AML

The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.

As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.

The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.

Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.

At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.

“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.

CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.

The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.

The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.

As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.

The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.

Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.

At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.

“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.

CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.

The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.

The use of CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin, was tied to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML), according to final results of a phase 3 study.

As part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program, Jeffrey E. Lancet, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., presented the 5-year final data from a trial comparing CPX-351 vs. the conventional 7+3 regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin in more than 300 older adult patients (age 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML. Early mortality rates for CPX-351 vs. 7+3 were 6% vs. 11% at Day 30 and 14% vs. 21% at day 60, respectively.

The final 5-year follow-up results had a median follow-up of just greater than 60 months, and maintained the improved median overall survival previously observed in the trial with CPX-351 (153 patients), compared with 7+3 (155 patients), Dr. Lancet reported.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was received by 35% of the patients in the CPX-351 arm and 25% of patients in the 7+3 arm. The median overall survival after transplant was not reached for the CPX-351 arm, compared with 10.3 months with the 7+3 treated patients.

Remission, either complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery, was achieved by 48% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 33% of patients in the 7+3 arm, according to the results of the 5-year follow-up. In addition, among all patients who achieved remission, median overall survival was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3, and the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rate was higher for CPX-351 at both 3 years and 5 years.

At 5 years of follow-up, 81% of patients in the CPX-351 arm and 93% of patients in the 7+3 arm had died, with similar causes cited in each arm. Progressive leukemia was the most common primary cause of death in both treatment arms, according to Dr. Lancet.

“The final 5-year follow-up results from this phase 3 study support the prior evidence that CPX-351 has the ability to produce or contribute to long-term remission and survival in older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary AML,” Dr. Lancet concluded.

CPX-351 (Vyxeos) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplastic syndrome–related changes.

The study was funded by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lancet disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role for Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lancet JE et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7510.

At about 18 months’ follow-up in treatment naive acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) patients who were 75 years or older or otherwise unfit for intensive chemotherapy, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months when they were randomized to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax versus 4.1 months with LDAC plus placebo. The results from the phase 3 trial were reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The combination also improved rates of remission, event-free survival, and patient reported outcomes and lessened transfusion requirements. Adverse events were manageable.

The findings position venetoclax add-on with LDAC “as a potential new standard of care” for untreated patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, lead investigator Andrew Wei, MD, PhD, an AML researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, said at the meeting.

The study addresses a substantial unmet need. The median age at AML diagnosis is over 68 years old and comorbidities such as heart failure and reduced creatinine clearance are common, which make the risk of toxicity with standard chemotherapy too high. Single-agent alternatives are of limited benefit, so Dr. Wei’s group and others are looking for better options to plug the treatment gap when standard chemotherapy is contraindicated.

Several combinations are under investigation, including LDAC plus venetoclax, which appears to have a synergistic effect greater than either agent on its own, Dr. Wei and colleagues explained in their journal report, which was published online to coincide with his presentation (Blood. 2020 Jun 11;135(24):2137-45).

“A challenging AML population”

In the study, 143 patients were randomized to oral venetoclax 600 mg daily and 68 to placebo in 28-day cycles, on a background of LDAC 20 mg/m² administered subcutaneously on days 1-10 of each cycle.

“This study enrolled a challenging AML population, with nearly 60% age ≥75 years and a high proportion of patients with secondary disease (38%), prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment (20%), poor cytogenetic risk (32%), and TP53 mutations (15%), which are known factors associated with dismal prognosis in AML,” the investigators noted in their report.

There was a numerical benefit in OS at 12 months – the preplanned primary outcome – but it was not statistically significant. At 18 months, however, and after adjustment for a higher rate of secondary AML in the venetoclax arm and other confounders in a post hoc analysis, survival differences reached significance. The 4.3-month OS benefit with the combination translated into a 30% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.99; P = .04)

Survival outcomes “were particularly promising for patient subgroups with NPM1- (median OS, not reached) and IDH1/2-mutant AML (median OS, 19.4 months),” the team noted.

Complete remission (CR) were 48% in the venetoclax arm, compared with 13% in the placebo group, and 34% of venetoclax patients versus 3% of placebo patients went into remission after their first cycle. Venetoclax subjects also had longer median event free survival (4.7 months vs. 2 months); higher rates of red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence (37% vs. 16%); and higher rates of cytometric minimal residual disease levels below 0.1% (6% vs. 1%).

The findings correlated with “strong improvements” in patient-reported outcomes, including fatigue and quality of life, the investigators reported.
 

Risk mitigation

Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) included febrile neutropenia (32% in the venetoclax arm versus 29% in the placebo group), neutropenia (47% venetoclax vs. 16% placebo), thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 37%), and anemia (25% vs. 22%). The eight cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were all in the venetoclax arm. Grade 3 or higher bleeding was higher in the venetoclax arm (11% versus 7%), but the incidence of fatal bleeding was similar between the groups (1.4% venetoclax versus 1.5%).

“Although the venetoclax arm showed modest increases in hematologic AEs, the rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (24% vs. 25%) and the rate of serious AEs such as pneumonia” and sepsis “were nearly identical between” the arms, the team said.

The combination “is more myelosuppressive,” but the effects “were mostly mitigated by venetoclax dose interruptions and reductions.” To mitigate the TLS risk, patients were hospitalized for TLS evaluation and prophylaxis during the 4-day venetoclax ramp-up in the first treatment cycle and for 24 hours after the 600-mg target was reached. “I think this is an extremely important measure to avoid this small but important complication,” Dr. Wei said at the meeting.
 

A moderate step forward

Dr. Lowenberg and Dr. Huls noted in their commentary that, despite the favorable outcomes, “the results are still sobering with a rapid drop of the survival curves to values of [around] 25% or less within 18 months, and event-free survival rates even falling to considerably lower levels.”

Also, there was a “weak correlation between the relatively wide differences in comparative CR/CRi rates and the much smaller differences in survival,” perhaps “due to a limited depth of the complete responses following venetoclax-LDAC therapy or the early development of therapeutic resistance,” they said.

The commentary also noted another option, adding the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib, instead of venetoclax, to LDAC. It also improved survival in a similar randomized study in unfit AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients, from a median survival of 4.9 months with LDAC alone to 8.8 months with the combination (Leukemia. 2019 Feb;33(2):379-389. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9).
 

Dueling regimens

Another alternative approach – venetoclax plus the HMA agent azacitidine – garnered a lot of attention at the meeting when it was reported that the combination had a median overall survival of 14.7 months, versus 9.6 months with azacitidine alone, in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CR/CRi rates were 66% with the combination, versus 28%.

“It seems like the results were better with the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine” than venetoclax plus LDAC, said Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, who moderated Dr. Wei’s presentation.

He wanted to know if there was a way to identify patients who would do better on one regimen versus the other and was curious about the fact that the azacitidine study used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax, instead of 600 mg.

Dr. Wei noted the high incidence of poor prognostic factors in his study, including prior HMA treatment in 20%, but also that “we don’t know for sure” if there’s a clinically meaningful benefit with the higher dose.

He also said the optimal number of venetoclax cycles for best response is unknown. For now, treatment is “recommend until either [disease] progression, dose intolerance, or patient or physician preference,” he noted. Venetoclax subjects in his study had a median of four treatment cycles versus two in the placebo group. Combination patients in the azacitidine study had a median of seven cycles versus 4.5 with placebo.

Venetoclax already carries an indication in the United States in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC for newly-diagnosed AML in adults 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy, at a daily dosage of 400 mg with HMAs and 600 mg with LDAC.

Labeling notes that “continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”

Both venetoclax trials were sponsored by the drug’s maker, AbbVie, which was involved with data interpretation and other matters. Dr. Wei is a consultant for and receives research funding from the company and also receives royalty payments in relation to venetoclax. The commentators did not have any competing financial interests. Disclosures, if any, were not reported for Dr. Juliusson.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wei AH et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S136.

At about 18 months’ follow-up in treatment naive acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) patients who were 75 years or older or otherwise unfit for intensive chemotherapy, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months when they were randomized to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax versus 4.1 months with LDAC plus placebo. The results from the phase 3 trial were reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The combination also improved rates of remission, event-free survival, and patient reported outcomes and lessened transfusion requirements. Adverse events were manageable.

The findings position venetoclax add-on with LDAC “as a potential new standard of care” for untreated patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, lead investigator Andrew Wei, MD, PhD, an AML researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, said at the meeting.

The study addresses a substantial unmet need. The median age at AML diagnosis is over 68 years old and comorbidities such as heart failure and reduced creatinine clearance are common, which make the risk of toxicity with standard chemotherapy too high. Single-agent alternatives are of limited benefit, so Dr. Wei’s group and others are looking for better options to plug the treatment gap when standard chemotherapy is contraindicated.

Several combinations are under investigation, including LDAC plus venetoclax, which appears to have a synergistic effect greater than either agent on its own, Dr. Wei and colleagues explained in their journal report, which was published online to coincide with his presentation (Blood. 2020 Jun 11;135(24):2137-45).

“A challenging AML population”

In the study, 143 patients were randomized to oral venetoclax 600 mg daily and 68 to placebo in 28-day cycles, on a background of LDAC 20 mg/m² administered subcutaneously on days 1-10 of each cycle.

“This study enrolled a challenging AML population, with nearly 60% age ≥75 years and a high proportion of patients with secondary disease (38%), prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment (20%), poor cytogenetic risk (32%), and TP53 mutations (15%), which are known factors associated with dismal prognosis in AML,” the investigators noted in their report.

There was a numerical benefit in OS at 12 months – the preplanned primary outcome – but it was not statistically significant. At 18 months, however, and after adjustment for a higher rate of secondary AML in the venetoclax arm and other confounders in a post hoc analysis, survival differences reached significance. The 4.3-month OS benefit with the combination translated into a 30% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.99; P = .04)

Survival outcomes “were particularly promising for patient subgroups with NPM1- (median OS, not reached) and IDH1/2-mutant AML (median OS, 19.4 months),” the team noted.

Complete remission (CR) were 48% in the venetoclax arm, compared with 13% in the placebo group, and 34% of venetoclax patients versus 3% of placebo patients went into remission after their first cycle. Venetoclax subjects also had longer median event free survival (4.7 months vs. 2 months); higher rates of red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence (37% vs. 16%); and higher rates of cytometric minimal residual disease levels below 0.1% (6% vs. 1%).

The findings correlated with “strong improvements” in patient-reported outcomes, including fatigue and quality of life, the investigators reported.
 

Risk mitigation

Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) included febrile neutropenia (32% in the venetoclax arm versus 29% in the placebo group), neutropenia (47% venetoclax vs. 16% placebo), thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 37%), and anemia (25% vs. 22%). The eight cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were all in the venetoclax arm. Grade 3 or higher bleeding was higher in the venetoclax arm (11% versus 7%), but the incidence of fatal bleeding was similar between the groups (1.4% venetoclax versus 1.5%).

“Although the venetoclax arm showed modest increases in hematologic AEs, the rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (24% vs. 25%) and the rate of serious AEs such as pneumonia” and sepsis “were nearly identical between” the arms, the team said.

The combination “is more myelosuppressive,” but the effects “were mostly mitigated by venetoclax dose interruptions and reductions.” To mitigate the TLS risk, patients were hospitalized for TLS evaluation and prophylaxis during the 4-day venetoclax ramp-up in the first treatment cycle and for 24 hours after the 600-mg target was reached. “I think this is an extremely important measure to avoid this small but important complication,” Dr. Wei said at the meeting.
 

A moderate step forward

Dr. Lowenberg and Dr. Huls noted in their commentary that, despite the favorable outcomes, “the results are still sobering with a rapid drop of the survival curves to values of [around] 25% or less within 18 months, and event-free survival rates even falling to considerably lower levels.”

Also, there was a “weak correlation between the relatively wide differences in comparative CR/CRi rates and the much smaller differences in survival,” perhaps “due to a limited depth of the complete responses following venetoclax-LDAC therapy or the early development of therapeutic resistance,” they said.

