AML

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Precision medicine therapy proved feasible and superior to standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in the Beat AML Master Clinical Trial.

The 30-day mortality rates were 3.7% versus 20.4% in 224 patients who enrolled in the Beat AML trial precision medicine substudies within 7 days of prospective genomic profiling and 103 who elected SOC chemotherapy, respectively, Amy Burd, PhD, vice president of research strategy for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Rye Brook, N.Y. and her colleagues reported online in Nature Medicine.

Overall survival (OS) at a median of 7.1 months was also significantly longer with precision medicine than with SOC chemotherapy (median, 12.8 vs. 3.9 months), the investigators found.

In an additional 28 patients who selected an investigational therapy rather than a precision medicine strategy or SOC chemotherapy, median OS was not reached, and in 38 who chose palliative care, median OS was 0.6 months, they noted. Care type was unknown in two patients.

The results were similar after controlling for demographic, clinical, and molecular variables and did not change when patients with adverse events of special interest were excluded from the analysis or when only those with survival greater than 2 weeks were included in the analysis.

AML confers an adverse outcome in older adults and therefore is typically treated rapidly after diagnosis. This has precluded consideration of patients’ mutational profile for treatment decisions.

Beat AML, however, sought to prospectively assess the feasibility of quickly ascertaining cytogenetic and mutational data for the purpose of improving outcomes through targeted treatment.

“The study shows that delaying treatment up to 7 days is feasible and safe, and that patients who opted for the precision medicine approach experienced a lower early death rate and superior overall survival, compared with patients who opted for standard of care,” lead study author John C. Byrd, MD, the D. Warren Brown Chair of Leukemia Research of the Ohio State University, Columbus, noted in a press statement from the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which conducted the trial. “This patient-centric study shows that we can move away from chemotherapy treatment for patients who won’t respond or can’t withstand the harsh effects of the same chemotherapies we’ve been using for 40 years and match them with a treatment better suited for their individual cases.”

The ongoing Beat AML trial was launched by LLS in 2016 to assess various novel targeted therapies in newly diagnosed AML patients aged 60 years and older. Participants underwent next-generation genomic sequencing, were matched to the appropriate targeted therapy, and were given the option of enrolling on the relevant substudy or selecting an alternate treatment strategy. There are currently 11 substudies assessing novel therapies that have emerged in the wake of “significant progress in understanding the molecular pathogenesis of AML.”

The current findings represent outcomes in patients enrolled between Nov. 2016 and Jan. 2018. The patients had a mean age of 72 years, and those selecting precision medicine vs. SOC had similar demographic and genetic features, the authors noted.

LLS president and chief executive officer Louis J. DeGennaro, PhD, said the findings are practice changing and provide a template for studying precision medicine in other cancers.

“The study is changing significantly the way we look at treating patients with AML, showing that precision medicine ... can improve short- and long-term outcomes for patients with this deadly blood cancer,” he said in the LLS statement. “Further, BEAT AML has proven to be a viable model for other cancer clinical trials to emulate.”

In fact, the model has been applied to the recently launched Beat COVID trial, which looks at acalabrutinib in patients with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 infection, and other trials, including the LLS PedAL global precision medicine trial for children with relapsed acute leukemia, are planned.

“This study sets the path to establish the safety of precision medicine in AML and sets the stage to extend this same approach to younger patients with this disease and other cancers that are urgently treated as a single disease despite recognition of multiple subtypes, the authors concluded.

Dr. Burd is an employee of LLS, which received funding from AbbVie, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Byrd has received research support from Acerta Pharma, Genentech, Janssen Pharmaceutica, and Pharmacyclics and has served on the advisory board of Syndax Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burd A et al. Nature Medicine 2020 Oct 26. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1089-8.

Precision medicine therapy proved feasible and superior to standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in the Beat AML Master Clinical Trial.

The 30-day mortality rates were 3.7% versus 20.4% in 224 patients who enrolled in the Beat AML trial precision medicine substudies within 7 days of prospective genomic profiling and 103 who elected SOC chemotherapy, respectively, Amy Burd, PhD, vice president of research strategy for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Rye Brook, N.Y. and her colleagues reported online in Nature Medicine.

Overall survival (OS) at a median of 7.1 months was also significantly longer with precision medicine than with SOC chemotherapy (median, 12.8 vs. 3.9 months), the investigators found.

In an additional 28 patients who selected an investigational therapy rather than a precision medicine strategy or SOC chemotherapy, median OS was not reached, and in 38 who chose palliative care, median OS was 0.6 months, they noted. Care type was unknown in two patients.

The results were similar after controlling for demographic, clinical, and molecular variables and did not change when patients with adverse events of special interest were excluded from the analysis or when only those with survival greater than 2 weeks were included in the analysis.

AML confers an adverse outcome in older adults and therefore is typically treated rapidly after diagnosis. This has precluded consideration of patients’ mutational profile for treatment decisions.

Beat AML, however, sought to prospectively assess the feasibility of quickly ascertaining cytogenetic and mutational data for the purpose of improving outcomes through targeted treatment.

“The study shows that delaying treatment up to 7 days is feasible and safe, and that patients who opted for the precision medicine approach experienced a lower early death rate and superior overall survival, compared with patients who opted for standard of care,” lead study author John C. Byrd, MD, the D. Warren Brown Chair of Leukemia Research of the Ohio State University, Columbus, noted in a press statement from the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which conducted the trial. “This patient-centric study shows that we can move away from chemotherapy treatment for patients who won’t respond or can’t withstand the harsh effects of the same chemotherapies we’ve been using for 40 years and match them with a treatment better suited for their individual cases.”

The ongoing Beat AML trial was launched by LLS in 2016 to assess various novel targeted therapies in newly diagnosed AML patients aged 60 years and older. Participants underwent next-generation genomic sequencing, were matched to the appropriate targeted therapy, and were given the option of enrolling on the relevant substudy or selecting an alternate treatment strategy. There are currently 11 substudies assessing novel therapies that have emerged in the wake of “significant progress in understanding the molecular pathogenesis of AML.”

The current findings represent outcomes in patients enrolled between Nov. 2016 and Jan. 2018. The patients had a mean age of 72 years, and those selecting precision medicine vs. SOC had similar demographic and genetic features, the authors noted.

LLS president and chief executive officer Louis J. DeGennaro, PhD, said the findings are practice changing and provide a template for studying precision medicine in other cancers.

“The study is changing significantly the way we look at treating patients with AML, showing that precision medicine ... can improve short- and long-term outcomes for patients with this deadly blood cancer,” he said in the LLS statement. “Further, BEAT AML has proven to be a viable model for other cancer clinical trials to emulate.”

In fact, the model has been applied to the recently launched Beat COVID trial, which looks at acalabrutinib in patients with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 infection, and other trials, including the LLS PedAL global precision medicine trial for children with relapsed acute leukemia, are planned.

“This study sets the path to establish the safety of precision medicine in AML and sets the stage to extend this same approach to younger patients with this disease and other cancers that are urgently treated as a single disease despite recognition of multiple subtypes, the authors concluded.

Dr. Burd is an employee of LLS, which received funding from AbbVie, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Byrd has received research support from Acerta Pharma, Genentech, Janssen Pharmaceutica, and Pharmacyclics and has served on the advisory board of Syndax Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burd A et al. Nature Medicine 2020 Oct 26. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1089-8.

Precision medicine therapy proved feasible and superior to standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in the Beat AML Master Clinical Trial.

The 30-day mortality rates were 3.7% versus 20.4% in 224 patients who enrolled in the Beat AML trial precision medicine substudies within 7 days of prospective genomic profiling and 103 who elected SOC chemotherapy, respectively, Amy Burd, PhD, vice president of research strategy for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Rye Brook, N.Y. and her colleagues reported online in Nature Medicine.

Overall survival (OS) at a median of 7.1 months was also significantly longer with precision medicine than with SOC chemotherapy (median, 12.8 vs. 3.9 months), the investigators found.

In an additional 28 patients who selected an investigational therapy rather than a precision medicine strategy or SOC chemotherapy, median OS was not reached, and in 38 who chose palliative care, median OS was 0.6 months, they noted. Care type was unknown in two patients.

The results were similar after controlling for demographic, clinical, and molecular variables and did not change when patients with adverse events of special interest were excluded from the analysis or when only those with survival greater than 2 weeks were included in the analysis.

