these, 144 underwent RIC transplants from either matched sibling donors (n = 52) or matched unrelated donors (n = 92).
The outcome of patients with AML and central nervous system (CNS) involvement at presentation was reported by Ganzel et al. In that study, the investigators evaluated the incidence of CNS involvement in 11 consecutive Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) clinical trials. The incidence of CNS incolvement was 1.111 % (36 of 3240 patients). CNS involvement had no effect on remission rates or survival.
References
- Dinardo CD et al. Enasidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia (AG221-AML-005): a single-arm, phase 1b and randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(11):P1597-1608 (Nov 1).
- Russell NH et al. Outcomes of older patients aged 60 to 70 years undergoing reduced intensity transplant for acute myeloblastic leukemia: results of the NCRI acute myeloid leukemia 16 trial. Haematologica. 2021(Oct 14).
- Ganzel C et al. CNS involvement in AML at diagnosis is rare and does not affect response or survival: data from 11 ECOG-ACRIN trials. Blood Adv. 2021(Nov 12);5(22):4560-4568. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004999.
This month, the phase II randomized study of azacitidine vs. azacitidine + enasidenib was reported by Dinardo et al.1 The primary endpoint was overall response rate. The study included 101 adult patients with newly diagnosed mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. They were randomly assigned to enasidenib and azacitidine (Ena-AZA, n = 68) or azacitidine alone (AZA, n = 33). The overall response rate was significantly higher in patients receiving Ena-AZA vs. AZA (74% vs. 36%; odds ratio 4.9; P = .0003). More importantly, the rates of complete remission/complete remission with partial hematologic recovery was higher with Ena-AZA vs. AZA (57% vs. 18% P = .0001). The duration of response was 24.1 months vs 9.9 months for the Ena-AZA vs AZA group. Despite the higher and more durable responses with Ena+AZA, there was no difference in overall survival. The authors attributed that to patients receiving other effective therapies after disease progression. Overall patients tolerated the combination therapy well. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 events in the Ena-AZA vs. AZA groups were thrombocytopenia (37% vs. 19%) and neutropenia (37% vs. 25%).
Another study from the NCRI AML 16 trial demonstrated that reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone improved survival in older patients with AML who lacked favorable risk cytogenetics and were considered fit for intensive treatment. During a median follow-up of 60 months from remission, patients receiving RIC transplant vs. no transplant had superior survival (37% vs. 20%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; P < .001). Survival benefit with transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone was observed across all Wheatley risk groups (adjusted HR 0.68; P < .001). The trial including 932 patients (age 60-70 years) with AML who entered remission and lacked favorable risk. Of these, 144 underwent RIC transplants from either matched sibling donors (n = 52) or matched unrelated donors (n = 92).
The outcome of patients with AML and central nervous system (CNS) involvement at presentation was reported by Ganzel et al. In that study, the investigators evaluated the incidence of CNS involvement in 11 consecutive Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) clinical trials. The incidence of CNS incolvement was 1.111 % (36 of 3240 patients). CNS involvement had no effect on remission rates or survival.
References
- Dinardo CD et al. Enasidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia (AG221-AML-005): a single-arm, phase 1b and randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(11):P1597-1608 (Nov 1).
- Russell NH et al. Outcomes of older patients aged 60 to 70 years undergoing reduced intensity transplant for acute myeloblastic leukemia: results of the NCRI acute myeloid leukemia 16 trial. Haematologica. 2021(Oct 14).
- Ganzel C et al. CNS involvement in AML at diagnosis is rare and does not affect response or survival: data from 11 ECOG-ACRIN trials. Blood Adv. 2021(Nov 12);5(22):4560-4568. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004999.
Phase 3 fails to demonstrate survival benefit with tipifarnib maintenance in AML in remission
Key clinical point: Maintenance therapy with tipifarnib did not prolong survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in remission.
Major finding: The median disease-free survival for tipifarnib vs. observation arms was 8.9 vs. 5.3 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; P = .026), which did not meet the prespecified limit to call a positive effect. The median overall survival was not significantly different between tipifarnib vs. observation arms (16.4 vs. 9.3 months; HR 0.74; P = .056).
Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 E2902 trial including 144 adult patients with non-M3 AML in remission and who were randomly assigned to tipifarnib or observation arms.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. No disclosures were reported.
Source: Luger SM et al. Leuk Res. 2021;111:106736 (Oct 28). Doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2021.106736.
Key clinical point: Maintenance therapy with tipifarnib did not prolong survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in remission.
Major finding: The median disease-free survival for tipifarnib vs. observation arms was 8.9 vs. 5.3 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; P = .026), which did not meet the prespecified limit to call a positive effect. The median overall survival was not significantly different between tipifarnib vs. observation arms (16.4 vs. 9.3 months; HR 0.74; P = .056).
Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 E2902 trial including 144 adult patients with non-M3 AML in remission and who were randomly assigned to tipifarnib or observation arms.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. No disclosures were reported.
Source: Luger SM et al. Leuk Res. 2021;111:106736 (Oct 28). Doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2021.106736.
Key clinical point: Maintenance therapy with tipifarnib did not prolong survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in remission.
Major finding: The median disease-free survival for tipifarnib vs. observation arms was 8.9 vs. 5.3 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; P = .026), which did not meet the prespecified limit to call a positive effect. The median overall survival was not significantly different between tipifarnib vs. observation arms (16.4 vs. 9.3 months; HR 0.74; P = .056).
Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 E2902 trial including 144 adult patients with non-M3 AML in remission and who were randomly assigned to tipifarnib or observation arms.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. No disclosures were reported.
Source: Luger SM et al. Leuk Res. 2021;111:106736 (Oct 28). Doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2021.106736.
Alvocidib followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone shows clinical activity in MCL-1-dependent R/R AML
Key clinical point: Alvocidib followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone (ACM) was clinically active and well tolerated in patients with myeloid cell leukemia-1 (MCL-1)-dependent relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
Major finding: The rates of composite complete remission after 1 cycle of ACM therapy were 47%, 21%, 64%, and 52% in patients with R/R AML with MCL-1 <15%, 15% to <30%, 30% to <40%, and ≥40%, respectively. The rate of 30-day mortality was 6% in the R/R AML cohort.
Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 Zella-201 study including 221 adult patients with R/R AML and an exploratory cohort of 169 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk AML, of which 39% were MCL-1 dependent (≥40%).
Disclosures: This study was supported by Tolero Pharmaceuticals, acquired by Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma (SDP). Some investigators, including the lead author, reported being employees of; receiving research funding, honoraria, grants, or drug support from; being on advisory boards or data monitoring committees for; or receiving consultancy or speaker roles from various sources, including Tolero and SDP.
Source: Zeidner JF et al. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11:175 (Oct 30). Doi: 10.1038/s41408-021-00568-3.
Key clinical point: Alvocidib followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone (ACM) was clinically active and well tolerated in patients with myeloid cell leukemia-1 (MCL-1)-dependent relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
Major finding: The rates of composite complete remission after 1 cycle of ACM therapy were 47%, 21%, 64%, and 52% in patients with R/R AML with MCL-1 <15%, 15% to <30%, 30% to <40%, and ≥40%, respectively. The rate of 30-day mortality was 6% in the R/R AML cohort.
Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 Zella-201 study including 221 adult patients with R/R AML and an exploratory cohort of 169 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk AML, of which 39% were MCL-1 dependent (≥40%).
Disclosures: This study was supported by Tolero Pharmaceuticals, acquired by Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma (SDP). Some investigators, including the lead author, reported being employees of; receiving research funding, honoraria, grants, or drug support from; being on advisory boards or data monitoring committees for; or receiving consultancy or speaker roles from various sources, including Tolero and SDP.
Source: Zeidner JF et al. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11:175 (Oct 30). Doi: 10.1038/s41408-021-00568-3.
Key clinical point: Alvocidib followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone (ACM) was clinically active and well tolerated in patients with myeloid cell leukemia-1 (MCL-1)-dependent relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
Major finding: The rates of composite complete remission after 1 cycle of ACM therapy were 47%, 21%, 64%, and 52% in patients with R/R AML with MCL-1 <15%, 15% to <30%, 30% to <40%, and ≥40%, respectively. The rate of 30-day mortality was 6% in the R/R AML cohort.
Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 Zella-201 study including 221 adult patients with R/R AML and an exploratory cohort of 169 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk AML, of which 39% were MCL-1 dependent (≥40%).
Disclosures: This study was supported by Tolero Pharmaceuticals, acquired by Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma (SDP). Some investigators, including the lead author, reported being employees of; receiving research funding, honoraria, grants, or drug support from; being on advisory boards or data monitoring committees for; or receiving consultancy or speaker roles from various sources, including Tolero and SDP.
Source: Zeidner JF et al. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11:175 (Oct 30). Doi: 10.1038/s41408-021-00568-3.
ICH affects survival in nonpromyelocytic AML patients receiving intensive chemotherapy
Key clinical point: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is still a deadly complication affecting survival in patients with newly diagnosed nonacute promyelocytic acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving intensive induction chemotherapy (IIC) despite routine prophylactic platelet substitution.
Major finding: Overall, 4% of patients developed ICH. Patients with ICH vs. without had worse overall survival (median, 20.1 vs. 104.8 months; P = .0079) with female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.79; P = .03), low thrombocyte (aOR 1.2; P = .03), and fibrinogen levels at admission (aOR 1.62; P = .03) being risk factors for ICH.
Study details: This retrospective study included 423 patients with newly diagnosed nonacute promyelocytic AML hospitalized for IIC with routine platelet transfusions at <10 thrombocytes/nL.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Koschade SE et al. Eur J Haematol. 2021(Oct 29). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13718.
Key clinical point: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is still a deadly complication affecting survival in patients with newly diagnosed nonacute promyelocytic acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving intensive induction chemotherapy (IIC) despite routine prophylactic platelet substitution.
Major finding: Overall, 4% of patients developed ICH. Patients with ICH vs. without had worse overall survival (median, 20.1 vs. 104.8 months; P = .0079) with female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.79; P = .03), low thrombocyte (aOR 1.2; P = .03), and fibrinogen levels at admission (aOR 1.62; P = .03) being risk factors for ICH.
Study details: This retrospective study included 423 patients with newly diagnosed nonacute promyelocytic AML hospitalized for IIC with routine platelet transfusions at <10 thrombocytes/nL.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Koschade SE et al. Eur J Haematol. 2021(Oct 29). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13718.
Key clinical point: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is still a deadly complication affecting survival in patients with newly diagnosed nonacute promyelocytic acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving intensive induction chemotherapy (IIC) despite routine prophylactic platelet substitution.
Major finding: Overall, 4% of patients developed ICH. Patients with ICH vs. without had worse overall survival (median, 20.1 vs. 104.8 months; P = .0079) with female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.79; P = .03), low thrombocyte (aOR 1.2; P = .03), and fibrinogen levels at admission (aOR 1.62; P = .03) being risk factors for ICH.
Study details: This retrospective study included 423 patients with newly diagnosed nonacute promyelocytic AML hospitalized for IIC with routine platelet transfusions at <10 thrombocytes/nL.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Koschade SE et al. Eur J Haematol. 2021(Oct 29). Doi: 10.1111/ejh.13718.
Antimicrobial prophylaxis prevents life-threatening infections in children with AML receiving chemotherapy
Key clinical point: Antimicrobial prophylaxis significantly reduced rates of bloodstream infection (BSI), invasive fungal infection (IFI), and febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving chemotherapy.
Major finding: Episodes of BSI (Gram-negative: 5% vs. 12%, P = .002; Gram-positive: 1% vs. 5%; P = .024) and IFI (0% vs. 4%; P = .003) decreased significantly in the prophylaxis vs. preprophylaxis period. FN episodes during induction (78% vs. 99%) and high-dose (64% vs. 94%) or moderate-dose (27% vs. 58%) chemotherapy also reduced in prophylaxis vs. preprophylaxis period (all P < .001).
Study details: This observational study included 90 children with newly diagnosed AML receiving induction and postremission high- or moderate-dose chemotherapy. Antimicrobial prophylaxis administered in 28 patients consisted of ciprofloxacin, voriconazole, and vancomycin.
Disclosures: No source of funding was identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Yeh TC et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 21142 (Oct 27). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-00725-5.