The commentary also noted another option, adding the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib, instead of venetoclax, to LDAC. It also improved survival in a similar randomized study in unfit AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients, from a median survival of 4.9 months with LDAC alone to 8.8 months with the combination (Leukemia. 2019 Feb;33(2):379-389. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9).
 

Dueling regimens

Another alternative approach – venetoclax plus the HMA agent azacitidine – garnered a lot of attention at the meeting when it was reported that the combination had a median overall survival of 14.7 months, versus 9.6 months with azacitidine alone, in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CR/CRi rates were 66% with the combination, versus 28%.

“It seems like the results were better with the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine” than venetoclax plus LDAC, said Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, who moderated Dr. Wei’s presentation.

He wanted to know if there was a way to identify patients who would do better on one regimen versus the other and was curious about the fact that the azacitidine study used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax, instead of 600 mg.

Dr. Wei noted the high incidence of poor prognostic factors in his study, including prior HMA treatment in 20%, but also that “we don’t know for sure” if there’s a clinically meaningful benefit with the higher dose.

He also said the optimal number of venetoclax cycles for best response is unknown. For now, treatment is “recommend until either [disease] progression, dose intolerance, or patient or physician preference,” he noted. Venetoclax subjects in his study had a median of four treatment cycles versus two in the placebo group. Combination patients in the azacitidine study had a median of seven cycles versus 4.5 with placebo.

Venetoclax already carries an indication in the United States in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC for newly-diagnosed AML in adults 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy, at a daily dosage of 400 mg with HMAs and 600 mg with LDAC.

Labeling notes that “continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”

Both venetoclax trials were sponsored by the drug’s maker, AbbVie, which was involved with data interpretation and other matters. Dr. Wei is a consultant for and receives research funding from the company and also receives royalty payments in relation to venetoclax. The commentators did not have any competing financial interests. Disclosures, if any, were not reported for Dr. Juliusson.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wei AH et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S136.

At about 18 months’ follow-up in treatment naive acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) patients who were 75 years or older or otherwise unfit for intensive chemotherapy, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months when they were randomized to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) plus the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax versus 4.1 months with LDAC plus placebo. The results from the phase 3 trial were reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The combination also improved rates of remission, event-free survival, and patient reported outcomes and lessened transfusion requirements. Adverse events were manageable.

The findings position venetoclax add-on with LDAC “as a potential new standard of care” for untreated patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, lead investigator Andrew Wei, MD, PhD, an AML researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, said at the meeting.

The study addresses a substantial unmet need. The median age at AML diagnosis is over 68 years old and comorbidities such as heart failure and reduced creatinine clearance are common, which make the risk of toxicity with standard chemotherapy too high. Single-agent alternatives are of limited benefit, so Dr. Wei’s group and others are looking for better options to plug the treatment gap when standard chemotherapy is contraindicated.

Several combinations are under investigation, including LDAC plus venetoclax, which appears to have a synergistic effect greater than either agent on its own, Dr. Wei and colleagues explained in their journal report, which was published online to coincide with his presentation (Blood. 2020 Jun 11;135(24):2137-45).

“A challenging AML population”

In the study, 143 patients were randomized to oral venetoclax 600 mg daily and 68 to placebo in 28-day cycles, on a background of LDAC 20 mg/m² administered subcutaneously on days 1-10 of each cycle.

“This study enrolled a challenging AML population, with nearly 60% age ≥75 years and a high proportion of patients with secondary disease (38%), prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment (20%), poor cytogenetic risk (32%), and TP53 mutations (15%), which are known factors associated with dismal prognosis in AML,” the investigators noted in their report.

There was a numerical benefit in OS at 12 months – the preplanned primary outcome – but it was not statistically significant. At 18 months, however, and after adjustment for a higher rate of secondary AML in the venetoclax arm and other confounders in a post hoc analysis, survival differences reached significance. The 4.3-month OS benefit with the combination translated into a 30% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.99; P = .04)

Survival outcomes “were particularly promising for patient subgroups with NPM1- (median OS, not reached) and IDH1/2-mutant AML (median OS, 19.4 months),” the team noted.

Complete remission (CR) were 48% in the venetoclax arm, compared with 13% in the placebo group, and 34% of venetoclax patients versus 3% of placebo patients went into remission after their first cycle. Venetoclax subjects also had longer median event free survival (4.7 months vs. 2 months); higher rates of red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence (37% vs. 16%); and higher rates of cytometric minimal residual disease levels below 0.1% (6% vs. 1%).

The findings correlated with “strong improvements” in patient-reported outcomes, including fatigue and quality of life, the investigators reported.
 

Risk mitigation

Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) included febrile neutropenia (32% in the venetoclax arm versus 29% in the placebo group), neutropenia (47% venetoclax vs. 16% placebo), thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 37%), and anemia (25% vs. 22%). The eight cases of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were all in the venetoclax arm. Grade 3 or higher bleeding was higher in the venetoclax arm (11% versus 7%), but the incidence of fatal bleeding was similar between the groups (1.4% venetoclax versus 1.5%).

“Although the venetoclax arm showed modest increases in hematologic AEs, the rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (24% vs. 25%) and the rate of serious AEs such as pneumonia” and sepsis “were nearly identical between” the arms, the team said.

The combination “is more myelosuppressive,” but the effects “were mostly mitigated by venetoclax dose interruptions and reductions.” To mitigate the TLS risk, patients were hospitalized for TLS evaluation and prophylaxis during the 4-day venetoclax ramp-up in the first treatment cycle and for 24 hours after the 600-mg target was reached. “I think this is an extremely important measure to avoid this small but important complication,” Dr. Wei said at the meeting.
 

A moderate step forward

Dr. Lowenberg and Dr. Huls noted in their commentary that, despite the favorable outcomes, “the results are still sobering with a rapid drop of the survival curves to values of [around] 25% or less within 18 months, and event-free survival rates even falling to considerably lower levels.”

Also, there was a “weak correlation between the relatively wide differences in comparative CR/CRi rates and the much smaller differences in survival,” perhaps “due to a limited depth of the complete responses following venetoclax-LDAC therapy or the early development of therapeutic resistance,” they said.

The commentary also noted another option, adding the hedgehog pathway inhibitor glasdegib, instead of venetoclax, to LDAC. It also improved survival in a similar randomized study in unfit AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients, from a median survival of 4.9 months with LDAC alone to 8.8 months with the combination (Leukemia. 2019 Feb;33(2):379-389. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0312-9).
 

Dueling regimens

Another alternative approach – venetoclax plus the HMA agent azacitidine – garnered a lot of attention at the meeting when it was reported that the combination had a median overall survival of 14.7 months, versus 9.6 months with azacitidine alone, in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CR/CRi rates were 66% with the combination, versus 28%.

“It seems like the results were better with the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine” than venetoclax plus LDAC, said Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, who moderated Dr. Wei’s presentation.

He wanted to know if there was a way to identify patients who would do better on one regimen versus the other and was curious about the fact that the azacitidine study used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax, instead of 600 mg.

Dr. Wei noted the high incidence of poor prognostic factors in his study, including prior HMA treatment in 20%, but also that “we don’t know for sure” if there’s a clinically meaningful benefit with the higher dose.

He also said the optimal number of venetoclax cycles for best response is unknown. For now, treatment is “recommend until either [disease] progression, dose intolerance, or patient or physician preference,” he noted. Venetoclax subjects in his study had a median of four treatment cycles versus two in the placebo group. Combination patients in the azacitidine study had a median of seven cycles versus 4.5 with placebo.

Venetoclax already carries an indication in the United States in combination with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC for newly-diagnosed AML in adults 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy, at a daily dosage of 400 mg with HMAs and 600 mg with LDAC.

Labeling notes that “continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.”

Both venetoclax trials were sponsored by the drug’s maker, AbbVie, which was involved with data interpretation and other matters. Dr. Wei is a consultant for and receives research funding from the company and also receives royalty payments in relation to venetoclax. The commentators did not have any competing financial interests. Disclosures, if any, were not reported for Dr. Juliusson.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wei AH et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S136.

Azacitidine plus enasidenib improved complete and overall responses in newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 gene mutations, compared with azacitidine alone, but it did not improve overall survival in an open-label, phase 2 trial reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“Given the very high cost of” enasidenib, and the lack of survival benefit, Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund University, Sweden, who moderated the study presentation, wondered if it might make more sense to hold enasidenib in reserve until after progression on azacitidine.

“The challenge is going to be exactly” that, “trying to figure out [if] you use both things together” or in sequence. “You can look at it in both ways,” said lead investigator Courtney DiNardo, MD, associate professor in the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We do know” that with enasidenib monotherapy, there’s “a decrement in the rates of remission and in the duration of response” and overall survival in the salvage setting, so there’s “a clear rationale to give it earlier rather than later,” but “I think this study in some ways provides a few more questions than it really answers,” she said at the meeting.

About 15% of AML patients have leukemogenic isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations; enasidenib, an oral small molecule, inhibits the mutant enzyme. The older AML patients are, the more likely they are to have an IDH2 mutation, so the work “is relevant to our older chemotherapy ineligible population,” Dr. DiNardo said.

The trial was prompted by preclinical indications of synergy with azacitidine; alone, each agent has an overall response rate of about 30% in newly diagnosed AML, and a complete remission (CR) rate of about 20%, she explained.

Her team randomized 68 adults with newly diagnosed AML and an IDH2 mutation to enasidenib 100 mg daily on a 28-day cycle with subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m² for 7 days during the cycle, and 33 others to just the azacitidine alone.

Their subjects were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and had intermediate to poor risk cytogenetics. The median age was 75 years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were 2 or less.

The overall response rate was 71% with the combination and 42% in the azacitidine alone arm (P = .0064). Fifty-three percent of combination patients, but 12% of azacitidine alone subjects, had complete remissions (P = .0001). The median duration of response with combination therapy was 24.1 months, versus 12.1 months.

Enasidenib plus azacitidine subjects also had greater drops in mutant IDH2 variant allele frequency (median 83.4% versus 17.7%, P < .01) and levels of the downstream oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (97.8% versus 54.3%; P < .01).

However, median OS was 22 months in both arms (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52, 1.87, P = .97). Although median event-free survival favored the combination – 17.2 months versus 10.8 – the results were not statistically significant (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30, 1.17, P = .13).

A possible reason for the lack of survival benefit, Dr. DiNardo said, was that seven azacitidine-alone patients (21%) went on to enasidenib after leaving the study, most commonly for disease progression, which occurred in 31% of combination patients versus 52% in the azacitidine-alone arm.

Combination subjects had a median of 10 treatment cycles, vs. 7 in the azacitidine-alone group. Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (37% combination, 19% azacitidine-alone), neutropenia (35% vs. 22%), anemia (19% vs. 22%), and febrile neutropenia (15% vs. 16%). Grade 3-4 infections were more common with azacitidine monotherapy (31% vs. 18%).

Twelve enasidenib/azacitidine subjects (18%) developed isocitrate dehydrogenase differentiation syndrome, a complication that carries a black box warning in enasidenib’s label.

The work was funded by enasidenib marketer Celgene. Dr. DiNardo is an adviser to, and receives research funding from, the company. Dr. Juliusson’s disclosures, if any, were not reported.
 

SOURCE: DiNardo CD et al. EHA Congress, abstract S139.

Azacitidine plus enasidenib improved complete and overall responses in newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 gene mutations, compared with azacitidine alone, but it did not improve overall survival in an open-label, phase 2 trial reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“Given the very high cost of” enasidenib, and the lack of survival benefit, Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund University, Sweden, who moderated the study presentation, wondered if it might make more sense to hold enasidenib in reserve until after progression on azacitidine.