AML confers an adverse outcome in older adults and therefore is typically treated rapidly after diagnosis. This has precluded consideration of patients’ mutational profile for treatment decisions.

Beat AML, however, sought to prospectively assess the feasibility of quickly ascertaining cytogenetic and mutational data for the purpose of improving outcomes through targeted treatment.

“The study shows that delaying treatment up to 7 days is feasible and safe, and that patients who opted for the precision medicine approach experienced a lower early death rate and superior overall survival, compared with patients who opted for standard of care,” lead study author John C. Byrd, MD, the D. Warren Brown Chair of Leukemia Research of the Ohio State University, Columbus, noted in a press statement from the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which conducted the trial. “This patient-centric study shows that we can move away from chemotherapy treatment for patients who won’t respond or can’t withstand the harsh effects of the same chemotherapies we’ve been using for 40 years and match them with a treatment better suited for their individual cases.”

The ongoing Beat AML trial was launched by LLS in 2016 to assess various novel targeted therapies in newly diagnosed AML patients aged 60 years and older. Participants underwent next-generation genomic sequencing, were matched to the appropriate targeted therapy, and were given the option of enrolling on the relevant substudy or selecting an alternate treatment strategy. There are currently 11 substudies assessing novel therapies that have emerged in the wake of “significant progress in understanding the molecular pathogenesis of AML.”

The current findings represent outcomes in patients enrolled between Nov. 2016 and Jan. 2018. The patients had a mean age of 72 years, and those selecting precision medicine vs. SOC had similar demographic and genetic features, the authors noted.

LLS president and chief executive officer Louis J. DeGennaro, PhD, said the findings are practice changing and provide a template for studying precision medicine in other cancers.

“The study is changing significantly the way we look at treating patients with AML, showing that precision medicine ... can improve short- and long-term outcomes for patients with this deadly blood cancer,” he said in the LLS statement. “Further, BEAT AML has proven to be a viable model for other cancer clinical trials to emulate.”

In fact, the model has been applied to the recently launched Beat COVID trial, which looks at acalabrutinib in patients with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 infection, and other trials, including the LLS PedAL global precision medicine trial for children with relapsed acute leukemia, are planned.

“This study sets the path to establish the safety of precision medicine in AML and sets the stage to extend this same approach to younger patients with this disease and other cancers that are urgently treated as a single disease despite recognition of multiple subtypes, the authors concluded.

Dr. Burd is an employee of LLS, which received funding from AbbVie, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and a variety of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Byrd has received research support from Acerta Pharma, Genentech, Janssen Pharmaceutica, and Pharmacyclics and has served on the advisory board of Syndax Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burd A et al. Nature Medicine 2020 Oct 26. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1089-8.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.

“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”

Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”

In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
 

A potential role

Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.

“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”

In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”

In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”

The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”

In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”

Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”

Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.

“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”

Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”

In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
 

A potential role

Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.

“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”

In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”

In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”

The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”

In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”

Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”

Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.

“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”

Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”

In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
 

A potential role

Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.

“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”

In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”

In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”

The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”

In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”

Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”

Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Novel therapies are poised to dramatically change frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and they have the potential to replace chemotherapy, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

But more work needs to be done, noted Alexander Perl, MD, MS, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. While advances have transformed AML treatment in the relapsed/refractory setting, “we’re just not seeing that substantive improvement” for newly diagnosed patients, he said. “We need to find the disease-modifying drugs that work in the relapsed/refractory setting and move those frontline. That’s where we’re going to see the transformations.”

Research suggests that low-intensity therapy holds tremendous promise, he said, “with the idea that we could make therapy much more tolerable for the vast majority of patients affected by AML, who, as we know, are older patients.”

Dr. Perl highlighted the 2020 VIALE-A study – venetoclax/azacitidine versus azacitidine/placebo – which reported that “in previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone.”

Venetoclax promotes apoptosis in leukemia cells, Dr. Perl said. “To a certain extent, you can think of it as putting the rubber to the road in terms of what actually chemotherapy is designed to do, which is to make leukemic blasts apoptose. It does so without DNA damage and with much less toxicity to the patient. Therefore it can be added to any number of regimens – granted, with mild suppression, but with relatively little extramedullary toxicity.”

Dr. Perl noted that the venetoclax arm “showed a higher response rate than azacitidine in pretty much every subgroup that was looked at, whether patients had de novo leukemia, secondary leukemia, multiple mutational complements, various different karyotypes. The response rates on this study are as high as what we often will see with intensive chemotherapy.” He added that “the winning arm on this trial seems to hold up against any low-intensity therapy, and I would argue against many high-intensity therapies in older patients.”

As for other targeted agents, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors “are very promising drugs in the relapsed/refractory setting, which is primarily where these drugs are given. In regard to frontline treatment, “data are coming from a very small study, but they’re very encouraging. It’s hard to entirely say that we’re ready to change practice based on this. But it’s very encouraging – the idea that earlier use of a drug-targeting IDH mutation might lead to substantially better outcomes.”

Moving forward, he said, “we could put all of our eggs in one basket and use many active drugs [at] front line. Or we can perhaps be smart about sequencing these drugs one after another, or using more intensive approaches followed by maintenance approaches followed by more intensive approaches.”

This approach is similar to strategies in myeloma patients “who less and less are relying on an autologous transplant for durable control of their disease, and more and more are using low-intensity biologically targeted drugs,” he said.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Perl reported numerous disclosures, including relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Astellas.

Novel therapies are poised to dramatically change frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and they have the potential to replace chemotherapy, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

But more work needs to be done, noted Alexander Perl, MD, MS, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. While advances have transformed AML treatment in the relapsed/refractory setting, “we’re just not seeing that substantive improvement” for newly diagnosed patients, he said. “We need to find the disease-modifying drugs that work in the relapsed/refractory setting and move those frontline. That’s where we’re going to see the transformations.”

Research suggests that low-intensity therapy holds tremendous promise, he said, “with the idea that we could make therapy much more tolerable for the vast majority of patients affected by AML, who, as we know, are older patients.”

Dr. Perl highlighted the 2020 VIALE-A study – venetoclax/azacitidine versus azacitidine/placebo – which reported that “in previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone.”

Venetoclax promotes apoptosis in leukemia cells, Dr. Perl said. “To a certain extent, you can think of it as putting the rubber to the road in terms of what actually chemotherapy is designed to do, which is to make leukemic blasts apoptose. It does so without DNA damage and with much less toxicity to the patient. Therefore it can be added to any number of regimens – granted, with mild suppression, but with relatively little extramedullary toxicity.”

Dr. Perl noted that the venetoclax arm “showed a higher response rate than azacitidine in pretty much every subgroup that was looked at, whether patients had de novo leukemia, secondary leukemia, multiple mutational complements, various different karyotypes. The response rates on this study are as high as what we often will see with intensive chemotherapy.” He added that “the winning arm on this trial seems to hold up against any low-intensity therapy, and I would argue against many high-intensity therapies in older patients.”

As for other targeted agents, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors “are very promising drugs in the relapsed/refractory setting, which is primarily where these drugs are given. In regard to frontline treatment, “data are coming from a very small study, but they’re very encouraging. It’s hard to entirely say that we’re ready to change practice based on this. But it’s very encouraging – the idea that earlier use of a drug-targeting IDH mutation might lead to substantially better outcomes.”

Moving forward, he said, “we could put all of our eggs in one basket and use many active drugs [at] front line. Or we can perhaps be smart about sequencing these drugs one after another, or using more intensive approaches followed by maintenance approaches followed by more intensive approaches.”

This approach is similar to strategies in myeloma patients “who less and less are relying on an autologous transplant for durable control of their disease, and more and more are using low-intensity biologically targeted drugs,” he said.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Perl reported numerous disclosures, including relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Astellas.

Novel therapies are poised to dramatically change frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and they have the potential to replace chemotherapy, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

But more work needs to be done, noted Alexander Perl, MD, MS, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. While advances have transformed AML treatment in the relapsed/refractory setting, “we’re just not seeing that substantive improvement” for newly diagnosed patients, he said. “We need to find the disease-modifying drugs that work in the relapsed/refractory setting and move those frontline. That’s where we’re going to see the transformations.”

Research suggests that low-intensity therapy holds tremendous promise, he said, “with the idea that we could make therapy much more tolerable for the vast majority of patients affected by AML, who, as we know, are older patients.”