Key clinical point: Antimicrobial prophylaxis significantly reduced rates of bloodstream infection (BSI), invasive fungal infection (IFI), and febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving chemotherapy.
Major finding: Episodes of BSI (Gram-negative: 5% vs. 12%, P = .002; Gram-positive: 1% vs. 5%; P = .024) and IFI (0% vs. 4%; P = .003) decreased significantly in the prophylaxis vs. preprophylaxis period. FN episodes during induction (78% vs. 99%) and high-dose (64% vs. 94%) or moderate-dose (27% vs. 58%) chemotherapy also reduced in prophylaxis vs. preprophylaxis period (all P < .001).
Study details: This observational study included 90 children with newly diagnosed AML receiving induction and postremission high- or moderate-dose chemotherapy. Antimicrobial prophylaxis administered in 28 patients consisted of ciprofloxacin, voriconazole, and vancomycin.
Disclosures: No source of funding was identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Yeh TC et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 21142 (Oct 27). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-00725-5.
Key clinical point: Antimicrobial prophylaxis significantly reduced rates of bloodstream infection (BSI), invasive fungal infection (IFI), and febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving chemotherapy.
Major finding: Episodes of BSI (Gram-negative: 5% vs. 12%, P = .002; Gram-positive: 1% vs. 5%; P = .024) and IFI (0% vs. 4%; P = .003) decreased significantly in the prophylaxis vs. preprophylaxis period. FN episodes during induction (78% vs. 99%) and high-dose (64% vs. 94%) or moderate-dose (27% vs. 58%) chemotherapy also reduced in prophylaxis vs. preprophylaxis period (all P < .001).
Study details: This observational study included 90 children with newly diagnosed AML receiving induction and postremission high- or moderate-dose chemotherapy. Antimicrobial prophylaxis administered in 28 patients consisted of ciprofloxacin, voriconazole, and vancomycin.
Disclosures: No source of funding was identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Yeh TC et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 21142 (Oct 27). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-00725-5.
New insights on OCV-501 induced immune response and survival in elderly AML patients in CR1
Key clinical point: Wilms’ tumor 1 helper peptide OCV-501 was well tolerated, but did not significantly improve clinical outcomes in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1). However, immune responders may benefit from OCV-501.
Major finding: The median disease-free survival (P = .7671) and overall survival (P = .8540) were not significantly different between OCV-501 vs. placebo groups. However, those with an immune response to OCV-501 had better survival outcomes (P < .0001). Adverse drug reactions were more frequent in patients receiving OCV-501 vs. placebo (91.2% vs. 58.5%) and were mainly injection-site reactions.
Study details: This phase 2 study included 134 elderly (age ³60 years) patients with AML who achieved CR1 within 1 or 2 courses of standard induction therapies and were randomly assigned to either OCV-501 (n = 69) or placebo (n = 65).
Disclosures: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (OPCL). K Masui, Y Ihara, M Hirota, and N Shimofurutani reported being employees of OPCL. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources including OPCL.
Source: Kiguchi T et al. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2021(Oct 22). Doi: 10.1007/s00262-021-03074-4.
Key clinical point: Wilms’ tumor 1 helper peptide OCV-501 was well tolerated, but did not significantly improve clinical outcomes in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1). However, immune responders may benefit from OCV-501.
Major finding: The median disease-free survival (P = .7671) and overall survival (P = .8540) were not significantly different between OCV-501 vs. placebo groups. However, those with an immune response to OCV-501 had better survival outcomes (P < .0001). Adverse drug reactions were more frequent in patients receiving OCV-501 vs. placebo (91.2% vs. 58.5%) and were mainly injection-site reactions.
Study details: This phase 2 study included 134 elderly (age ³60 years) patients with AML who achieved CR1 within 1 or 2 courses of standard induction therapies and were randomly assigned to either OCV-501 (n = 69) or placebo (n = 65).
Disclosures: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (OPCL). K Masui, Y Ihara, M Hirota, and N Shimofurutani reported being employees of OPCL. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources including OPCL.
Source: Kiguchi T et al. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2021(Oct 22). Doi: 10.1007/s00262-021-03074-4.
Key clinical point: Wilms’ tumor 1 helper peptide OCV-501 was well tolerated, but did not significantly improve clinical outcomes in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1). However, immune responders may benefit from OCV-501.