“The challenge is going to be exactly” that, “trying to figure out [if] you use both things together” or in sequence. “You can look at it in both ways,” said lead investigator Courtney DiNardo, MD, associate professor in the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We do know” that with enasidenib monotherapy, there’s “a decrement in the rates of remission and in the duration of response” and overall survival in the salvage setting, so there’s “a clear rationale to give it earlier rather than later,” but “I think this study in some ways provides a few more questions than it really answers,” she said at the meeting.

About 15% of AML patients have leukemogenic isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations; enasidenib, an oral small molecule, inhibits the mutant enzyme. The older AML patients are, the more likely they are to have an IDH2 mutation, so the work “is relevant to our older chemotherapy ineligible population,” Dr. DiNardo said.

The trial was prompted by preclinical indications of synergy with azacitidine; alone, each agent has an overall response rate of about 30% in newly diagnosed AML, and a complete remission (CR) rate of about 20%, she explained.

Her team randomized 68 adults with newly diagnosed AML and an IDH2 mutation to enasidenib 100 mg daily on a 28-day cycle with subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m² for 7 days during the cycle, and 33 others to just the azacitidine alone.

Their subjects were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and had intermediate to poor risk cytogenetics. The median age was 75 years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were 2 or less.

The overall response rate was 71% with the combination and 42% in the azacitidine alone arm (P = .0064). Fifty-three percent of combination patients, but 12% of azacitidine alone subjects, had complete remissions (P = .0001). The median duration of response with combination therapy was 24.1 months, versus 12.1 months.

Enasidenib plus azacitidine subjects also had greater drops in mutant IDH2 variant allele frequency (median 83.4% versus 17.7%, P < .01) and levels of the downstream oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (97.8% versus 54.3%; P < .01).

However, median OS was 22 months in both arms (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52, 1.87, P = .97). Although median event-free survival favored the combination – 17.2 months versus 10.8 – the results were not statistically significant (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30, 1.17, P = .13).

A possible reason for the lack of survival benefit, Dr. DiNardo said, was that seven azacitidine-alone patients (21%) went on to enasidenib after leaving the study, most commonly for disease progression, which occurred in 31% of combination patients versus 52% in the azacitidine-alone arm.

Combination subjects had a median of 10 treatment cycles, vs. 7 in the azacitidine-alone group. Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (37% combination, 19% azacitidine-alone), neutropenia (35% vs. 22%), anemia (19% vs. 22%), and febrile neutropenia (15% vs. 16%). Grade 3-4 infections were more common with azacitidine monotherapy (31% vs. 18%).

Twelve enasidenib/azacitidine subjects (18%) developed isocitrate dehydrogenase differentiation syndrome, a complication that carries a black box warning in enasidenib’s label.

The work was funded by enasidenib marketer Celgene. Dr. DiNardo is an adviser to, and receives research funding from, the company. Dr. Juliusson’s disclosures, if any, were not reported.
 

SOURCE: DiNardo CD et al. EHA Congress, abstract S139.

Azacitidine plus enasidenib improved complete and overall responses in newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 gene mutations, compared with azacitidine alone, but it did not improve overall survival in an open-label, phase 2 trial reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

“Given the very high cost of” enasidenib, and the lack of survival benefit, Gunnar Juliusson, MD, PhD, of Lund University, Sweden, who moderated the study presentation, wondered if it might make more sense to hold enasidenib in reserve until after progression on azacitidine.

“The challenge is going to be exactly” that, “trying to figure out [if] you use both things together” or in sequence. “You can look at it in both ways,” said lead investigator Courtney DiNardo, MD, associate professor in the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“We do know” that with enasidenib monotherapy, there’s “a decrement in the rates of remission and in the duration of response” and overall survival in the salvage setting, so there’s “a clear rationale to give it earlier rather than later,” but “I think this study in some ways provides a few more questions than it really answers,” she said at the meeting.

About 15% of AML patients have leukemogenic isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) mutations; enasidenib, an oral small molecule, inhibits the mutant enzyme. The older AML patients are, the more likely they are to have an IDH2 mutation, so the work “is relevant to our older chemotherapy ineligible population,” Dr. DiNardo said.

The trial was prompted by preclinical indications of synergy with azacitidine; alone, each agent has an overall response rate of about 30% in newly diagnosed AML, and a complete remission (CR) rate of about 20%, she explained.

Her team randomized 68 adults with newly diagnosed AML and an IDH2 mutation to enasidenib 100 mg daily on a 28-day cycle with subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m² for 7 days during the cycle, and 33 others to just the azacitidine alone.

Their subjects were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and had intermediate to poor risk cytogenetics. The median age was 75 years, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores were 2 or less.

The overall response rate was 71% with the combination and 42% in the azacitidine alone arm (P = .0064). Fifty-three percent of combination patients, but 12% of azacitidine alone subjects, had complete remissions (P = .0001). The median duration of response with combination therapy was 24.1 months, versus 12.1 months.

Enasidenib plus azacitidine subjects also had greater drops in mutant IDH2 variant allele frequency (median 83.4% versus 17.7%, P < .01) and levels of the downstream oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (97.8% versus 54.3%; P < .01).

However, median OS was 22 months in both arms (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52, 1.87, P = .97). Although median event-free survival favored the combination – 17.2 months versus 10.8 – the results were not statistically significant (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.30, 1.17, P = .13).

A possible reason for the lack of survival benefit, Dr. DiNardo said, was that seven azacitidine-alone patients (21%) went on to enasidenib after leaving the study, most commonly for disease progression, which occurred in 31% of combination patients versus 52% in the azacitidine-alone arm.

Combination subjects had a median of 10 treatment cycles, vs. 7 in the azacitidine-alone group. Grade 3-4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (37% combination, 19% azacitidine-alone), neutropenia (35% vs. 22%), anemia (19% vs. 22%), and febrile neutropenia (15% vs. 16%). Grade 3-4 infections were more common with azacitidine monotherapy (31% vs. 18%).

Twelve enasidenib/azacitidine subjects (18%) developed isocitrate dehydrogenase differentiation syndrome, a complication that carries a black box warning in enasidenib’s label.

The work was funded by enasidenib marketer Celgene. Dr. DiNardo is an adviser to, and receives research funding from, the company. Dr. Juliusson’s disclosures, if any, were not reported.
 

SOURCE: DiNardo CD et al. EHA Congress, abstract S139.

Magrolimab plus azacitidine (AZA) improved outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients according to the results of a phase 1b study (NCT03248479) presented at the virtual ASCO meeting. The combo especially was promising for the underserved patient population that have the TP53 (p53) mutation.

Magrolimab is a first-in-kind IgG anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody that promotes the elimination of tumor cells through macrophage phagocytosis. CD47 is a “do not eat me” signal on cancer cells that allows the cells to evade macrophages. Its increased expression is predictive of a worse outcome in AML patients, according to David A. Sallman, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., and colleagues.

Dr. Sallman presented the results of a study examining whether magrolimab would provide a synergistic benefit when combined with AZA (which induces other prophagocytic “eat me” signals such as calreticulin on cancer cells). The primary objectives of the study were to examine the safety of magrolimab alone or with AZA, and to assess the efficacy of the magrolimab/AZA combo in 29 untreated AML patients and 39 untreated MDS patients. The majority of both the MDS and AML patients were poor cytogenetic risk at 64% and 72%, respectively. Mutant p53 was present in 13% of the MDS patients and 45% of the AML patients.

No deaths occurred in the first 60 days of the study among either the MDS or AML patients and discontinuation of treatment because of drug-related adverse events was seen in only one of the patients (1.5%) treated with magrolimab/AZA. There was no significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia caused by the therapy seen, and the majority of the patients improved their neutrophil and platelet counts while on therapy.

Anemia from CD47 blockade was mitigated by the use of a priming dose of magrolimab coupled to a maintenance-dose regimen, resulting in a mild hemoglobin drop on the first dose, which returned to baseline with a majority of patients experiencing significant hemoglobin improvement and a decrease in transfusion frequency over time, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.

The results showed that magrolimab/AZA induced a 91% overall response rate (ORR), with a 42% complete remission (CR) that increased to 56% at 6 months, in the MDS patients. AML patients experienced a 64% ORR (56% CR/CRi [CR with incomplete hematological remission]). These results compare favorably with the CR rate of 6%-17% rate seen for AZA monotherapy, according to Dr. Sallman.

Red blood cell transfusion independence was achieved in 58% of the MDS patients and 64% of the AML patients, and a complete cytogenetic response was seen in 35% and 50% of the MDS and AML patients, respectively.

The combined treatment was especially effective in the patients with p53 mutations, with an overall response rate of 75% for both MDS and AML, and a complete response of 42% and 50%, respectively. During the reported time of the study, the median survival was not reached, which compares favorably with current therapies, according to Dr. Sallman.

“Specifically looking at a very-high-risk p53-mutant subset, complete remissions have been observed in the majority of patients. And again, these have been durable. Based on all of these data, expansion cohorts both in MDS and p53 and AML continue to accrue with registrational studies in progress for MDS and planned for p53-mutant AML,” Dr. Sallman concluded.

The trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences, and funding was obtained from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Sallman disclosed that he received research funding from Celgene and has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Agios, argenx, and Celyad. He was also on the speaker’s bureau for a variety of pharmaceutical/biotech companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7507.

Magrolimab plus azacitidine (AZA) improved outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients according to the results of a phase 1b study (NCT03248479) presented at the virtual ASCO meeting. The combo especially was promising for the underserved patient population that have the TP53 (p53) mutation.

Magrolimab is a first-in-kind IgG anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody that promotes the elimination of tumor cells through macrophage phagocytosis. CD47 is a “do not eat me” signal on cancer cells that allows the cells to evade macrophages. Its increased expression is predictive of a worse outcome in AML patients, according to David A. Sallman, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., and colleagues.

Dr. Sallman presented the results of a study examining whether magrolimab would provide a synergistic benefit when combined with AZA (which induces other prophagocytic “eat me” signals such as calreticulin on cancer cells). The primary objectives of the study were to examine the safety of magrolimab alone or with AZA, and to assess the efficacy of the magrolimab/AZA combo in 29 untreated AML patients and 39 untreated MDS patients. The majority of both the MDS and AML patients were poor cytogenetic risk at 64% and 72%, respectively. Mutant p53 was present in 13% of the MDS patients and 45% of the AML patients.

No deaths occurred in the first 60 days of the study among either the MDS or AML patients and discontinuation of treatment because of drug-related adverse events was seen in only one of the patients (1.5%) treated with magrolimab/AZA. There was no significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia caused by the therapy seen, and the majority of the patients improved their neutrophil and platelet counts while on therapy.

Anemia from CD47 blockade was mitigated by the use of a priming dose of magrolimab coupled to a maintenance-dose regimen, resulting in a mild hemoglobin drop on the first dose, which returned to baseline with a majority of patients experiencing significant hemoglobin improvement and a decrease in transfusion frequency over time, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.

The results showed that magrolimab/AZA induced a 91% overall response rate (ORR), with a 42% complete remission (CR) that increased to 56% at 6 months, in the MDS patients. AML patients experienced a 64% ORR (56% CR/CRi [CR with incomplete hematological remission]). These results compare favorably with the CR rate of 6%-17% rate seen for AZA monotherapy, according to Dr. Sallman.

Red blood cell transfusion independence was achieved in 58% of the MDS patients and 64% of the AML patients, and a complete cytogenetic response was seen in 35% and 50% of the MDS and AML patients, respectively.

The combined treatment was especially effective in the patients with p53 mutations, with an overall response rate of 75% for both MDS and AML, and a complete response of 42% and 50%, respectively. During the reported time of the study, the median survival was not reached, which compares favorably with current therapies, according to Dr. Sallman.

“Specifically looking at a very-high-risk p53-mutant subset, complete remissions have been observed in the majority of patients. And again, these have been durable. Based on all of these data, expansion cohorts both in MDS and p53 and AML continue to accrue with registrational studies in progress for MDS and planned for p53-mutant AML,” Dr. Sallman concluded.

The trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences, and funding was obtained from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Sallman disclosed that he received research funding from Celgene and has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Agios, argenx, and Celyad. He was also on the speaker’s bureau for a variety of pharmaceutical/biotech companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7507.

Magrolimab plus azacitidine (AZA) improved outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients according to the results of a phase 1b study (NCT03248479) presented at the virtual ASCO meeting. The combo especially was promising for the underserved patient population that have the TP53 (p53) mutation.

Magrolimab is a first-in-kind IgG anti-CD47 monoclonal antibody that promotes the elimination of tumor cells through macrophage phagocytosis. CD47 is a “do not eat me” signal on cancer cells that allows the cells to evade macrophages. Its increased expression is predictive of a worse outcome in AML patients, according to David A. Sallman, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., and colleagues.

Dr. Sallman presented the results of a study examining whether magrolimab would provide a synergistic benefit when combined with AZA (which induces other prophagocytic “eat me” signals such as calreticulin on cancer cells). The primary objectives of the study were to examine the safety of magrolimab alone or with AZA, and to assess the efficacy of the magrolimab/AZA combo in 29 untreated AML patients and 39 untreated MDS patients. The majority of both the MDS and AML patients were poor cytogenetic risk at 64% and 72%, respectively. Mutant p53 was present in 13% of the MDS patients and 45% of the AML patients.

No deaths occurred in the first 60 days of the study among either the MDS or AML patients and discontinuation of treatment because of drug-related adverse events was seen in only one of the patients (1.5%) treated with magrolimab/AZA. There was no significant neutropenia or thrombocytopenia caused by the therapy seen, and the majority of the patients improved their neutrophil and platelet counts while on therapy.

Anemia from CD47 blockade was mitigated by the use of a priming dose of magrolimab coupled to a maintenance-dose regimen, resulting in a mild hemoglobin drop on the first dose, which returned to baseline with a majority of patients experiencing significant hemoglobin improvement and a decrease in transfusion frequency over time, according to Dr. Sallman and his colleagues.

The results showed that magrolimab/AZA induced a 91% overall response rate (ORR), with a 42% complete remission (CR) that increased to 56% at 6 months, in the MDS patients. AML patients experienced a 64% ORR (56% CR/CRi [CR with incomplete hematological remission]). These results compare favorably with the CR rate of 6%-17% rate seen for AZA monotherapy, according to Dr. Sallman.

Red blood cell transfusion independence was achieved in 58% of the MDS patients and 64% of the AML patients, and a complete cytogenetic response was seen in 35% and 50% of the MDS and AML patients, respectively.

The combined treatment was especially effective in the patients with p53 mutations, with an overall response rate of 75% for both MDS and AML, and a complete response of 42% and 50%, respectively. During the reported time of the study, the median survival was not reached, which compares favorably with current therapies, according to Dr. Sallman.

“Specifically looking at a very-high-risk p53-mutant subset, complete remissions have been observed in the majority of patients. And again, these have been durable. Based on all of these data, expansion cohorts both in MDS and p53 and AML continue to accrue with registrational studies in progress for MDS and planned for p53-mutant AML,” Dr. Sallman concluded.

The trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences, and funding was obtained from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Dr. Sallman disclosed that he received research funding from Celgene and has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Agios, argenx, and Celyad. He was also on the speaker’s bureau for a variety of pharmaceutical/biotech companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sallman DA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7507.

Adding venetoclax to azacitidine significantly extended survival of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for standard induction therapy, results of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial showed.

Median overall survival for patients treated with venetoclax (Venclexta) and azacitidine was 14.7 months, compared with 9.6 months for patients who received azacitidine with a placebo, reported Courtney DiNardo, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The combination of [azacitidine] and [venetoclax] was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival, response rates, duration of remission, and transfusion independence, representing a true paradigm shift in the treatment of our older patients with AML,” she said in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Patients with newly diagnosed AML who are aged 75 years and older or have significant comorbidities are often not able to withstand the rigors of standard induction therapy for AML and have instead been treated with low-dose hypomethylating agents or cytarabine, but these therapies typically are associated with inferior outcomes, Dr. DiNardo said.

Venetoclax has shown good single-agent activity against relapsed/refractory AML. Early efficacy results of a phase 1b study, reported at the 2017 EHA Congress, showed that, among 100 patients age 65 years and older with previously untreated AML, the combination of venetoclax with either decitabine or azacitidine was associated with a 69% overall response rate, and that older patients were able to tolerate the regimen.
 

No surprise

The results of the VIALE-A study merely confirm what hematologists/oncologists have known for several years, said Joshua F. Zeidner, MD, from the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill.

“Most leukemia clinicians have been using this regimen as a standard of care prior to these results,” he said in an interview. Dr. Zeidner was not involved in the study.

In November 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to venetoclax in combination with either azacitidine or decitabine or low-dose cytarabine in adults with newly diagnosed AML who because of age or comorbidities were ineligible for standard intensive induction regimens. Dr. Zeidner noted, however, that there are still questions about the combination in this population that need further exploration.

Despite being labeled as a “low-intensity” therapy, “I think low intensity is sort of a misnomer here,” he said. “It’s very challenging to give this regimen in the community because of all of the cytopenias, a high degree of transfusion dependence that these patients have, at least in the first few cycles, and all the rigorous laboratory monitoring and drug interactions that are common with venetoclax really lead to a lot of challenges in the community.”

Also still unanswered are questions about how to dose patients with early responses who have potential dose-limiting toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, he said.

It’s also unclear whether patients will require hospitalization during the ramp-up phase of venetoclax, as was done in some clinical trials, because of risk of tumor lysis syndrome. In the VIALE-A study, however, there were only three minor biochemical cases of tumor lysis syndrome in the experimental arm, and none of these cases required dose modification or treatment discontinuation.

“This begets the question whether patients need to be hospitalized at for the initiation of this treatment,” Dr. Zeidner said. Additional studies will also be needed to see whether certain subgroups of patients would be likely to derive particular benefit from venetoclax plus azacitidine, such as patients with IDH1 or IDH2 somatic mutations.
 

Randomized confirmatory trial

The VIALE-A study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to put the early promise of the combination to the test.

Investigators enrolled 433 adults with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for induction therapy either because they were 75 or older or were younger than 75 but had one or more of the following comorbidities: heart failure requiring treatment or a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less, chronic stable angina, diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide of 65% or less or forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 65% or less, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2-3.

After stratification by age, cytogenetic risk, and geographic region, the patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive azacitidine 75 mg/m² either subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle, plus either oral venetoclax 400 mg daily following a 3-day ramp up in the first cycle (286 patients) or placebo (145 patients).

The median age in each arm was 76 years. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML.

Approximately half of all patients in each arm has bone marrow blast counts of 50% or greater. Two-thirds of patients had intermediate cytogenetic risk and one-third had poor risk disease. Somatic mutation rates, including mutations in IDH1/2, FLT3, NPM1 and TP53, were roughly comparable between the arms.

As noted before, median overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly longer with venetoclax, at 14.7 versus 9.6 months, translating into a hazard ratio for death with venetoclax of 0.66 (P < .001).

Although the numbers were relatively small, an analysis of overall survival by subgroups showed either a significant advantage or trend favoring venetoclax in all subgroups, notably among patients with difficult-to-treat disease, including patients 75 years and older and those with secondary AML, Dr. DiNardo said.

The combined complete response and CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) response rate was 66.4% with venetoclax, compared with 28.3% with azacitidine alone. The median time to a CR/CRi was shorter with the combination at 1.3 versus 2.8 months for azacitidine plus placebo, and the median duration of a CR/CRi response was longer, at 17.5 versus 13.4 months, respectively.

Response rates were also notably higher with venetoclax in all cytogenetic risk, AML subtype, molecular mutation, age, ECOG score, and bone marrow blast subgroups.

Additionally, significantly more patients treated with venetoclax/azacitidine were transfusion independent for a minimum of 8 weeks for platelets or combined red cells and platelets, Dr. DiNardo noted.

Median event-free survival – time from randomization to relapse, death, or treatment failure – was 9.8 months in the venetoclax arm versus 7 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.63; P < .001).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade 3 or greater hematologic adverse events were seen 82% of patients in the venetoclax arm and 68% in the placebo arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or greater neutropenia were 42% versus 29%, and febrile neutropenia were 42% versus 19%. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia rates were also higher among patients who received venetoclax.

Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal events were the most frequent nonhematologic adverse events. There was no increase in early deaths seen with the study combination.

The study was supported by AbbVie and Genentech. Dr. DiNardo disclosed research funding from and advisory board activities for those companies and from others. Dr. Zeidner disclosed serving on an independent review committee for AbbVie and advisory board activity for Genentech and others.

SOURCE: DiNardo C et al. EHA25, Abstract LB2601.

Adding venetoclax to azacitidine significantly extended survival of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for standard induction therapy, results of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial showed.

Median overall survival for patients treated with venetoclax (Venclexta) and azacitidine was 14.7 months, compared with 9.6 months for patients who received azacitidine with a placebo, reported Courtney DiNardo, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The combination of [azacitidine] and [venetoclax] was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival, response rates, duration of remission, and transfusion independence, representing a true paradigm shift in the treatment of our older patients with AML,” she said in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Patients with newly diagnosed AML who are aged 75 years and older or have significant comorbidities are often not able to withstand the rigors of standard induction therapy for AML and have instead been treated with low-dose hypomethylating agents or cytarabine, but these therapies typically are associated with inferior outcomes, Dr. DiNardo said.

Venetoclax has shown good single-agent activity against relapsed/refractory AML. Early efficacy results of a phase 1b study, reported at the 2017 EHA Congress, showed that, among 100 patients age 65 years and older with previously untreated AML, the combination of venetoclax with either decitabine or azacitidine was associated with a 69% overall response rate, and that older patients were able to tolerate the regimen.
 

No surprise

The results of the VIALE-A study merely confirm what hematologists/oncologists have known for several years, said Joshua F. Zeidner, MD, from the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill.

“Most leukemia clinicians have been using this regimen as a standard of care prior to these results,” he said in an interview. Dr. Zeidner was not involved in the study.

In November 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to venetoclax in combination with either azacitidine or decitabine or low-dose cytarabine in adults with newly diagnosed AML who because of age or comorbidities were ineligible for standard intensive induction regimens. Dr. Zeidner noted, however, that there are still questions about the combination in this population that need further exploration.

Despite being labeled as a “low-intensity” therapy, “I think low intensity is sort of a misnomer here,” he said. “It’s very challenging to give this regimen in the community because of all of the cytopenias, a high degree of transfusion dependence that these patients have, at least in the first few cycles, and all the rigorous laboratory monitoring and drug interactions that are common with venetoclax really lead to a lot of challenges in the community.”

Also still unanswered are questions about how to dose patients with early responses who have potential dose-limiting toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, he said.

It’s also unclear whether patients will require hospitalization during the ramp-up phase of venetoclax, as was done in some clinical trials, because of risk of tumor lysis syndrome. In the VIALE-A study, however, there were only three minor biochemical cases of tumor lysis syndrome in the experimental arm, and none of these cases required dose modification or treatment discontinuation.

“This begets the question whether patients need to be hospitalized at for the initiation of this treatment,” Dr. Zeidner said. Additional studies will also be needed to see whether certain subgroups of patients would be likely to derive particular benefit from venetoclax plus azacitidine, such as patients with IDH1 or IDH2 somatic mutations.
 

Randomized confirmatory trial

The VIALE-A study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to put the early promise of the combination to the test.

Investigators enrolled 433 adults with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for induction therapy either because they were 75 or older or were younger than 75 but had one or more of the following comorbidities: heart failure requiring treatment or a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less, chronic stable angina, diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide of 65% or less or forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 65% or less, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2-3.

After stratification by age, cytogenetic risk, and geographic region, the patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive azacitidine 75 mg/m² either subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle, plus either oral venetoclax 400 mg daily following a 3-day ramp up in the first cycle (286 patients) or placebo (145 patients).