Dr. Perl highlighted the 2020 VIALE-A study – venetoclax/azacitidine versus azacitidine/placebo – which reported that “in previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone.”

Venetoclax promotes apoptosis in leukemia cells, Dr. Perl said. “To a certain extent, you can think of it as putting the rubber to the road in terms of what actually chemotherapy is designed to do, which is to make leukemic blasts apoptose. It does so without DNA damage and with much less toxicity to the patient. Therefore it can be added to any number of regimens – granted, with mild suppression, but with relatively little extramedullary toxicity.”

Dr. Perl noted that the venetoclax arm “showed a higher response rate than azacitidine in pretty much every subgroup that was looked at, whether patients had de novo leukemia, secondary leukemia, multiple mutational complements, various different karyotypes. The response rates on this study are as high as what we often will see with intensive chemotherapy.” He added that “the winning arm on this trial seems to hold up against any low-intensity therapy, and I would argue against many high-intensity therapies in older patients.”

As for other targeted agents, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors “are very promising drugs in the relapsed/refractory setting, which is primarily where these drugs are given. In regard to frontline treatment, “data are coming from a very small study, but they’re very encouraging. It’s hard to entirely say that we’re ready to change practice based on this. But it’s very encouraging – the idea that earlier use of a drug-targeting IDH mutation might lead to substantially better outcomes.”

Moving forward, he said, “we could put all of our eggs in one basket and use many active drugs [at] front line. Or we can perhaps be smart about sequencing these drugs one after another, or using more intensive approaches followed by maintenance approaches followed by more intensive approaches.”

This approach is similar to strategies in myeloma patients “who less and less are relying on an autologous transplant for durable control of their disease, and more and more are using low-intensity biologically targeted drugs,” he said.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Perl reported numerous disclosures, including relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Astellas.

Despite a variety of options, patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) continue to face poor prognoses, and a standard of care remains elusive, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues.

“Clearly we have a problem with this group of patients,” Ehab Atallah, MD, professor of medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. In regard to treatments, he added, “we still have multiple unanswered questions.”

As Dr. Atallah noted, a 2018 study of 3,012 patients – in 9 successive ECOG‐ACRIN trials for newly diagnosed AML from 1984-2008 – showed poor outcomes for relapsed/refractory patients. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, 59.1% reached first complete remission (CR1), and 58.9% of those relapsed. In the relapsed patients, the median overall survival from relapse was 0.5 years, and the overall survival (OS) over 5 years was 10%.

“Even among patients who relapsed with better prognostic factors – age < 40 and CR1 > 12 months – there was no significant OS difference between the studies,” the study noted. “In conclusion, this large cohort appears to confirm that the survival of AML patients post relapse continues to be dismal and has not improved during the past quarter of a century.”

There isn’t a clear standard of care, said Dr. Atallah, as shown by a 2014 phase 3 study of elacytarabine vs. investigator choice in relapsed/refractory AML patients. The investigators chose seven treatment options for the control arm.

So how can physicians make the best decisions about treatment? A 2018 report finds that some factors do offer guidance about how well relapsed patients will do, Dr. Atallah said, including worse prognoses for higher age (>50 years), time to relapse (< 1 year), number of cycles of treatment needed to achieve remission (more than 1), and unfavorable cytogenetics. And, he said, “practically no one is cured when their leukemia relapses without stem cell transplantation.”

Also keep comorbidities in mind, he said, and consider previous therapies – not just the ones implemented prior to their induction but from all treatments they received: “How much anthracycline did they get? Do they still have room to receive any more anthracycline? Do they have any pulmonary complications from GVHD [graft versus host disease]?”

Another tool may be helpful. A 2013 study found that geriatric assessment predicted survival for older adults with AML who took induction chemotherapy, he said. “I’m pretty sure that this geriatric assessment would also have significant prognostic information for patients with relapsed refractory AML.”

Molecular changes add to the complexity of treatment for relapsed/refractory AML, Dr. Atallah said, in light of new molecularly targeted drugs. He pointed to a 2019 study that showed a slight increase in median overall survival (9.3 months vs. 5.6 months) for gilteritinib vs. salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory patients with FLT3-mutated AML. Other studies have shown limited effects of ID1 inhibitors, he said.

In the big picture, “there are many patient-, disease-, and prior-therapy-related variables that are involved in our decisions plus donor availability, social support, whether they have a transplant before, what kind of treatment they got before the functional assessment, and comorbidities. Even with the current choices for relapsed/refractory AML, the overall survival remains poor. Enrollment in clinical trials would be the best option for these patients.”

Dr. Atallah disclosed ties with Jazz, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, and Novartis.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

SOURCE: “Why Is There No Standard of Care for Relapsed AML?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

Despite a variety of options, patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) continue to face poor prognoses, and a standard of care remains elusive, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues.

“Clearly we have a problem with this group of patients,” Ehab Atallah, MD, professor of medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. In regard to treatments, he added, “we still have multiple unanswered questions.”

As Dr. Atallah noted, a 2018 study of 3,012 patients – in 9 successive ECOG‐ACRIN trials for newly diagnosed AML from 1984-2008 – showed poor outcomes for relapsed/refractory patients. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, 59.1% reached first complete remission (CR1), and 58.9% of those relapsed. In the relapsed patients, the median overall survival from relapse was 0.5 years, and the overall survival (OS) over 5 years was 10%.

“Even among patients who relapsed with better prognostic factors – age < 40 and CR1 > 12 months – there was no significant OS difference between the studies,” the study noted. “In conclusion, this large cohort appears to confirm that the survival of AML patients post relapse continues to be dismal and has not improved during the past quarter of a century.”

There isn’t a clear standard of care, said Dr. Atallah, as shown by a 2014 phase 3 study of elacytarabine vs. investigator choice in relapsed/refractory AML patients. The investigators chose seven treatment options for the control arm.

So how can physicians make the best decisions about treatment? A 2018 report finds that some factors do offer guidance about how well relapsed patients will do, Dr. Atallah said, including worse prognoses for higher age (>50 years), time to relapse (< 1 year), number of cycles of treatment needed to achieve remission (more than 1), and unfavorable cytogenetics. And, he said, “practically no one is cured when their leukemia relapses without stem cell transplantation.”

Also keep comorbidities in mind, he said, and consider previous therapies – not just the ones implemented prior to their induction but from all treatments they received: “How much anthracycline did they get? Do they still have room to receive any more anthracycline? Do they have any pulmonary complications from GVHD [graft versus host disease]?”

Another tool may be helpful. A 2013 study found that geriatric assessment predicted survival for older adults with AML who took induction chemotherapy, he said. “I’m pretty sure that this geriatric assessment would also have significant prognostic information for patients with relapsed refractory AML.”

Molecular changes add to the complexity of treatment for relapsed/refractory AML, Dr. Atallah said, in light of new molecularly targeted drugs. He pointed to a 2019 study that showed a slight increase in median overall survival (9.3 months vs. 5.6 months) for gilteritinib vs. salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory patients with FLT3-mutated AML. Other studies have shown limited effects of ID1 inhibitors, he said.

In the big picture, “there are many patient-, disease-, and prior-therapy-related variables that are involved in our decisions plus donor availability, social support, whether they have a transplant before, what kind of treatment they got before the functional assessment, and comorbidities. Even with the current choices for relapsed/refractory AML, the overall survival remains poor. Enrollment in clinical trials would be the best option for these patients.”

Dr. Atallah disclosed ties with Jazz, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, and Novartis.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

SOURCE: “Why Is There No Standard of Care for Relapsed AML?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

Despite a variety of options, patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) continue to face poor prognoses, and a standard of care remains elusive, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues.

“Clearly we have a problem with this group of patients,” Ehab Atallah, MD, professor of medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. In regard to treatments, he added, “we still have multiple unanswered questions.”

As Dr. Atallah noted, a 2018 study of 3,012 patients – in 9 successive ECOG‐ACRIN trials for newly diagnosed AML from 1984-2008 – showed poor outcomes for relapsed/refractory patients. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, 59.1% reached first complete remission (CR1), and 58.9% of those relapsed. In the relapsed patients, the median overall survival from relapse was 0.5 years, and the overall survival (OS) over 5 years was 10%.

“Even among patients who relapsed with better prognostic factors – age < 40 and CR1 > 12 months – there was no significant OS difference between the studies,” the study noted. “In conclusion, this large cohort appears to confirm that the survival of AML patients post relapse continues to be dismal and has not improved during the past quarter of a century.”