Major finding: The median disease-free survival (P = .7671) and overall survival (P = .8540) were not significantly different between OCV-501 vs. placebo groups. However, those with an immune response to OCV-501 had better survival outcomes (P < .0001). Adverse drug reactions were more frequent in patients receiving OCV-501 vs. placebo (91.2% vs. 58.5%) and were mainly injection-site reactions.
Study details: This phase 2 study included 134 elderly (age ³60 years) patients with AML who achieved CR1 within 1 or 2 courses of standard induction therapies and were randomly assigned to either OCV-501 (n = 69) or placebo (n = 65).
Disclosures: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (OPCL). K Masui, Y Ihara, M Hirota, and N Shimofurutani reported being employees of OPCL. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources including OPCL.
Source: Kiguchi T et al. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2021(Oct 22). Doi: 10.1007/s00262-021-03074-4.
Newly diagnosed AML: Optimization of idarubicin and cytarabine induction based on D5-PBCR
Key clinical point: Optimization of a traditional induction regimen with idarubicin and cytarabine (IA) with additional homoharringtonine according to day 5 peripheral blast clearance rate (D5-PBCR) ³99.55% (D5-PBCR−) is feasible in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with reversal of unfavorable outcomes observed in patients with D5-PBCR <99.55% (D5-PBCR+).
Major finding: Rates of composite complete remission after 1 cycle of induction (CR1) were 87.5% and 80.0% in D5-PBCR− and D5-PBCR+ groups, respectively, with CR1 rate improving by almost 18% in the D5-PBCR+ group compared with the historical data (P = .049). The median overall survival, event-free survival, and grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar between the 2 groups.
Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 RJ-AML 2014 trial including 151 adult patients with untreated newly diagnosed AML who received a dose-reduced IA induction regimen. Patients with D5-PBCR+ (n = 65) received IA+homoharringtonine.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Multi-Center Clinical Research Project Grant and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Zhang Y et al. Am J Hematol. 2021(Oct 23). Doi: 10.1002/ajh.26386.
Key clinical point: Optimization of a traditional induction regimen with idarubicin and cytarabine (IA) with additional homoharringtonine according to day 5 peripheral blast clearance rate (D5-PBCR) ³99.55% (D5-PBCR−) is feasible in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with reversal of unfavorable outcomes observed in patients with D5-PBCR <99.55% (D5-PBCR+).
Major finding: Rates of composite complete remission after 1 cycle of induction (CR1) were 87.5% and 80.0% in D5-PBCR− and D5-PBCR+ groups, respectively, with CR1 rate improving by almost 18% in the D5-PBCR+ group compared with the historical data (P = .049). The median overall survival, event-free survival, and grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar between the 2 groups.
Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 RJ-AML 2014 trial including 151 adult patients with untreated newly diagnosed AML who received a dose-reduced IA induction regimen. Patients with D5-PBCR+ (n = 65) received IA+homoharringtonine.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Multi-Center Clinical Research Project Grant and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Zhang Y et al. Am J Hematol. 2021(Oct 23). Doi: 10.1002/ajh.26386.
Key clinical point: Optimization of a traditional induction regimen with idarubicin and cytarabine (IA) with additional homoharringtonine according to day 5 peripheral blast clearance rate (D5-PBCR) ³99.55% (D5-PBCR−) is feasible in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with reversal of unfavorable outcomes observed in patients with D5-PBCR <99.55% (D5-PBCR+).
Major finding: Rates of composite complete remission after 1 cycle of induction (CR1) were 87.5% and 80.0% in D5-PBCR− and D5-PBCR+ groups, respectively, with CR1 rate improving by almost 18% in the D5-PBCR+ group compared with the historical data (P = .049). The median overall survival, event-free survival, and grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar between the 2 groups.
Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 RJ-AML 2014 trial including 151 adult patients with untreated newly diagnosed AML who received a dose-reduced IA induction regimen. Patients with D5-PBCR+ (n = 65) received IA+homoharringtonine.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Multi-Center Clinical Research Project Grant and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Zhang Y et al. Am J Hematol. 2021(Oct 23). Doi: 10.1002/ajh.26386.