The median age in each arm was 76 years. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML.

Approximately half of all patients in each arm has bone marrow blast counts of 50% or greater. Two-thirds of patients had intermediate cytogenetic risk and one-third had poor risk disease. Somatic mutation rates, including mutations in IDH1/2, FLT3, NPM1 and TP53, were roughly comparable between the arms.

As noted before, median overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly longer with venetoclax, at 14.7 versus 9.6 months, translating into a hazard ratio for death with venetoclax of 0.66 (P < .001).

Although the numbers were relatively small, an analysis of overall survival by subgroups showed either a significant advantage or trend favoring venetoclax in all subgroups, notably among patients with difficult-to-treat disease, including patients 75 years and older and those with secondary AML, Dr. DiNardo said.

The combined complete response and CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) response rate was 66.4% with venetoclax, compared with 28.3% with azacitidine alone. The median time to a CR/CRi was shorter with the combination at 1.3 versus 2.8 months for azacitidine plus placebo, and the median duration of a CR/CRi response was longer, at 17.5 versus 13.4 months, respectively.

Response rates were also notably higher with venetoclax in all cytogenetic risk, AML subtype, molecular mutation, age, ECOG score, and bone marrow blast subgroups.

Additionally, significantly more patients treated with venetoclax/azacitidine were transfusion independent for a minimum of 8 weeks for platelets or combined red cells and platelets, Dr. DiNardo noted.

Median event-free survival – time from randomization to relapse, death, or treatment failure – was 9.8 months in the venetoclax arm versus 7 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.63; P < .001).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade 3 or greater hematologic adverse events were seen 82% of patients in the venetoclax arm and 68% in the placebo arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or greater neutropenia were 42% versus 29%, and febrile neutropenia were 42% versus 19%. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia rates were also higher among patients who received venetoclax.

Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal events were the most frequent nonhematologic adverse events. There was no increase in early deaths seen with the study combination.

The study was supported by AbbVie and Genentech. Dr. DiNardo disclosed research funding from and advisory board activities for those companies and from others. Dr. Zeidner disclosed serving on an independent review committee for AbbVie and advisory board activity for Genentech and others.

SOURCE: DiNardo C et al. EHA25, Abstract LB2601.

Adding venetoclax to azacitidine significantly extended survival of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who were ineligible for standard induction therapy, results of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial showed.

Median overall survival for patients treated with venetoclax (Venclexta) and azacitidine was 14.7 months, compared with 9.6 months for patients who received azacitidine with a placebo, reported Courtney DiNardo, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The combination of [azacitidine] and [venetoclax] was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival, response rates, duration of remission, and transfusion independence, representing a true paradigm shift in the treatment of our older patients with AML,” she said in a late-breaking abstract presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Patients with newly diagnosed AML who are aged 75 years and older or have significant comorbidities are often not able to withstand the rigors of standard induction therapy for AML and have instead been treated with low-dose hypomethylating agents or cytarabine, but these therapies typically are associated with inferior outcomes, Dr. DiNardo said.

Venetoclax has shown good single-agent activity against relapsed/refractory AML. Early efficacy results of a phase 1b study, reported at the 2017 EHA Congress, showed that, among 100 patients age 65 years and older with previously untreated AML, the combination of venetoclax with either decitabine or azacitidine was associated with a 69% overall response rate, and that older patients were able to tolerate the regimen.
 

No surprise

The results of the VIALE-A study merely confirm what hematologists/oncologists have known for several years, said Joshua F. Zeidner, MD, from the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill.

“Most leukemia clinicians have been using this regimen as a standard of care prior to these results,” he said in an interview. Dr. Zeidner was not involved in the study.

In November 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to venetoclax in combination with either azacitidine or decitabine or low-dose cytarabine in adults with newly diagnosed AML who because of age or comorbidities were ineligible for standard intensive induction regimens. Dr. Zeidner noted, however, that there are still questions about the combination in this population that need further exploration.

Despite being labeled as a “low-intensity” therapy, “I think low intensity is sort of a misnomer here,” he said. “It’s very challenging to give this regimen in the community because of all of the cytopenias, a high degree of transfusion dependence that these patients have, at least in the first few cycles, and all the rigorous laboratory monitoring and drug interactions that are common with venetoclax really lead to a lot of challenges in the community.”

Also still unanswered are questions about how to dose patients with early responses who have potential dose-limiting toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, he said.

It’s also unclear whether patients will require hospitalization during the ramp-up phase of venetoclax, as was done in some clinical trials, because of risk of tumor lysis syndrome. In the VIALE-A study, however, there were only three minor biochemical cases of tumor lysis syndrome in the experimental arm, and none of these cases required dose modification or treatment discontinuation.

“This begets the question whether patients need to be hospitalized at for the initiation of this treatment,” Dr. Zeidner said. Additional studies will also be needed to see whether certain subgroups of patients would be likely to derive particular benefit from venetoclax plus azacitidine, such as patients with IDH1 or IDH2 somatic mutations.
 

Randomized confirmatory trial

The VIALE-A study was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to put the early promise of the combination to the test.

Investigators enrolled 433 adults with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for induction therapy either because they were 75 or older or were younger than 75 but had one or more of the following comorbidities: heart failure requiring treatment or a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less, chronic stable angina, diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide of 65% or less or forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 65% or less, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2-3.

After stratification by age, cytogenetic risk, and geographic region, the patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to receive azacitidine 75 mg/m² either subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle, plus either oral venetoclax 400 mg daily following a 3-day ramp up in the first cycle (286 patients) or placebo (145 patients).

The median age in each arm was 76 years. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm had de novo AML.

Approximately half of all patients in each arm has bone marrow blast counts of 50% or greater. Two-thirds of patients had intermediate cytogenetic risk and one-third had poor risk disease. Somatic mutation rates, including mutations in IDH1/2, FLT3, NPM1 and TP53, were roughly comparable between the arms.

As noted before, median overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly longer with venetoclax, at 14.7 versus 9.6 months, translating into a hazard ratio for death with venetoclax of 0.66 (P < .001).

Although the numbers were relatively small, an analysis of overall survival by subgroups showed either a significant advantage or trend favoring venetoclax in all subgroups, notably among patients with difficult-to-treat disease, including patients 75 years and older and those with secondary AML, Dr. DiNardo said.

The combined complete response and CR with incomplete recovery (CRi) response rate was 66.4% with venetoclax, compared with 28.3% with azacitidine alone. The median time to a CR/CRi was shorter with the combination at 1.3 versus 2.8 months for azacitidine plus placebo, and the median duration of a CR/CRi response was longer, at 17.5 versus 13.4 months, respectively.

Response rates were also notably higher with venetoclax in all cytogenetic risk, AML subtype, molecular mutation, age, ECOG score, and bone marrow blast subgroups.

Additionally, significantly more patients treated with venetoclax/azacitidine were transfusion independent for a minimum of 8 weeks for platelets or combined red cells and platelets, Dr. DiNardo noted.

Median event-free survival – time from randomization to relapse, death, or treatment failure – was 9.8 months in the venetoclax arm versus 7 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.63; P < .001).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Grade 3 or greater hematologic adverse events were seen 82% of patients in the venetoclax arm and 68% in the placebo arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or greater neutropenia were 42% versus 29%, and febrile neutropenia were 42% versus 19%. Thrombocytopenia, anemia, and leukopenia rates were also higher among patients who received venetoclax.

Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal events were the most frequent nonhematologic adverse events. There was no increase in early deaths seen with the study combination.

The study was supported by AbbVie and Genentech. Dr. DiNardo disclosed research funding from and advisory board activities for those companies and from others. Dr. Zeidner disclosed serving on an independent review committee for AbbVie and advisory board activity for Genentech and others.

SOURCE: DiNardo C et al. EHA25, Abstract LB2601.

Six of eight relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients, and one patient with accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, had no sign of residual disease 4 weeks after receiving compound CAR T therapy targeting both CD33 and CLL1.

Six patients moved on to subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); the seventh responder withdrew from the study for personal reasons, according to a report at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Much work remains, but the initial results suggest that “CLL1-CD33 compound CAR T cell therapy could be developed as a bridge to transplant, a supplement to chemotherapy, or a standalone therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia” and other myeloid malignancies. The approach might also allow for reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning for HSCT, said lead investigator Fang Liu, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology at the Chengdu Military General Hospital, in Sichuan province, China.

It’s “a topic that will interest a lot of us.” For the first time, “a compound CAR with two independent CAR units induced remissions in AML,” said Pieter Sonneveld, MD, PhD, of the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who introduced Dr. Liu’s presentation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy works well for B-cell malignancies, but translation to AML is “yet to be accomplished.” Meanwhile, despite progress against AML, about one-third of patients still relapse, “and prognosis for relapsed or refractory AML is dismal,” Dr. Liu and her team said.

CAR T is generally aimed against a single target, but AML bears heterogeneous cells that offset killing by single target therapies, resulting in disease relapse.

That problem suggested targeting multiple antigens simultaneously. CLL1 is an “ideal target,” Dr. Liu said, because the myeloid lineage antigen is highly expressed in AML, but absent in normal hematopoietic stem cells. CD33, meanwhile, is expressed on bulk AML cells in the majority of patients.

The CAR T cells were manufactured from autologous cells in eight of the subjects, and from a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor cells for the ninth. The patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then infused with the therapeutic cells by a dose escalation at approximately 1-3 x 10⁶/kg in a single or split dose.

On disease reevaluation within 4 weeks, seven of nine patients – all with relapsed or refractory disease after multiple conventional treatments – were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. The other two had no response, one of whom was CD33 positive but CLL1 negative, “indicating the importance of [the] CLL1 target in CAR T treatment,” the investigators said.

All nine patients developed grade 4 pancytopenia; eight had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which was grade 3 in two; and four subjects developed neurotoxicity, which was grade 3 in three.

Five subjects had mild liver enzyme elevations; four had a coagulation disorder; four developed diarrhea; three developed sepsis; two fungal infections; and three pneumonia. One subject had a skin rash and one developed renal insufficiency.

The adverse events resolved after treatment. “Early intervention with steroids had a positive effect on the reduction of CRS and neurotoxicity,” the team noted.

Of the six patients who went on to HCST, one had standard myeloablative conditioning, but the rest had reduced intensity conditioning. Five subjects successfully engrafted with persistent full chimerism, but one died of sepsis before engraftment.

The median age was 32 years. The median bone marrow blast count before treatment was 47%. Seven subjects had de novo AML; one – a 6-year-old girl – had juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia that transformed into AML; and one had accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.

A phase 1 trial is underway (NCT03795779).

The work was funded by iCell Gene Therapeutics. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Liu didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Liu F et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S149.

Six of eight relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients, and one patient with accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, had no sign of residual disease 4 weeks after receiving compound CAR T therapy targeting both CD33 and CLL1.

Six patients moved on to subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); the seventh responder withdrew from the study for personal reasons, according to a report at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Much work remains, but the initial results suggest that “CLL1-CD33 compound CAR T cell therapy could be developed as a bridge to transplant, a supplement to chemotherapy, or a standalone therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia” and other myeloid malignancies. The approach might also allow for reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning for HSCT, said lead investigator Fang Liu, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology at the Chengdu Military General Hospital, in Sichuan province, China.

It’s “a topic that will interest a lot of us.” For the first time, “a compound CAR with two independent CAR units induced remissions in AML,” said Pieter Sonneveld, MD, PhD, of the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who introduced Dr. Liu’s presentation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy works well for B-cell malignancies, but translation to AML is “yet to be accomplished.” Meanwhile, despite progress against AML, about one-third of patients still relapse, “and prognosis for relapsed or refractory AML is dismal,” Dr. Liu and her team said.

CAR T is generally aimed against a single target, but AML bears heterogeneous cells that offset killing by single target therapies, resulting in disease relapse.