There isn’t a clear standard of care, said Dr. Atallah, as shown by a 2014 phase 3 study of elacytarabine vs. investigator choice in relapsed/refractory AML patients. The investigators chose seven treatment options for the control arm.

So how can physicians make the best decisions about treatment? A 2018 report finds that some factors do offer guidance about how well relapsed patients will do, Dr. Atallah said, including worse prognoses for higher age (>50 years), time to relapse (< 1 year), number of cycles of treatment needed to achieve remission (more than 1), and unfavorable cytogenetics. And, he said, “practically no one is cured when their leukemia relapses without stem cell transplantation.”

Also keep comorbidities in mind, he said, and consider previous therapies – not just the ones implemented prior to their induction but from all treatments they received: “How much anthracycline did they get? Do they still have room to receive any more anthracycline? Do they have any pulmonary complications from GVHD [graft versus host disease]?”

Another tool may be helpful. A 2013 study found that geriatric assessment predicted survival for older adults with AML who took induction chemotherapy, he said. “I’m pretty sure that this geriatric assessment would also have significant prognostic information for patients with relapsed refractory AML.”

Molecular changes add to the complexity of treatment for relapsed/refractory AML, Dr. Atallah said, in light of new molecularly targeted drugs. He pointed to a 2019 study that showed a slight increase in median overall survival (9.3 months vs. 5.6 months) for gilteritinib vs. salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory patients with FLT3-mutated AML. Other studies have shown limited effects of ID1 inhibitors, he said.

In the big picture, “there are many patient-, disease-, and prior-therapy-related variables that are involved in our decisions plus donor availability, social support, whether they have a transplant before, what kind of treatment they got before the functional assessment, and comorbidities. Even with the current choices for relapsed/refractory AML, the overall survival remains poor. Enrollment in clinical trials would be the best option for these patients.”

Dr. Atallah disclosed ties with Jazz, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, and Novartis.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

SOURCE: “Why Is There No Standard of Care for Relapsed AML?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

A diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is particularly challenging in older adults, whose age makes them highly susceptible to the disease and treatment-related toxicity. To help patients and practitioners navigate the clinical decision-making process, the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts who conducted a thorough review of the literature. The result of their work can be found in a new set of guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in older adults.

In an interview, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chair of the ASH AML guideline panel and director of the Leukemia Program at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, shared the rationale behind the panel’s key recommendations and the importance of keeping the patient’s goals in mind.

Question: What is the average life expectancy of a 75-year-old developing AML compared with someone of the same age without AML?

Dr. Sekeres: A 75-year-old developing AML has an average life expectancy measured in fewer than 6 months. Somebody who is 75 without leukemia in the United States has a life expectancy that can be measured in a decade or more. AML is a really serious diagnosis when someone is older and significantly truncates expected survival.

Q: What is the median age at AML diagnosis in the United States?

Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.

Q: What are the biological underpinnings for poor outcomes in older AML patients?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a few of them. Older adults with AML tend to have a leukemia that has evolved from a known or unknown previous bone marrow condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome. Older adults also have worse genetics driving their leukemia, which makes the leukemia cells more resistant to chemotherapy. And the leukemia cells may even have drug efflux pumps that extrude chemotherapy that tries to enter the cell. Finally, older adults are more likely to have comorbidities that make their ability to tolerate chemotherapy much lower than for younger adults.

Q: In someone who is newly diagnosed with AML, what initial options are they routinely given?

Dr. Sekeres: For someone who is older, we divide those options into three main categories.

The first is to take intensive chemotherapy, which requires a 4-6 week hospitalization and has a chance of getting somebody who is older into a remission of approximately 50%-60%. But this also carries with it significant treatment-related mortality that may be as high as 10%-20%. So I have to look my older patients in the eyes when I talk about intensive chemotherapy and say, “There is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 chance that you might not make it out of the hospital alive.”

The second prong is lower-dose therapy. While the more-intensive therapy requiring hospitalization does have a low, but real, chance of curing that person, less-intensive therapy is not curative. Our best hope with less-intensive therapy is that our patients enter a remission and live longer. With less-intensive therapy, the chance that someone will go into remission is probably around 20%, but again it is not curative. The flip side to that is that it improves a person’s immediate quality of life because they’re not in the hospital for 4-6 weeks.

The final prong is to discuss palliative care or hospice upfront. We designed these guidelines to be focused on a patient’s goals of therapy and to constantly revisit those goals to make sure that the treatment options we are offering are aligning with them.

Q: The panel’s first recommendation is to offer antileukemic therapy over best supportive care in patients who are appropriate candidates. Can you provide some context for this recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: Doesn’t that strike you as funny that we even have to make a recommendation about getting chemotherapy? Some database studies conducted over the past 2 decades show that, as recently as 15 years ago, only one-third of patients who were over the age of 65 years received any type of chemotherapy for AML. More recently, as we have had a few more drugs available that allow us to use lower-dose approaches, that number has crept up to probably about 50%. We still have half the patients offered no therapy at all. So we felt that we had to deliberately make a recommendation saying that, if it aligns with the patients’ goals, they should be offered chemotherapy.

Q: The second recommendation is that patients considered candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy should receive it over less-intensive antileukemic therapy. How did you get to that recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: There is a debate in our field about whether older adults should be offered intensive inpatient chemotherapy at all or whether we should be treating all of them with less-intensive therapy. There is not a huge amount of high-quality studies out there to answer some of these questions, in particular whether intensive chemotherapy should be recommended over less-intensive therapy. But with the available evidence, what we believe is that patients live longer if they are offered intensive antileukemic chemotherapy. So again, if it aligns with a patient’s goals, we support that patient receiving more-intensive therapy in the hospital.

Q: What does the panel recommend for patients who achieve remission after at least a single cycle of intensive antileukemic therapy and who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?

Dr. Sekeres: Once again, this may seem at first blush to be an obvious recommendation. The standard treatment of someone who is younger with AML is to offer intensive inpatient chemotherapy to induce remission. This is followed by a few cycles of chemotherapy, mostly in an outpatient setting, to consolidate that remission.

Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?

Dr. Sekeres: Every time we give chemotherapy, we probably get about a 3-4 log kill of leukemia cells. Imagine when patients first present with AML, they may have 10 billion leukemia cells in their body. We are reducing that 3-4 log with the first course of chemotherapy.

When we then look at a bone marrow biopsy, it may appear to be normal. When leukemia is at a lower level in the body, we simply can’t see it using standard techniques. But that doesn’t mean the leukemia is gone. For younger patients, we give another cycle of chemotherapy, then another, then another, and then even another to reduce the number of leukemia cells left over in the body until that person has a durable remission and hopefully cure.

For someone who is older, the data are less clear. While some studies have shown that, if you give too much chemotherapy after the initial course, it doesn’t help that much, there is a paucity of studies that show that any chemotherapy at all after the first induction course is helpful. Consequently, we have to use indirect data. Older people who are long-term survivors from their acute leukemia always seem to have gotten more than one course of chemotherapy. In other words, the initial course of chemotherapy that a patient receives in the hospital isn’t enough. They should receive more than that.

Q: What about older adults with AML considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy but not for intensive antileukemic therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This again gets to the question of what are a patient’s goals. It takes a very involved conversation with patients at the time of their AML diagnosis to determine whether they would want to pursue an aggressive approach or a less-aggressive approach. If a patients want a less-aggressive approach, and want nothing to do with a hospital stay, then they are also prioritizing initial quality of life. In this recommendation, based on existing studies, we didn’t have a preference for which of the available less-aggressive chemotherapies a person selects.

There’s also debate about what to do in those considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, such as hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine, but not for intensive antileukemic therapy. What did the available evidence seem to indicate about this issue?

There has been a lot of studies trying to add two drugs together to see if those do better than one drug alone in patients who are older and who choose less-intensive therapy. The majority of those studies have shown no advantage to getting two drugs over one drug.

Our recommendation is that in these situations a patient gets one drug, not two, but there are a couple of caveats. One caveat is that there has been a small study showing the effectiveness of one of those low-dose chemotherapies combined with the drug glasdegib. The second caveat is that there have been results presented combining one of these low-dose chemotherapies with the drug venetoclax. One of those was a negative study, and another was a positive study showing a survival advantage to the combination vs. the low-dose therapy alone. We had to couch our recommendation a little bit because we knew this other study had been presented at a conference, but it hadn’t come out in final form yet. It did recently, however, and we will now revisit this recommendation.

