AML

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact on treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frontline Medical News

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

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

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

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact on treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frontline Medical News

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

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

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

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact on treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frontline Medical News

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

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

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

Telehealth, meetings, and trials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many options, none great

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nontransplant options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survival benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many options, none great

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nontransplant options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survival benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many options, none great

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nontransplant options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survival benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUAZAR results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUAZAR results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUAZAR results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

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

Special considerations in older patients with APL

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

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

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

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

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

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

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

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

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

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

Special considerations in older patients with APL

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

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

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

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

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

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

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

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

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?

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

Special considerations in older patients with APL

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

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

Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?

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

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

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

How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL

Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?

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

How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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.