That problem suggested targeting multiple antigens simultaneously. CLL1 is an “ideal target,” Dr. Liu said, because the myeloid lineage antigen is highly expressed in AML, but absent in normal hematopoietic stem cells. CD33, meanwhile, is expressed on bulk AML cells in the majority of patients.

The CAR T cells were manufactured from autologous cells in eight of the subjects, and from a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor cells for the ninth. The patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then infused with the therapeutic cells by a dose escalation at approximately 1-3 x 10⁶/kg in a single or split dose.

On disease reevaluation within 4 weeks, seven of nine patients – all with relapsed or refractory disease after multiple conventional treatments – were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. The other two had no response, one of whom was CD33 positive but CLL1 negative, “indicating the importance of [the] CLL1 target in CAR T treatment,” the investigators said.

All nine patients developed grade 4 pancytopenia; eight had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which was grade 3 in two; and four subjects developed neurotoxicity, which was grade 3 in three.

Five subjects had mild liver enzyme elevations; four had a coagulation disorder; four developed diarrhea; three developed sepsis; two fungal infections; and three pneumonia. One subject had a skin rash and one developed renal insufficiency.

The adverse events resolved after treatment. “Early intervention with steroids had a positive effect on the reduction of CRS and neurotoxicity,” the team noted.

Of the six patients who went on to HCST, one had standard myeloablative conditioning, but the rest had reduced intensity conditioning. Five subjects successfully engrafted with persistent full chimerism, but one died of sepsis before engraftment.

The median age was 32 years. The median bone marrow blast count before treatment was 47%. Seven subjects had de novo AML; one – a 6-year-old girl – had juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia that transformed into AML; and one had accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.

A phase 1 trial is underway (NCT03795779).

The work was funded by iCell Gene Therapeutics. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Liu didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Liu F et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S149.

Six of eight relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients, and one patient with accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, had no sign of residual disease 4 weeks after receiving compound CAR T therapy targeting both CD33 and CLL1.

Six patients moved on to subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); the seventh responder withdrew from the study for personal reasons, according to a report at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Much work remains, but the initial results suggest that “CLL1-CD33 compound CAR T cell therapy could be developed as a bridge to transplant, a supplement to chemotherapy, or a standalone therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia” and other myeloid malignancies. The approach might also allow for reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning for HSCT, said lead investigator Fang Liu, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology at the Chengdu Military General Hospital, in Sichuan province, China.

It’s “a topic that will interest a lot of us.” For the first time, “a compound CAR with two independent CAR units induced remissions in AML,” said Pieter Sonneveld, MD, PhD, of the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who introduced Dr. Liu’s presentation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy works well for B-cell malignancies, but translation to AML is “yet to be accomplished.” Meanwhile, despite progress against AML, about one-third of patients still relapse, “and prognosis for relapsed or refractory AML is dismal,” Dr. Liu and her team said.

CAR T is generally aimed against a single target, but AML bears heterogeneous cells that offset killing by single target therapies, resulting in disease relapse.

That problem suggested targeting multiple antigens simultaneously. CLL1 is an “ideal target,” Dr. Liu said, because the myeloid lineage antigen is highly expressed in AML, but absent in normal hematopoietic stem cells. CD33, meanwhile, is expressed on bulk AML cells in the majority of patients.

The CAR T cells were manufactured from autologous cells in eight of the subjects, and from a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor cells for the ninth. The patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then infused with the therapeutic cells by a dose escalation at approximately 1-3 x 10⁶/kg in a single or split dose.

On disease reevaluation within 4 weeks, seven of nine patients – all with relapsed or refractory disease after multiple conventional treatments – were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. The other two had no response, one of whom was CD33 positive but CLL1 negative, “indicating the importance of [the] CLL1 target in CAR T treatment,” the investigators said.

All nine patients developed grade 4 pancytopenia; eight had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which was grade 3 in two; and four subjects developed neurotoxicity, which was grade 3 in three.

Five subjects had mild liver enzyme elevations; four had a coagulation disorder; four developed diarrhea; three developed sepsis; two fungal infections; and three pneumonia. One subject had a skin rash and one developed renal insufficiency.

The adverse events resolved after treatment. “Early intervention with steroids had a positive effect on the reduction of CRS and neurotoxicity,” the team noted.

Of the six patients who went on to HCST, one had standard myeloablative conditioning, but the rest had reduced intensity conditioning. Five subjects successfully engrafted with persistent full chimerism, but one died of sepsis before engraftment.

The median age was 32 years. The median bone marrow blast count before treatment was 47%. Seven subjects had de novo AML; one – a 6-year-old girl – had juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia that transformed into AML; and one had accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.

A phase 1 trial is underway (NCT03795779).

The work was funded by iCell Gene Therapeutics. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Liu didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Liu F et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S149.

A disease risk index is now available for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The model, which was developed and validated using data from more than 2,000 patients, stratifies probabilities of leukemia-free survival (LFS) into four risk groups for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and three risk groups for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), reported lead author Muna Qayed, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The outcome of stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy is influenced by disease type, cytogenetics, and disease status at transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said. “In adults, these attributes were used to develop the disease risk index, or DRI, that can stratify patients for overall survival for purposes such as prognostication or clinical trial entry.”

But no such model exists for pediatric patients, Dr. Qayed said, noting that the adult DRI was found to be inaccurate when applied to children.

“[T]he [adult] DRI did not differentiate [pediatric] patients by overall survival,” Dr. Qayed said. “Therefore, knowing that pediatric AML and ALL differ biologically from adult leukemia, and further, treatment strategies differ between adults and children, we aimed to develop a pediatric-specific DRI.”

This involved analysis of data from 1,135 children with AML and 1,228 children with ALL who underwent transplantation between 2008 and 2017. All patients had myeloablative conditioning, and 75% received an unrelated donor graft. Haploidentical transplants were excluded because of small sample size.

Analyses were conducted in AML and ALL cohorts, with patients in each population randomized to training and validation subgroups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was LFS. Cox regression models were used to identify significant characteristics, which were then integrated into a prognostic scoring system for the training groups. These scoring systems were then tested in the validation subgroups. Maximum likelihood was used to identify age cutoffs, which were 3 years for AML and 2 years for ALL.

In both cohorts, disease status at transplantation was characterized by complete remission and minimal residual disease status.

In the AML cohort, approximately one-third of patients were in first complete remission with negative minimal residual disease. Risk was stratified into four groups, including good, intermediate, high, and very high risk, with respective 5-year LFS probabilities of 81%, 56%, 44%, and 21%. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included unfavorable cytogenetics, first or second complete remission with minimal residual disease positivity, relapse at transplantation, and age less than 3 years.

In the ALL cohort, risk was stratified into three risk tiers: good, intermediate, and high, with 5-year LFS probabilities of 68%, 50%, and 15%, respectively. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included age less than 2 years, relapse at transplantation, and second complete remission regardless of minimal residual disease status.

The models for each disease also predicted overall survival.

For AML, hazard ratios, ascending from good to very-high-risk tiers, were 1.00, 3.52, 4.67, and 8.62. For ALL risk tiers, ascending hazard ratios were 1.00, 2.16, and 3.86.

“In summary, the pediatric disease risk index validated for leukemia-free survival and overall survival successfully stratifies children with acute leukemia at the time of transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said.

She concluded her presentation by highlighting the practicality and relevance of the new scoring system.

“The components included in the scoring system used information that is readily available pretransplantation, lending support to the deliverability of the prognostic scoring system,” Dr. Qayed said. “It can further be used for improved interpretation of multicenter data and in clinical trials for risk stratification.”

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., first emphasized the clinical importance of an accurate disease risk index for pediatric patients.

“When going into transplant, the No. 1 question that all parents will ask is: ‘Will my child be cured?’ ” she said.

According to Dr. Shah, the risk model developed by Dr. Qayed and colleagues is built on a strong foundation, including adequate sample size, comprehensive disease characterization, exclusion of patients that did not undergo myeloablative conditioning, and use of minimal residual disease status.

Still, more work is needed, Dr. Shah said.

“This DRI will need to be prospectively tested and compared to other established risk factors. For instance, minimal residual disease alone can be further stratified and has a significant role in establishing risk for posttransplant relapse. And the development of acute graft-versus-host disease also plays an important role in posttransplant relapse.”

Dr. Shah went on to outline potential areas of improvement.

“[F]uture directions for this study could include incorporation of early posttransplant events like graft-versus-host disease, potential stratification of the minimal residual disease results among those patients in complete remission, and potential application of this DRI to the adolescent and young adult population, which may have slight variation even from the adult DRI.”The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest

SOURCE: Qayed M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7503.

A disease risk index is now available for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The model, which was developed and validated using data from more than 2,000 patients, stratifies probabilities of leukemia-free survival (LFS) into four risk groups for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and three risk groups for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), reported lead author Muna Qayed, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The outcome of stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy is influenced by disease type, cytogenetics, and disease status at transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said. “In adults, these attributes were used to develop the disease risk index, or DRI, that can stratify patients for overall survival for purposes such as prognostication or clinical trial entry.”

But no such model exists for pediatric patients, Dr. Qayed said, noting that the adult DRI was found to be inaccurate when applied to children.

“[T]he [adult] DRI did not differentiate [pediatric] patients by overall survival,” Dr. Qayed said. “Therefore, knowing that pediatric AML and ALL differ biologically from adult leukemia, and further, treatment strategies differ between adults and children, we aimed to develop a pediatric-specific DRI.”

This involved analysis of data from 1,135 children with AML and 1,228 children with ALL who underwent transplantation between 2008 and 2017. All patients had myeloablative conditioning, and 75% received an unrelated donor graft. Haploidentical transplants were excluded because of small sample size.

Analyses were conducted in AML and ALL cohorts, with patients in each population randomized to training and validation subgroups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was LFS. Cox regression models were used to identify significant characteristics, which were then integrated into a prognostic scoring system for the training groups. These scoring systems were then tested in the validation subgroups. Maximum likelihood was used to identify age cutoffs, which were 3 years for AML and 2 years for ALL.

In both cohorts, disease status at transplantation was characterized by complete remission and minimal residual disease status.

In the AML cohort, approximately one-third of patients were in first complete remission with negative minimal residual disease. Risk was stratified into four groups, including good, intermediate, high, and very high risk, with respective 5-year LFS probabilities of 81%, 56%, 44%, and 21%. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included unfavorable cytogenetics, first or second complete remission with minimal residual disease positivity, relapse at transplantation, and age less than 3 years.

In the ALL cohort, risk was stratified into three risk tiers: good, intermediate, and high, with 5-year LFS probabilities of 68%, 50%, and 15%, respectively. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included age less than 2 years, relapse at transplantation, and second complete remission regardless of minimal residual disease status.

The models for each disease also predicted overall survival.

For AML, hazard ratios, ascending from good to very-high-risk tiers, were 1.00, 3.52, 4.67, and 8.62. For ALL risk tiers, ascending hazard ratios were 1.00, 2.16, and 3.86.

“In summary, the pediatric disease risk index validated for leukemia-free survival and overall survival successfully stratifies children with acute leukemia at the time of transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said.

She concluded her presentation by highlighting the practicality and relevance of the new scoring system.

“The components included in the scoring system used information that is readily available pretransplantation, lending support to the deliverability of the prognostic scoring system,” Dr. Qayed said. “It can further be used for improved interpretation of multicenter data and in clinical trials for risk stratification.”

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., first emphasized the clinical importance of an accurate disease risk index for pediatric patients.

“When going into transplant, the No. 1 question that all parents will ask is: ‘Will my child be cured?’ ” she said.

According to Dr. Shah, the risk model developed by Dr. Qayed and colleagues is built on a strong foundation, including adequate sample size, comprehensive disease characterization, exclusion of patients that did not undergo myeloablative conditioning, and use of minimal residual disease status.

Still, more work is needed, Dr. Shah said.