The other complicated aspect to this is that we weren’t 100% convinced that the combination of venetoclax with one of these lower-dose therapies is truly less-intensive therapy. We think it is starting to creep up toward more-intensive chemotherapy, even though it is commonly given to patients in the outpatient setting. It gets into the very complicated area of what are we defining as more-intensive therapy and less-intensive therapy.

Q: Is there a recommended strategy for older adults with AML who achieve a response after receiving less-intensive therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This is also challenging because there are no randomized studies in which patients received less-intensive therapy for a finite period of time vs. receiving those therapies ad infinitum. Given the lack of data and also given a lot of anecdotal data out there about patients who stopped a certain therapy and relapsed thereafter, we recommended that patients continue the less-intensive therapy ad infinitum. So as long as they are receiving a response to that therapy, they continue on the drug.

Q: Of course, there are also unique considerations faced by older patients who are no longer receiving antileukemic therapy and have moved on to receiving end-of-life care or hospice care. What advice do the guidelines offer in this situation?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a lot of aspects of these recommendations that I think are special. The first is the focus on patient goals of care at every point in these guidelines. The second is that the guidelines follow the real disease course and a real conversation that doctors and patients have at every step of the way to help guide the decisions that have to be made in real time.

A problem we have in the United States is that once patients enter a hospice, most will not allow blood transfusions. One reason is that some say it is antithetical to their philosophy and consider it aggressive care. The second reason is that, to be completely blunt, economically it doesn’t make sense for hospices to allow blood transfusions. The amount that they are reimbursed by Medicare is much lower than the cost of receiving blood in an infusion center.

We wanted to make a clear recommendation that we consider transfusions in a patient who is in a palliative care or hospice mode to be supportive and necessary, and that these should be provided to patients even if they are in hospice and, as always, if consistent with a patient’s goals of care.

Q: How does a patient’s age inform the discussion surrounding what intensity treatment to offer?

Dr. Sekeres: With younger adults, this is not as complicated a conversation. A younger person has a better chance of being cured with intensive chemotherapy and is much more likely to tolerate that intensive chemotherapy. For someone who is younger, we offer intensive chemotherapy and the chance of going into remission is higher, at 70%-80%. The chance of dying is lower, usually less than 5%. It is an easy decision to make.

For an older adult, the risk-benefit ratio shifts and it becomes a more complicated option. Less-intensive therapy or best supportive care or hospice become viable.

Q: Are there other factors confounding the treatment decision-making process in older adults with AML that practitioners should consider?

Dr. Sekeres: Someone who is older is making a different decision than I would. I have school-aged children and believe that my job as a parent is to successfully get them to adulthood, so I would take any treatment under the sun to make sure that happens. People who have lived a longer life than I have may have children and even grandchildren who are adults, and they might have different goals of care. My goals are not going to be the same as my patient’s goals.

It is also harder because patients who are older may feel that they have lived a good life and don’t need to go through heroic measures to try to be around as long as possible, and those goals may not align with the goals of that person’s children who want their parent to be around as long as possible. One of the confounding factors in this is navigating the different goals of the different family members.

Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is particularly challenging in older adults, whose age makes them highly susceptible to the disease and treatment-related toxicity. To help patients and practitioners navigate the clinical decision-making process, the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts who conducted a thorough review of the literature. The result of their work can be found in a new set of guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in older adults.

In an interview, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chair of the ASH AML guideline panel and director of the Leukemia Program at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, shared the rationale behind the panel’s key recommendations and the importance of keeping the patient’s goals in mind.

Question: What is the average life expectancy of a 75-year-old developing AML compared with someone of the same age without AML?

Dr. Sekeres: A 75-year-old developing AML has an average life expectancy measured in fewer than 6 months. Somebody who is 75 without leukemia in the United States has a life expectancy that can be measured in a decade or more. AML is a really serious diagnosis when someone is older and significantly truncates expected survival.

Q: What is the median age at AML diagnosis in the United States?

Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.

Q: What are the biological underpinnings for poor outcomes in older AML patients?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a few of them. Older adults with AML tend to have a leukemia that has evolved from a known or unknown previous bone marrow condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome. Older adults also have worse genetics driving their leukemia, which makes the leukemia cells more resistant to chemotherapy. And the leukemia cells may even have drug efflux pumps that extrude chemotherapy that tries to enter the cell. Finally, older adults are more likely to have comorbidities that make their ability to tolerate chemotherapy much lower than for younger adults.

Q: In someone who is newly diagnosed with AML, what initial options are they routinely given?

Dr. Sekeres: For someone who is older, we divide those options into three main categories.

The first is to take intensive chemotherapy, which requires a 4-6 week hospitalization and has a chance of getting somebody who is older into a remission of approximately 50%-60%. But this also carries with it significant treatment-related mortality that may be as high as 10%-20%. So I have to look my older patients in the eyes when I talk about intensive chemotherapy and say, “There is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 chance that you might not make it out of the hospital alive.”

The second prong is lower-dose therapy. While the more-intensive therapy requiring hospitalization does have a low, but real, chance of curing that person, less-intensive therapy is not curative. Our best hope with less-intensive therapy is that our patients enter a remission and live longer. With less-intensive therapy, the chance that someone will go into remission is probably around 20%, but again it is not curative. The flip side to that is that it improves a person’s immediate quality of life because they’re not in the hospital for 4-6 weeks.

The final prong is to discuss palliative care or hospice upfront. We designed these guidelines to be focused on a patient’s goals of therapy and to constantly revisit those goals to make sure that the treatment options we are offering are aligning with them.

Q: The panel’s first recommendation is to offer antileukemic therapy over best supportive care in patients who are appropriate candidates. Can you provide some context for this recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: Doesn’t that strike you as funny that we even have to make a recommendation about getting chemotherapy? Some database studies conducted over the past 2 decades show that, as recently as 15 years ago, only one-third of patients who were over the age of 65 years received any type of chemotherapy for AML. More recently, as we have had a few more drugs available that allow us to use lower-dose approaches, that number has crept up to probably about 50%. We still have half the patients offered no therapy at all. So we felt that we had to deliberately make a recommendation saying that, if it aligns with the patients’ goals, they should be offered chemotherapy.

Q: The second recommendation is that patients considered candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy should receive it over less-intensive antileukemic therapy. How did you get to that recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: There is a debate in our field about whether older adults should be offered intensive inpatient chemotherapy at all or whether we should be treating all of them with less-intensive therapy. There is not a huge amount of high-quality studies out there to answer some of these questions, in particular whether intensive chemotherapy should be recommended over less-intensive therapy. But with the available evidence, what we believe is that patients live longer if they are offered intensive antileukemic chemotherapy. So again, if it aligns with a patient’s goals, we support that patient receiving more-intensive therapy in the hospital.

Q: What does the panel recommend for patients who achieve remission after at least a single cycle of intensive antileukemic therapy and who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?

Dr. Sekeres: Once again, this may seem at first blush to be an obvious recommendation. The standard treatment of someone who is younger with AML is to offer intensive inpatient chemotherapy to induce remission. This is followed by a few cycles of chemotherapy, mostly in an outpatient setting, to consolidate that remission.

Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?

Dr. Sekeres: Every time we give chemotherapy, we probably get about a 3-4 log kill of leukemia cells. Imagine when patients first present with AML, they may have 10 billion leukemia cells in their body. We are reducing that 3-4 log with the first course of chemotherapy.

When we then look at a bone marrow biopsy, it may appear to be normal. When leukemia is at a lower level in the body, we simply can’t see it using standard techniques. But that doesn’t mean the leukemia is gone. For younger patients, we give another cycle of chemotherapy, then another, then another, and then even another to reduce the number of leukemia cells left over in the body until that person has a durable remission and hopefully cure.

For someone who is older, the data are less clear. While some studies have shown that, if you give too much chemotherapy after the initial course, it doesn’t help that much, there is a paucity of studies that show that any chemotherapy at all after the first induction course is helpful. Consequently, we have to use indirect data. Older people who are long-term survivors from their acute leukemia always seem to have gotten more than one course of chemotherapy. In other words, the initial course of chemotherapy that a patient receives in the hospital isn’t enough. They should receive more than that.

Q: What about older adults with AML considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy but not for intensive antileukemic therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This again gets to the question of what are a patient’s goals. It takes a very involved conversation with patients at the time of their AML diagnosis to determine whether they would want to pursue an aggressive approach or a less-aggressive approach. If a patients want a less-aggressive approach, and want nothing to do with a hospital stay, then they are also prioritizing initial quality of life. In this recommendation, based on existing studies, we didn’t have a preference for which of the available less-aggressive chemotherapies a person selects.

There’s also debate about what to do in those considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, such as hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine, but not for intensive antileukemic therapy. What did the available evidence seem to indicate about this issue?

There has been a lot of studies trying to add two drugs together to see if those do better than one drug alone in patients who are older and who choose less-intensive therapy. The majority of those studies have shown no advantage to getting two drugs over one drug.

Our recommendation is that in these situations a patient gets one drug, not two, but there are a couple of caveats. One caveat is that there has been a small study showing the effectiveness of one of those low-dose chemotherapies combined with the drug glasdegib. The second caveat is that there have been results presented combining one of these low-dose chemotherapies with the drug venetoclax. One of those was a negative study, and another was a positive study showing a survival advantage to the combination vs. the low-dose therapy alone. We had to couch our recommendation a little bit because we knew this other study had been presented at a conference, but it hadn’t come out in final form yet. It did recently, however, and we will now revisit this recommendation.

The other complicated aspect to this is that we weren’t 100% convinced that the combination of venetoclax with one of these lower-dose therapies is truly less-intensive therapy. We think it is starting to creep up toward more-intensive chemotherapy, even though it is commonly given to patients in the outpatient setting. It gets into the very complicated area of what are we defining as more-intensive therapy and less-intensive therapy.

Q: Is there a recommended strategy for older adults with AML who achieve a response after receiving less-intensive therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This is also challenging because there are no randomized studies in which patients received less-intensive therapy for a finite period of time vs. receiving those therapies ad infinitum. Given the lack of data and also given a lot of anecdotal data out there about patients who stopped a certain therapy and relapsed thereafter, we recommended that patients continue the less-intensive therapy ad infinitum. So as long as they are receiving a response to that therapy, they continue on the drug.

Q: Of course, there are also unique considerations faced by older patients who are no longer receiving antileukemic therapy and have moved on to receiving end-of-life care or hospice care. What advice do the guidelines offer in this situation?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a lot of aspects of these recommendations that I think are special. The first is the focus on patient goals of care at every point in these guidelines. The second is that the guidelines follow the real disease course and a real conversation that doctors and patients have at every step of the way to help guide the decisions that have to be made in real time.

A problem we have in the United States is that once patients enter a hospice, most will not allow blood transfusions. One reason is that some say it is antithetical to their philosophy and consider it aggressive care. The second reason is that, to be completely blunt, economically it doesn’t make sense for hospices to allow blood transfusions. The amount that they are reimbursed by Medicare is much lower than the cost of receiving blood in an infusion center.

We wanted to make a clear recommendation that we consider transfusions in a patient who is in a palliative care or hospice mode to be supportive and necessary, and that these should be provided to patients even if they are in hospice and, as always, if consistent with a patient’s goals of care.

Q: How does a patient’s age inform the discussion surrounding what intensity treatment to offer?

Dr. Sekeres: With younger adults, this is not as complicated a conversation. A younger person has a better chance of being cured with intensive chemotherapy and is much more likely to tolerate that intensive chemotherapy. For someone who is younger, we offer intensive chemotherapy and the chance of going into remission is higher, at 70%-80%. The chance of dying is lower, usually less than 5%. It is an easy decision to make.

For an older adult, the risk-benefit ratio shifts and it becomes a more complicated option. Less-intensive therapy or best supportive care or hospice become viable.

Q: Are there other factors confounding the treatment decision-making process in older adults with AML that practitioners should consider?

Dr. Sekeres: Someone who is older is making a different decision than I would. I have school-aged children and believe that my job as a parent is to successfully get them to adulthood, so I would take any treatment under the sun to make sure that happens. People who have lived a longer life than I have may have children and even grandchildren who are adults, and they might have different goals of care. My goals are not going to be the same as my patient’s goals.

It is also harder because patients who are older may feel that they have lived a good life and don’t need to go through heroic measures to try to be around as long as possible, and those goals may not align with the goals of that person’s children who want their parent to be around as long as possible. One of the confounding factors in this is navigating the different goals of the different family members.

Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is particularly challenging in older adults, whose age makes them highly susceptible to the disease and treatment-related toxicity. To help patients and practitioners navigate the clinical decision-making process, the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts who conducted a thorough review of the literature. The result of their work can be found in a new set of guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in older adults.

In an interview, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chair of the ASH AML guideline panel and director of the Leukemia Program at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, shared the rationale behind the panel’s key recommendations and the importance of keeping the patient’s goals in mind.

Question: What is the average life expectancy of a 75-year-old developing AML compared with someone of the same age without AML?

Dr. Sekeres: A 75-year-old developing AML has an average life expectancy measured in fewer than 6 months. Somebody who is 75 without leukemia in the United States has a life expectancy that can be measured in a decade or more. AML is a really serious diagnosis when someone is older and significantly truncates expected survival.

Q: What is the median age at AML diagnosis in the United States?

Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.

Q: What are the biological underpinnings for poor outcomes in older AML patients?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a few of them. Older adults with AML tend to have a leukemia that has evolved from a known or unknown previous bone marrow condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome. Older adults also have worse genetics driving their leukemia, which makes the leukemia cells more resistant to chemotherapy. And the leukemia cells may even have drug efflux pumps that extrude chemotherapy that tries to enter the cell. Finally, older adults are more likely to have comorbidities that make their ability to tolerate chemotherapy much lower than for younger adults.

Q: In someone who is newly diagnosed with AML, what initial options are they routinely given?

Dr. Sekeres: For someone who is older, we divide those options into three main categories.

The first is to take intensive chemotherapy, which requires a 4-6 week hospitalization and has a chance of getting somebody who is older into a remission of approximately 50%-60%. But this also carries with it significant treatment-related mortality that may be as high as 10%-20%. So I have to look my older patients in the eyes when I talk about intensive chemotherapy and say, “There is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 chance that you might not make it out of the hospital alive.”

The second prong is lower-dose therapy. While the more-intensive therapy requiring hospitalization does have a low, but real, chance of curing that person, less-intensive therapy is not curative. Our best hope with less-intensive therapy is that our patients enter a remission and live longer. With less-intensive therapy, the chance that someone will go into remission is probably around 20%, but again it is not curative. The flip side to that is that it improves a person’s immediate quality of life because they’re not in the hospital for 4-6 weeks.

The final prong is to discuss palliative care or hospice upfront. We designed these guidelines to be focused on a patient’s goals of therapy and to constantly revisit those goals to make sure that the treatment options we are offering are aligning with them.

Q: The panel’s first recommendation is to offer antileukemic therapy over best supportive care in patients who are appropriate candidates. Can you provide some context for this recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: Doesn’t that strike you as funny that we even have to make a recommendation about getting chemotherapy? Some database studies conducted over the past 2 decades show that, as recently as 15 years ago, only one-third of patients who were over the age of 65 years received any type of chemotherapy for AML. More recently, as we have had a few more drugs available that allow us to use lower-dose approaches, that number has crept up to probably about 50%. We still have half the patients offered no therapy at all. So we felt that we had to deliberately make a recommendation saying that, if it aligns with the patients’ goals, they should be offered chemotherapy.

Q: The second recommendation is that patients considered candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy should receive it over less-intensive antileukemic therapy. How did you get to that recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: There is a debate in our field about whether older adults should be offered intensive inpatient chemotherapy at all or whether we should be treating all of them with less-intensive therapy. There is not a huge amount of high-quality studies out there to answer some of these questions, in particular whether intensive chemotherapy should be recommended over less-intensive therapy. But with the available evidence, what we believe is that patients live longer if they are offered intensive antileukemic chemotherapy. So again, if it aligns with a patient’s goals, we support that patient receiving more-intensive therapy in the hospital.

Q: What does the panel recommend for patients who achieve remission after at least a single cycle of intensive antileukemic therapy and who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?