“This DRI will need to be prospectively tested and compared to other established risk factors. For instance, minimal residual disease alone can be further stratified and has a significant role in establishing risk for posttransplant relapse. And the development of acute graft-versus-host disease also plays an important role in posttransplant relapse.”

Dr. Shah went on to outline potential areas of improvement.

“[F]uture directions for this study could include incorporation of early posttransplant events like graft-versus-host disease, potential stratification of the minimal residual disease results among those patients in complete remission, and potential application of this DRI to the adolescent and young adult population, which may have slight variation even from the adult DRI.”The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest

SOURCE: Qayed M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7503.

A disease risk index is now available for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The model, which was developed and validated using data from more than 2,000 patients, stratifies probabilities of leukemia-free survival (LFS) into four risk groups for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and three risk groups for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), reported lead author Muna Qayed, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“The outcome of stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy is influenced by disease type, cytogenetics, and disease status at transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said. “In adults, these attributes were used to develop the disease risk index, or DRI, that can stratify patients for overall survival for purposes such as prognostication or clinical trial entry.”

But no such model exists for pediatric patients, Dr. Qayed said, noting that the adult DRI was found to be inaccurate when applied to children.

“[T]he [adult] DRI did not differentiate [pediatric] patients by overall survival,” Dr. Qayed said. “Therefore, knowing that pediatric AML and ALL differ biologically from adult leukemia, and further, treatment strategies differ between adults and children, we aimed to develop a pediatric-specific DRI.”

This involved analysis of data from 1,135 children with AML and 1,228 children with ALL who underwent transplantation between 2008 and 2017. All patients had myeloablative conditioning, and 75% received an unrelated donor graft. Haploidentical transplants were excluded because of small sample size.

Analyses were conducted in AML and ALL cohorts, with patients in each population randomized to training and validation subgroups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was LFS. Cox regression models were used to identify significant characteristics, which were then integrated into a prognostic scoring system for the training groups. These scoring systems were then tested in the validation subgroups. Maximum likelihood was used to identify age cutoffs, which were 3 years for AML and 2 years for ALL.

In both cohorts, disease status at transplantation was characterized by complete remission and minimal residual disease status.

In the AML cohort, approximately one-third of patients were in first complete remission with negative minimal residual disease. Risk was stratified into four groups, including good, intermediate, high, and very high risk, with respective 5-year LFS probabilities of 81%, 56%, 44%, and 21%. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included unfavorable cytogenetics, first or second complete remission with minimal residual disease positivity, relapse at transplantation, and age less than 3 years.

In the ALL cohort, risk was stratified into three risk tiers: good, intermediate, and high, with 5-year LFS probabilities of 68%, 50%, and 15%, respectively. Independent predictors of poorer outcome included age less than 2 years, relapse at transplantation, and second complete remission regardless of minimal residual disease status.

The models for each disease also predicted overall survival.

For AML, hazard ratios, ascending from good to very-high-risk tiers, were 1.00, 3.52, 4.67, and 8.62. For ALL risk tiers, ascending hazard ratios were 1.00, 2.16, and 3.86.

“In summary, the pediatric disease risk index validated for leukemia-free survival and overall survival successfully stratifies children with acute leukemia at the time of transplantation,” Dr. Qayed said.

She concluded her presentation by highlighting the practicality and relevance of the new scoring system.

“The components included in the scoring system used information that is readily available pretransplantation, lending support to the deliverability of the prognostic scoring system,” Dr. Qayed said. “It can further be used for improved interpretation of multicenter data and in clinical trials for risk stratification.”

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., first emphasized the clinical importance of an accurate disease risk index for pediatric patients.

“When going into transplant, the No. 1 question that all parents will ask is: ‘Will my child be cured?’ ” she said.

According to Dr. Shah, the risk model developed by Dr. Qayed and colleagues is built on a strong foundation, including adequate sample size, comprehensive disease characterization, exclusion of patients that did not undergo myeloablative conditioning, and use of minimal residual disease status.

Still, more work is needed, Dr. Shah said.

“This DRI will need to be prospectively tested and compared to other established risk factors. For instance, minimal residual disease alone can be further stratified and has a significant role in establishing risk for posttransplant relapse. And the development of acute graft-versus-host disease also plays an important role in posttransplant relapse.”

Dr. Shah went on to outline potential areas of improvement.

“[F]uture directions for this study could include incorporation of early posttransplant events like graft-versus-host disease, potential stratification of the minimal residual disease results among those patients in complete remission, and potential application of this DRI to the adolescent and young adult population, which may have slight variation even from the adult DRI.”The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest

SOURCE: Qayed M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 7503.

CD123, a membrane-bound interleukin-3 receptor, is overexpressed in many hematological malignancies, and it has been found useful in characterizing both acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). CD123 expression also appears positively correlated with the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment, and may be useful as a marker of treatment success, according to a report presented online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

Nupur Das, MD, and colleagues from the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, New Delhi, India, evaluated the pattern of CD123 expression across different subtypes of acute leukemia to assess its utility as a diagnostic marker, and to assess its impact on MRD assessment and early treatment outcome.

The evaluated the expression of CD123 in 757 samples of acute leukemia (479 treatment-naive and 278 follow-up samples) and compared the results with post-induction morphological remission (CR) and measurable residual disease (MRD) status.

The researchers used cut-offs of 5%, 10%, and 20% CD123-expression positive results to define a case as CD123 positive. On this basis, expression of CD123 was observed in 75.6%, 66.2%. and 50% of AML samples and 88.6%, 81.8%, and 75% of B-ALL samples respectively. They also found that none of the 12 T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) cases expressed CD123.

In addition, they found that CD123 expression was associated with MRD-positive status in both B-ALL (P < .001) and AML (P = .001).

“MRD is already an established post-treatment prognostication tool in acute leukemia and hence, the positive correlation of CD123 expression with MRD positivity in AML signifies its utility as an important marker to assess early response to therapy,” the researchers stated.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Das N et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 May 10; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.05.004.

CD123, a membrane-bound interleukin-3 receptor, is overexpressed in many hematological malignancies, and it has been found useful in characterizing both acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). CD123 expression also appears positively correlated with the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment, and may be useful as a marker of treatment success, according to a report presented online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

Nupur Das, MD, and colleagues from the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, New Delhi, India, evaluated the pattern of CD123 expression across different subtypes of acute leukemia to assess its utility as a diagnostic marker, and to assess its impact on MRD assessment and early treatment outcome.

The evaluated the expression of CD123 in 757 samples of acute leukemia (479 treatment-naive and 278 follow-up samples) and compared the results with post-induction morphological remission (CR) and measurable residual disease (MRD) status.

The researchers used cut-offs of 5%, 10%, and 20% CD123-expression positive results to define a case as CD123 positive. On this basis, expression of CD123 was observed in 75.6%, 66.2%. and 50% of AML samples and 88.6%, 81.8%, and 75% of B-ALL samples respectively. They also found that none of the 12 T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) cases expressed CD123.

In addition, they found that CD123 expression was associated with MRD-positive status in both B-ALL (P < .001) and AML (P = .001).

“MRD is already an established post-treatment prognostication tool in acute leukemia and hence, the positive correlation of CD123 expression with MRD positivity in AML signifies its utility as an important marker to assess early response to therapy,” the researchers stated.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Das N et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 May 10; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.05.004.

CD123, a membrane-bound interleukin-3 receptor, is overexpressed in many hematological malignancies, and it has been found useful in characterizing both acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). CD123 expression also appears positively correlated with the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment, and may be useful as a marker of treatment success, according to a report presented online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

Nupur Das, MD, and colleagues from the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, New Delhi, India, evaluated the pattern of CD123 expression across different subtypes of acute leukemia to assess its utility as a diagnostic marker, and to assess its impact on MRD assessment and early treatment outcome.

The evaluated the expression of CD123 in 757 samples of acute leukemia (479 treatment-naive and 278 follow-up samples) and compared the results with post-induction morphological remission (CR) and measurable residual disease (MRD) status.

The researchers used cut-offs of 5%, 10%, and 20% CD123-expression positive results to define a case as CD123 positive. On this basis, expression of CD123 was observed in 75.6%, 66.2%. and 50% of AML samples and 88.6%, 81.8%, and 75% of B-ALL samples respectively. They also found that none of the 12 T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) cases expressed CD123.

In addition, they found that CD123 expression was associated with MRD-positive status in both B-ALL (P < .001) and AML (P = .001).

“MRD is already an established post-treatment prognostication tool in acute leukemia and hence, the positive correlation of CD123 expression with MRD positivity in AML signifies its utility as an important marker to assess early response to therapy,” the researchers stated.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Das N et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 May 10; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.05.004.

A hematologist in Italy shared his personal experience addressing the intersection of COVID-19 and the care of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients during a webinar hosted by the European Hematology Association (EHA).

National Institutes of Health/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Felicetto Ferrara, MD, of Cardarelli Hospital in Naples, Italy, discussed the main difficulties in administering optimal treatment for AML patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The major problems include the need to isolate patients while simultaneously allowing for collaboration with pulmonologists and intensivists, the delays in AML treatment caused by COVID-19, and the risk of drug-drug interactions while treating AML patients with COVID-19.

The need to isolate AML patients with COVID-19 is paramount, according to Dr. Ferrara. Isolation can be accomplished, ideally, by the creation of a dedicated COVID-19 unit or, alternatively, with the use of single-patient negative pressure rooms. Dr. Ferrara stressed that all patients with AML should be tested for COVID-19 before admission.
 

Delaying or reducing AML treatment

Treatment delays are of particular concern, according to Dr. Ferrara, and some patients may require dose reductions, especially for AML treatments that might have a detrimental effect on the immune system.

Decisions must be made as to whether planned approaches to induction or consolidation therapy should be changed, and special concern has to be paid to elderly AML patients, who have the highest risks of bad COVID-19 outcomes.

Specific attention should be paid to patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia as well, according to Dr. Ferrara. These patients are of concern in the COVID-19 era because of their risk of differentiation syndrome, which can induce respiratory distress.

In all cases, autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplant should be deferred until confirmed COVID-19–negative test results are obtained.
 

Continuing AML treatment

Of particular concern is the fact that, without a standard therapy for COVID-19, many different drugs might be used in treatment efforts. This raises the potential for serious drug-drug interactions with the patient’s AML medications, so close attention should be paid to an individual patient’s medications.

In terms of continuing AML treatment for younger adults (less than 65 years) who are positive for COVID-19, symptomatic and asymptomatic patients should be treated differently, Dr. Ferarra said.

Symptomatic patients should be given hydroxyurea until symptom resolution, and unless urgent, any further AML treatments should be delayed. However, if treatment is needed immediately, it should be given in a COVID-19–dedicated unit.

The restrictions are much looser for young adult asymptomatic COVID-19 patients with AML. Standard induction therapy should be given, with intermediate-dose cytarabine used as consolidation therapy.

Therapy in elderly patients with AML and COVID-19 should be based on symptom status as well, said Dr. Ferrara.

Asymptomatic but otherwise fit elderly patients should have standard induction therapy if they are in the European Leukemia Network favorable genetic subgroup. Asymptomatic elderly patients with high-risk molecular disease can receive venetoclax with a hypomethylating agent.

Symptomatic elderly patients should continue with hydroxyurea until symptom resolution, and any other treatments should be delayed in nonemergency cases.

Relapsed AML patients with COVID-19 should have their treatments postponed until they obtain negative COVID-19 test results whenever possible, Dr. Ferarra said. However, if treatment is necessary, molecularly targeted therapies (gilteritinib, ivosidenib, and enasidenib) are preferable to high-dose chemotherapy.

In all cases, treatment decisions should be made in conjunction with pulmonologists and intensivists, Dr. Ferrera noted.

Webinar moderator Francesco Cerisoli, MD, head of research and mentoring at EHA, highlighted the fact that EHA has published specific recommendations for treating AML patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of these were discussed by and are aligned with the recommendations presented by Dr. Ferrara.