Dr. Sekeres: Once again, this may seem at first blush to be an obvious recommendation. The standard treatment of someone who is younger with AML is to offer intensive inpatient chemotherapy to induce remission. This is followed by a few cycles of chemotherapy, mostly in an outpatient setting, to consolidate that remission.

Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?

Dr. Sekeres: Every time we give chemotherapy, we probably get about a 3-4 log kill of leukemia cells. Imagine when patients first present with AML, they may have 10 billion leukemia cells in their body. We are reducing that 3-4 log with the first course of chemotherapy.

When we then look at a bone marrow biopsy, it may appear to be normal. When leukemia is at a lower level in the body, we simply can’t see it using standard techniques. But that doesn’t mean the leukemia is gone. For younger patients, we give another cycle of chemotherapy, then another, then another, and then even another to reduce the number of leukemia cells left over in the body until that person has a durable remission and hopefully cure.

For someone who is older, the data are less clear. While some studies have shown that, if you give too much chemotherapy after the initial course, it doesn’t help that much, there is a paucity of studies that show that any chemotherapy at all after the first induction course is helpful. Consequently, we have to use indirect data. Older people who are long-term survivors from their acute leukemia always seem to have gotten more than one course of chemotherapy. In other words, the initial course of chemotherapy that a patient receives in the hospital isn’t enough. They should receive more than that.

Q: What about older adults with AML considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy but not for intensive antileukemic therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This again gets to the question of what are a patient’s goals. It takes a very involved conversation with patients at the time of their AML diagnosis to determine whether they would want to pursue an aggressive approach or a less-aggressive approach. If a patients want a less-aggressive approach, and want nothing to do with a hospital stay, then they are also prioritizing initial quality of life. In this recommendation, based on existing studies, we didn’t have a preference for which of the available less-aggressive chemotherapies a person selects.

There’s also debate about what to do in those considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, such as hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine, but not for intensive antileukemic therapy. What did the available evidence seem to indicate about this issue?

There has been a lot of studies trying to add two drugs together to see if those do better than one drug alone in patients who are older and who choose less-intensive therapy. The majority of those studies have shown no advantage to getting two drugs over one drug.

Our recommendation is that in these situations a patient gets one drug, not two, but there are a couple of caveats. One caveat is that there has been a small study showing the effectiveness of one of those low-dose chemotherapies combined with the drug glasdegib. The second caveat is that there have been results presented combining one of these low-dose chemotherapies with the drug venetoclax. One of those was a negative study, and another was a positive study showing a survival advantage to the combination vs. the low-dose therapy alone. We had to couch our recommendation a little bit because we knew this other study had been presented at a conference, but it hadn’t come out in final form yet. It did recently, however, and we will now revisit this recommendation.

The other complicated aspect to this is that we weren’t 100% convinced that the combination of venetoclax with one of these lower-dose therapies is truly less-intensive therapy. We think it is starting to creep up toward more-intensive chemotherapy, even though it is commonly given to patients in the outpatient setting. It gets into the very complicated area of what are we defining as more-intensive therapy and less-intensive therapy.

Q: Is there a recommended strategy for older adults with AML who achieve a response after receiving less-intensive therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This is also challenging because there are no randomized studies in which patients received less-intensive therapy for a finite period of time vs. receiving those therapies ad infinitum. Given the lack of data and also given a lot of anecdotal data out there about patients who stopped a certain therapy and relapsed thereafter, we recommended that patients continue the less-intensive therapy ad infinitum. So as long as they are receiving a response to that therapy, they continue on the drug.

Q: Of course, there are also unique considerations faced by older patients who are no longer receiving antileukemic therapy and have moved on to receiving end-of-life care or hospice care. What advice do the guidelines offer in this situation?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a lot of aspects of these recommendations that I think are special. The first is the focus on patient goals of care at every point in these guidelines. The second is that the guidelines follow the real disease course and a real conversation that doctors and patients have at every step of the way to help guide the decisions that have to be made in real time.

A problem we have in the United States is that once patients enter a hospice, most will not allow blood transfusions. One reason is that some say it is antithetical to their philosophy and consider it aggressive care. The second reason is that, to be completely blunt, economically it doesn’t make sense for hospices to allow blood transfusions. The amount that they are reimbursed by Medicare is much lower than the cost of receiving blood in an infusion center.

We wanted to make a clear recommendation that we consider transfusions in a patient who is in a palliative care or hospice mode to be supportive and necessary, and that these should be provided to patients even if they are in hospice and, as always, if consistent with a patient’s goals of care.

Q: How does a patient’s age inform the discussion surrounding what intensity treatment to offer?

Dr. Sekeres: With younger adults, this is not as complicated a conversation. A younger person has a better chance of being cured with intensive chemotherapy and is much more likely to tolerate that intensive chemotherapy. For someone who is younger, we offer intensive chemotherapy and the chance of going into remission is higher, at 70%-80%. The chance of dying is lower, usually less than 5%. It is an easy decision to make.

For an older adult, the risk-benefit ratio shifts and it becomes a more complicated option. Less-intensive therapy or best supportive care or hospice become viable.

Q: Are there other factors confounding the treatment decision-making process in older adults with AML that practitioners should consider?

Dr. Sekeres: Someone who is older is making a different decision than I would. I have school-aged children and believe that my job as a parent is to successfully get them to adulthood, so I would take any treatment under the sun to make sure that happens. People who have lived a longer life than I have may have children and even grandchildren who are adults, and they might have different goals of care. My goals are not going to be the same as my patient’s goals.

It is also harder because patients who are older may feel that they have lived a good life and don’t need to go through heroic measures to try to be around as long as possible, and those goals may not align with the goals of that person’s children who want their parent to be around as long as possible. One of the confounding factors in this is navigating the different goals of the different family members.

Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

An international survey provides new insights into how COVID-19 has affected, and may continue to affect, the field of oncology.

The survey showed that “COVID-19 has had a major impact on the organization of patient care, on the well-being of caregivers, on continued medical education, and on clinical trial activities in oncology,” stated Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Belgium).

Dr. Jerusalem presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

The survey was distributed by 20 oncologists from 10 of the countries most affected by COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 109 oncologists representing centers in 18 countries. The responses were recorded between June 17 and July 14, 2020.

The survey consisted of 95 items intended to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the organization of oncologic care. Questions encompassed the capacity and service offered at each center, the magnitude of COVID-19–based care interruptions and the reasons for them, the ensuing challenges faced, interventions implemented, and the estimated harms to patients during the pandemic.

The 109 oncologists surveyed had a median of 20 years of oncology experience. A majority of respondents were men (61.5%), and the median age was 48.5 years.

The respondents had worked predominantly (62.4%) at academic hospitals, with 29.6% at community hospitals. Most respondents worked at general hospitals with an oncology unit (66.1%) rather than a specialized separate cancer center (32.1%).

The most common specialty was breast cancer (60.6%), followed by gastrointestinal cancer (10.1%), urogenital cancer (9.2%), and lung cancer (8.3%).
 

Impact on treatment

The treatment modalities affected by the pandemic – through cancellations or delays in more than 10% of patients – included surgery (in 34% of centers), chemotherapy (22%), radiotherapy (13.7%), checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Among oncologists treating breast cancer, cancellations/delays in more than 10% of patients were reported for everolimus (18%), CDK4/6 inhibitors (8.9%), and endocrine therapy (2.2%).

Overall, 34.8% of respondents reported increased use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor, and 6.4% reported increased use of erythropoietin.

On the other hand, 11.1% of respondents reported a decrease in the use of double immunotherapy, and 21.9% reported decreased use of corticosteroids.

Not only can the immunosuppressive effects of steroid use increase infection risks, Dr. Jerusalem noted, fever suppression can lead to a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

“To circumvent potential higher infection risks or greater disease severity, we use lower doses of steroids, but this is not based on studies,” he said.

“Previous exposure to steroids or being on steroids at the time of COVID-19 infection is a detrimental factor for complications and mortality,” commented ESMO President Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontline Medical News

Dr. Peters noted that the observation was based on lung cancer registry findings. Furthermore, because data from smaller outbreaks of other coronavirus infections suggested worse prognosis and increased mortality, steroid use was already feared in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, earlier cessation of palliative treatment was observed in 32.1% of centers, and 64.2% of respondents agreed that undertreatment because of COVID-19 is a major concern.

Dr. Jerusalem noted that the survey data do not explain the early cessation of palliative treatment. “I suspect that many patients died at home rather than alone in institutions because it was the only way they could die with their families around them.”
 

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

The survey also revealed rationales for the use of teleconsultation, including follow-up (94.5%), oral therapy (92.7%), immunotherapy (57.8%), and chemotherapy (55%).

Most respondents reported more frequent use of virtual meetings for continuing medical education (94%), oncologic team meetings (92%), and tumor boards (82%).

While about 82% of respondents said they were likely to continue the use of telemedicine, 45% said virtual conferences are not an acceptable alternative to live international conferences such as ESMO, Dr. Jerusalem said.

Finally, nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.5%) said all clinical trial activities are or will soon be activated, or never stopped, at their centers. On the other hand, 27.5% of respondents reported that their centers had major protocol violations or deviations, and 37% of respondents said they expect significant reductions in clinical trial activities this year.

Dr. Jerusalem concluded that COVID-19 is having a major, long-term impact on the organization of patient care, caregivers, continued medical education, and clinical trial activities in oncology.

He cautioned that “the risk of a delayed diagnosis of new cancers and economic consequences of COVID-19 on access to health care and cancer treatments have to be carefully evaluated.”

This research was funded by Fondation Léon Fredericq. Dr. Jerusalem disclosed relationships with Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, MedImmune, and Merck. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Jerusalem G et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA76.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an oral form of azacitidine (Onureg) for use as maintenance therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have achieved a first complete remission.

The approval extends to patients who have achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are unable to complete intensive curative therapy.

The approval was based on data from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed that oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival when compared with placebo.

“It’s not too hard to get these patients into remission,” Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, director of the Leukemia Program at the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview last year when these results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “The problem comes in keeping them in remission.”

Despite various attempts, there has been no success over the past 30 years in defining maintenance treatment for these patients, Andrew H. Wei, MBBS, PhD, from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said.

“Oral azacitidine represents a new therapeutic standard for patients with AML in remission,” he said.

Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent that incorporates into DNA and RNA. It has long been used as an injectable therapy for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval of the new oral formulation for the new indication of AML “is the culmination of over a decade of research and 13 preclinical and clinical trials,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, in a statement.

QUAZAR results

The QUAZAR AML-001 trial was a phase 3, international study involving 472 patients with AML who were within achieving a first complete remission or remission with incomplete blood recovery. All patients had received intensive induction chemotherapy with or without consolidation treatment per investigator preference prior to study entry and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant at the time of screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral azacitidine 200 mg daily on days 1-14 of a repeat 28-day cycle (n = 278) or matching placebo (n = 274). Treatment was continued indefinitely until blast count was more than 15% or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or underwent transplant.

At a median follow-up of more than 41.2 months, the median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received oral azacitidine at 24.7 months versus 14.8 months for those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0009).

Relapse-free survival was also significantly prolonged to 10.2 months for patients who received oral azacitidine vs. 4.8 months for those who received placebo (HR, 0.65; P < .0001).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received azacitidine. Events that occurred in 2% of patients or more include pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). There was one fatal event.

The most common adverse reactions were nausea (65% vs. 24%), vomiting (60% vs. 10%), diarrhea (50% vs. 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44% vs. 25%), constipation (39% vs. 24%), pneumonia (27% vs. 17%), abdominal pain (22% vs. 13%) arthralgia (14% vs. 10%), decreased appetite (13% vs. 6%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 9%), and pain in extremity (11% vs. 5%). Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an oral form of azacitidine (Onureg) for use as maintenance therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have achieved a first complete remission.

The approval extends to patients who have achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are unable to complete intensive curative therapy.

The approval was based on data from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed that oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival when compared with placebo.

“It’s not too hard to get these patients into remission,” Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, director of the Leukemia Program at the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview last year when these results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “The problem comes in keeping them in remission.”

Despite various attempts, there has been no success over the past 30 years in defining maintenance treatment for these patients, Andrew H. Wei, MBBS, PhD, from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said.

“Oral azacitidine represents a new therapeutic standard for patients with AML in remission,” he said.

Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent that incorporates into DNA and RNA. It has long been used as an injectable therapy for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval of the new oral formulation for the new indication of AML “is the culmination of over a decade of research and 13 preclinical and clinical trials,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, in a statement.

QUAZAR results

The QUAZAR AML-001 trial was a phase 3, international study involving 472 patients with AML who were within achieving a first complete remission or remission with incomplete blood recovery. All patients had received intensive induction chemotherapy with or without consolidation treatment per investigator preference prior to study entry and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant at the time of screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral azacitidine 200 mg daily on days 1-14 of a repeat 28-day cycle (n = 278) or matching placebo (n = 274). Treatment was continued indefinitely until blast count was more than 15% or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or underwent transplant.

At a median follow-up of more than 41.2 months, the median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received oral azacitidine at 24.7 months versus 14.8 months for those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0009).

Relapse-free survival was also significantly prolonged to 10.2 months for patients who received oral azacitidine vs. 4.8 months for those who received placebo (HR, 0.65; P < .0001).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received azacitidine. Events that occurred in 2% of patients or more include pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). There was one fatal event.

The most common adverse reactions were nausea (65% vs. 24%), vomiting (60% vs. 10%), diarrhea (50% vs. 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44% vs. 25%), constipation (39% vs. 24%), pneumonia (27% vs. 17%), abdominal pain (22% vs. 13%) arthralgia (14% vs. 10%), decreased appetite (13% vs. 6%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 9%), and pain in extremity (11% vs. 5%). Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an oral form of azacitidine (Onureg) for use as maintenance therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have achieved a first complete remission.

The approval extends to patients who have achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are unable to complete intensive curative therapy.

The approval was based on data from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed that oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival when compared with placebo.

“It’s not too hard to get these patients into remission,” Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, director of the Leukemia Program at the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview last year when these results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “The problem comes in keeping them in remission.”

Despite various attempts, there has been no success over the past 30 years in defining maintenance treatment for these patients, Andrew H. Wei, MBBS, PhD, from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said.

“Oral azacitidine represents a new therapeutic standard for patients with AML in remission,” he said.

Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent that incorporates into DNA and RNA. It has long been used as an injectable therapy for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval of the new oral formulation for the new indication of AML “is the culmination of over a decade of research and 13 preclinical and clinical trials,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, in a statement.

QUAZAR results

The QUAZAR AML-001 trial was a phase 3, international study involving 472 patients with AML who were within achieving a first complete remission or remission with incomplete blood recovery. All patients had received intensive induction chemotherapy with or without consolidation treatment per investigator preference prior to study entry and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant at the time of screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral azacitidine 200 mg daily on days 1-14 of a repeat 28-day cycle (n = 278) or matching placebo (n = 274). Treatment was continued indefinitely until blast count was more than 15% or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or underwent transplant.

At a median follow-up of more than 41.2 months, the median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received oral azacitidine at 24.7 months versus 14.8 months for those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0009).

Relapse-free survival was also significantly prolonged to 10.2 months for patients who received oral azacitidine vs. 4.8 months for those who received placebo (HR, 0.65; P < .0001).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received azacitidine. Events that occurred in 2% of patients or more include pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). There was one fatal event.

The most common adverse reactions were nausea (65% vs. 24%), vomiting (60% vs. 10%), diarrhea (50% vs. 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44% vs. 25%), constipation (39% vs. 24%), pneumonia (27% vs. 17%), abdominal pain (22% vs. 13%) arthralgia (14% vs. 10%), decreased appetite (13% vs. 6%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 9%), and pain in extremity (11% vs. 5%). Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.

In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?

Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.

How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?

Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.

Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?

Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.

The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
 

What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?

Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.

What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?

Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.

Special considerations in older patients with APL

How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?

Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.

Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?

There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.

How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?

There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.

A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks. 
 

What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?

Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.

Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.

It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
 

Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?

There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.

We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.

From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.

Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.

In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?

Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.

How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?

Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.

Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?

Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.

The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
 

What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?

Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.

What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?

Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.

Special considerations in older patients with APL

How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?

Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.

Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?

There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.

How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?

There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.

A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks. 
 

What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?

Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.

Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.

It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
 

Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?

There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.

We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.

From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.

Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.

In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?

Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.

How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?

Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.

Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?

Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.

The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
 

What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?

Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.

What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?

Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.

Special considerations in older patients with APL

How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?

Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.

Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?

There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.

How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?

There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.

A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks. 
 

What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?

Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.

Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.

It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
 

Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?

There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.

We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.

From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.

Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.