The EHA webinar contains a disclaimer that the content discussed was based on the personal experiences and opinions of the speakers and that no general, evidence-based guidance could be derived from the discussion. There were no disclosures given.

[email protected]

A hematologist in Italy shared his personal experience addressing the intersection of COVID-19 and the care of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients during a webinar hosted by the European Hematology Association (EHA).

National Institutes of Health/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Felicetto Ferrara, MD, of Cardarelli Hospital in Naples, Italy, discussed the main difficulties in administering optimal treatment for AML patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The major problems include the need to isolate patients while simultaneously allowing for collaboration with pulmonologists and intensivists, the delays in AML treatment caused by COVID-19, and the risk of drug-drug interactions while treating AML patients with COVID-19.

The need to isolate AML patients with COVID-19 is paramount, according to Dr. Ferrara. Isolation can be accomplished, ideally, by the creation of a dedicated COVID-19 unit or, alternatively, with the use of single-patient negative pressure rooms. Dr. Ferrara stressed that all patients with AML should be tested for COVID-19 before admission.
 

Delaying or reducing AML treatment

Treatment delays are of particular concern, according to Dr. Ferrara, and some patients may require dose reductions, especially for AML treatments that might have a detrimental effect on the immune system.

Decisions must be made as to whether planned approaches to induction or consolidation therapy should be changed, and special concern has to be paid to elderly AML patients, who have the highest risks of bad COVID-19 outcomes.

Specific attention should be paid to patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia as well, according to Dr. Ferrara. These patients are of concern in the COVID-19 era because of their risk of differentiation syndrome, which can induce respiratory distress.

In all cases, autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplant should be deferred until confirmed COVID-19–negative test results are obtained.
 

Continuing AML treatment

Of particular concern is the fact that, without a standard therapy for COVID-19, many different drugs might be used in treatment efforts. This raises the potential for serious drug-drug interactions with the patient’s AML medications, so close attention should be paid to an individual patient’s medications.

In terms of continuing AML treatment for younger adults (less than 65 years) who are positive for COVID-19, symptomatic and asymptomatic patients should be treated differently, Dr. Ferarra said.

Symptomatic patients should be given hydroxyurea until symptom resolution, and unless urgent, any further AML treatments should be delayed. However, if treatment is needed immediately, it should be given in a COVID-19–dedicated unit.

The restrictions are much looser for young adult asymptomatic COVID-19 patients with AML. Standard induction therapy should be given, with intermediate-dose cytarabine used as consolidation therapy.

Therapy in elderly patients with AML and COVID-19 should be based on symptom status as well, said Dr. Ferrara.

Asymptomatic but otherwise fit elderly patients should have standard induction therapy if they are in the European Leukemia Network favorable genetic subgroup. Asymptomatic elderly patients with high-risk molecular disease can receive venetoclax with a hypomethylating agent.

Symptomatic elderly patients should continue with hydroxyurea until symptom resolution, and any other treatments should be delayed in nonemergency cases.

Relapsed AML patients with COVID-19 should have their treatments postponed until they obtain negative COVID-19 test results whenever possible, Dr. Ferarra said. However, if treatment is necessary, molecularly targeted therapies (gilteritinib, ivosidenib, and enasidenib) are preferable to high-dose chemotherapy.

In all cases, treatment decisions should be made in conjunction with pulmonologists and intensivists, Dr. Ferrera noted.

Webinar moderator Francesco Cerisoli, MD, head of research and mentoring at EHA, highlighted the fact that EHA has published specific recommendations for treating AML patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of these were discussed by and are aligned with the recommendations presented by Dr. Ferrara.

The EHA webinar contains a disclaimer that the content discussed was based on the personal experiences and opinions of the speakers and that no general, evidence-based guidance could be derived from the discussion. There were no disclosures given.

[email protected]

A hematologist in Italy shared his personal experience addressing the intersection of COVID-19 and the care of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients during a webinar hosted by the European Hematology Association (EHA).

National Institutes of Health/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Felicetto Ferrara, MD, of Cardarelli Hospital in Naples, Italy, discussed the main difficulties in administering optimal treatment for AML patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The major problems include the need to isolate patients while simultaneously allowing for collaboration with pulmonologists and intensivists, the delays in AML treatment caused by COVID-19, and the risk of drug-drug interactions while treating AML patients with COVID-19.

The need to isolate AML patients with COVID-19 is paramount, according to Dr. Ferrara. Isolation can be accomplished, ideally, by the creation of a dedicated COVID-19 unit or, alternatively, with the use of single-patient negative pressure rooms. Dr. Ferrara stressed that all patients with AML should be tested for COVID-19 before admission.
 

Delaying or reducing AML treatment

Treatment delays are of particular concern, according to Dr. Ferrara, and some patients may require dose reductions, especially for AML treatments that might have a detrimental effect on the immune system.

Decisions must be made as to whether planned approaches to induction or consolidation therapy should be changed, and special concern has to be paid to elderly AML patients, who have the highest risks of bad COVID-19 outcomes.

Specific attention should be paid to patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia as well, according to Dr. Ferrara. These patients are of concern in the COVID-19 era because of their risk of differentiation syndrome, which can induce respiratory distress.

In all cases, autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplant should be deferred until confirmed COVID-19–negative test results are obtained.
 

Continuing AML treatment

Of particular concern is the fact that, without a standard therapy for COVID-19, many different drugs might be used in treatment efforts. This raises the potential for serious drug-drug interactions with the patient’s AML medications, so close attention should be paid to an individual patient’s medications.

In terms of continuing AML treatment for younger adults (less than 65 years) who are positive for COVID-19, symptomatic and asymptomatic patients should be treated differently, Dr. Ferarra said.

Symptomatic patients should be given hydroxyurea until symptom resolution, and unless urgent, any further AML treatments should be delayed. However, if treatment is needed immediately, it should be given in a COVID-19–dedicated unit.

The restrictions are much looser for young adult asymptomatic COVID-19 patients with AML. Standard induction therapy should be given, with intermediate-dose cytarabine used as consolidation therapy.

Therapy in elderly patients with AML and COVID-19 should be based on symptom status as well, said Dr. Ferrara.

Asymptomatic but otherwise fit elderly patients should have standard induction therapy if they are in the European Leukemia Network favorable genetic subgroup. Asymptomatic elderly patients with high-risk molecular disease can receive venetoclax with a hypomethylating agent.

Symptomatic elderly patients should continue with hydroxyurea until symptom resolution, and any other treatments should be delayed in nonemergency cases.

Relapsed AML patients with COVID-19 should have their treatments postponed until they obtain negative COVID-19 test results whenever possible, Dr. Ferarra said. However, if treatment is necessary, molecularly targeted therapies (gilteritinib, ivosidenib, and enasidenib) are preferable to high-dose chemotherapy.

In all cases, treatment decisions should be made in conjunction with pulmonologists and intensivists, Dr. Ferrera noted.

Webinar moderator Francesco Cerisoli, MD, head of research and mentoring at EHA, highlighted the fact that EHA has published specific recommendations for treating AML patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of these were discussed by and are aligned with the recommendations presented by Dr. Ferrara.

The EHA webinar contains a disclaimer that the content discussed was based on the personal experiences and opinions of the speakers and that no general, evidence-based guidance could be derived from the discussion. There were no disclosures given.

[email protected]

A clofarabine-based treatment was found to be safe and effective in refractory/relapsed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the phase 2 CLAM trial.

The CLAM protocol treatment was clofarabine, cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (intravenous infusion, days 1‐5), cytarabine (intravenous infusion starting 4 hours after clofarabine, days 1‐5), and mitoxantrone (intravenous infusion, days 3‐5).

Bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy were performed on day 28. A total of 52 patients (16 women), with an age range of 22-65 years and refractory/relapsed AML were treated.

The overall response rate after the first cycle of CLAM was 90.4% (complete remission, 69.2%; CR with incomplete hematologic recovery, 21.2%). In addition, the efficacy of CLAM was not apparently affected by high‐risk karyotypes and genetic mutations among the patients.

Patients with a response (marrow < 5% blasts) received a maximum of two cycles of CLAM consolidation, each at 50% dose reduction, given 6‐8 weeks apart. Responding patients with an HLA‐matched sibling or volunteer‐unrelated donor were offered allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Toxicity of CLAM was manageable and did not compromise subsequent allogeneic HSCT, the researchers added.

“In this era of molecular targeting, CLAM might still have a role to play,” according to the researchers. “It offers the advantage of a highly effective regimen that is readily available. It provides a median DOR of 5 months, which is meaningful for organization of HSCT. Delays associated with recruitment into clinical trials or sourcing of targeted drugs are obviated. Precious time is saved, so that patients can quickly be bridged to a potentially curative allogeneic HSCT.”

No disclosures or conflicts of interest were reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gill H et al. Cancer Med. 2020 Mar 20. doi:10.1002/cam4.2865.

A clofarabine-based treatment was found to be safe and effective in refractory/relapsed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the phase 2 CLAM trial.

The CLAM protocol treatment was clofarabine, cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (intravenous infusion, days 1‐5), cytarabine (intravenous infusion starting 4 hours after clofarabine, days 1‐5), and mitoxantrone (intravenous infusion, days 3‐5).

Bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy were performed on day 28. A total of 52 patients (16 women), with an age range of 22-65 years and refractory/relapsed AML were treated.

The overall response rate after the first cycle of CLAM was 90.4% (complete remission, 69.2%; CR with incomplete hematologic recovery, 21.2%). In addition, the efficacy of CLAM was not apparently affected by high‐risk karyotypes and genetic mutations among the patients.

Patients with a response (marrow < 5% blasts) received a maximum of two cycles of CLAM consolidation, each at 50% dose reduction, given 6‐8 weeks apart. Responding patients with an HLA‐matched sibling or volunteer‐unrelated donor were offered allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Toxicity of CLAM was manageable and did not compromise subsequent allogeneic HSCT, the researchers added.

“In this era of molecular targeting, CLAM might still have a role to play,” according to the researchers. “It offers the advantage of a highly effective regimen that is readily available. It provides a median DOR of 5 months, which is meaningful for organization of HSCT. Delays associated with recruitment into clinical trials or sourcing of targeted drugs are obviated. Precious time is saved, so that patients can quickly be bridged to a potentially curative allogeneic HSCT.”

No disclosures or conflicts of interest were reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gill H et al. Cancer Med. 2020 Mar 20. doi:10.1002/cam4.2865.

A clofarabine-based treatment was found to be safe and effective in refractory/relapsed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the phase 2 CLAM trial.

The CLAM protocol treatment was clofarabine, cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (intravenous infusion, days 1‐5), cytarabine (intravenous infusion starting 4 hours after clofarabine, days 1‐5), and mitoxantrone (intravenous infusion, days 3‐5).

Bone marrow aspiration and trephine biopsy were performed on day 28. A total of 52 patients (16 women), with an age range of 22-65 years and refractory/relapsed AML were treated.

The overall response rate after the first cycle of CLAM was 90.4% (complete remission, 69.2%; CR with incomplete hematologic recovery, 21.2%). In addition, the efficacy of CLAM was not apparently affected by high‐risk karyotypes and genetic mutations among the patients.

Patients with a response (marrow < 5% blasts) received a maximum of two cycles of CLAM consolidation, each at 50% dose reduction, given 6‐8 weeks apart. Responding patients with an HLA‐matched sibling or volunteer‐unrelated donor were offered allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Toxicity of CLAM was manageable and did not compromise subsequent allogeneic HSCT, the researchers added.

“In this era of molecular targeting, CLAM might still have a role to play,” according to the researchers. “It offers the advantage of a highly effective regimen that is readily available. It provides a median DOR of 5 months, which is meaningful for organization of HSCT. Delays associated with recruitment into clinical trials or sourcing of targeted drugs are obviated. Precious time is saved, so that patients can quickly be bridged to a potentially curative allogeneic HSCT.”

No disclosures or conflicts of interest were reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gill H et al. Cancer Med. 2020 Mar 20. doi:10.1002/cam4.2865.