scholarly journals A Phase II Study of CPX-351 As a Novel Therapeutic Approach for Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) after Hypomethylating Agent Failure

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Aziz Nazha ◽  
Sudipto Mukherjee ◽  
Anjali S Advani ◽  
Madeline Waldron ◽  
Caitlin Siebenaller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Complete Remission ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Consolidation Therapy ◽  
Advisory Committees

Treatment options are limited for patients (pts) diagnosed with MDS at the time of hypomethylating agent (HMA) failure. One goal is to introduce another line of therapy to reduce tumor burden and enable patients to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), which may prolong survival for a subset. CPX-351, has shown better overall response rates and improved overall survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia with underlying MDS changes compared to 7+3, suggesting that CPX-351 can be used in an MDS patient population. We hypothesized that treating MDS pts, who were failed by HMAs or were intolerant with CPX-351 would overcome HMA resistance. This is a phase II study of single agent CPX-351 administered at the standard FDA approved dose of 44 mg/m2 (daunorubicin 44 mg/m2 and cytarabine 100 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1, 3, 5 of the induction cycle. If patients achieve complete remission (CR), marrow CR, partial remission or hematologic improvement per 2006 IWG criteria they will be eligible to continue on to consolidation therapy, which consists of CPX-351 at a dose of 15.4 mg/m2 (daunorubicin 15.4 mg/m2 and cytarabine 35 mg/m2) every 28 days. Pts can receive up to 4 cycles of consolidation therapy in the absence of toxicity. The primary objective of the trial is to evaluate the efficacy of CPX-351 as measured by overall response rate (ORR) by IWG 2006 criteria. Secondary objectives include: ,1) determine the time to response (TTR), 2) evaluate the duration of response (DOR), 3) evaluate the event-free survival and the overall survival probability during trial period. Pts are risk stratified into lower vs higher-risk prior to enrollment using the Post-HMA model (Nazha A, et al. Hematologica 2016). Eligibility includes: pts >18 years with primary or secondary resistance to HMA, ECOG performance status < 2 and adequate organ function. Pts are excluded if they have uncontrolled infection or active malignancy. A total of 18 pts will be enrolled to each arm (lower and higher risk). To date, three pts were enrolled. One with MDS refractory to HMA who achieved complete remission and proceeded with 4 cycles of consolidation. The pt remained in remission 6+ months after the completion of consolidation. Another patient achieved a marrow CR but had a fungal pneumonia and then was taken off the trial (patient choice for going to hospice). The third patient had MDS/MPN, completed induction and achieved stable disease with improvement in platelets and neutrophils. All patients were lower-risk per the stratification model. No unexpected toxicity was observed. In conclusion, preliminarily CPX-351 is effective in MDS patients after HMA failure who are eligible to receive intensive chemotherapy. The treatment was well tolerated and toxicities were similar to what was observed in pivotal CPX-351 trials. The trial is ongoing and the results will be updated in the meeting. Disclosures Nazha: MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Research Funding. Mukherjee:Celgene/Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy; Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC (PHAR, LLC): Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squib: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Aplastic Anemia and MDS International Foundation: Honoraria. Advani:Abbvie: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Steering committee/ honoraria, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board/ honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: steering committee/ honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory board/ honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; OBI: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Carraway:Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Independent Advisory Committe (IRC); Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Other: Independent Advisory Committe (IRC); ASTEX: Other: Independent Advisory Committe (IRC). Gerds:AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding. Patel:Alexion: Other: educational speaker. Sekeres:Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: CPX-351 in MDS

scholarly journals First Report of the Gimema LAL1811 Phase II Prospective Study of the Combination of Steroids with Ponatinib As Frontline Therapy of Elderly or Unfit Patients with Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 99-99
Author(s):  
Giovanni Martinelli ◽  
Alfonso Piciocchi ◽  
Cristina Papayannidis ◽  
Stefania Paolini ◽  
Valentina Robustelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Intrathecal Therapy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Unfit Patients ◽  
Travel Grant

Abstract Background. The incorporation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in treatment schemes of Ph+ ALL has remarkably improved survival. In adult patients with Ph+ ALL, ponatinib in combination with chemotherapy showed a 3-year event-free survival rate of 69%, a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 83%, and a higher rate of response when compared with dasatinib plus chemotherapy. However, in unfit or elderly ALL patients, TKIs combined with chemotherapy are associations with higher toxicity. Therefore, we examined the efficacy and safety of steroids plus ponatinib alone for the treatment of elderly or unfit patients with Ph+ ALL in a multi-center Phase II prospective clinical Italian trial, GIMEMA LAL1811 (EudraCT number 2012-002761-35). Methods. From March 2014 to December 2016, we enrolled 44 patients with untreated Ph+ ALL, ≥ 60 years or unfit (i.e. for intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation). Two out of 44 patients were not elegible for the study. Patients received oral administration of 45 mg/day of ponatinib for 8 consecutive courses of 6 weeks (w). Steroids were administered from day -14 to day 29 during course 1. Intrathecal therapy with methotrexate, cytarabine and dexametasone was performed every 28 days for central nervous system (CNS) disease prophylaxis. In patients with CNS disease at diagnosis, intrathecal therapy was administered twice a week until complete remission. Dose reduction of ponatinib was allowed for adverse events. Patient samples were obtained at diagnosis and at every course, BCR-ABL mutational analisys and BCR-ABL/ABL ratio by quantitative real time PCR was performed. Complete molecular response (CMR) was defined as BCR-ABL/ABL ratio below 0.01 or undetectable, and with a sensitivity of at least 30,000 molecules of ABL. Results. Forty-two patients were eligible for the study. Median age was 68 years (range 27-85). Nine out of 42 patients were <60 years and were considered unfit. Twenty-six out of 42 patients had the p190 fusion transcript, 4/42 had p210, 12/42 had p190/p210. Steroid pretreatment was administered to 39; 14/39 patients had a reduction in circulating blasts of 75% or more before starting ponatinib. Primary endpoint (Complete hematological response (CHR) at 24w in 75% of patients) was prematurely reached. CHR was obtained in 40/42 patients (95,2%) after course 1 (6w). Thirty-eight out of 42 patients (90,5%) were in CHR after 8 courses (24w); 2 patients stopped treatment after 6w for disease relapse (1) and for excessive toxicity (1). Two patients dropped out after 12w for medical decision. A CMR was detected in 11/24 patients at 24w (45.8%; 14/38 patients not evaluable). Considering a CMR test sensitivity of at least 10,000 ABL molecules and testing peripheral blood whenever a bone marrow was not obtained, 20/33 patients (60.6% 5/38 patients not evaluable) were in CMR at 24w (figure 1). The median follow-up of the enrolled patients was 11.4 months (range 6-34.5). Overall survival (OS) at 6 months and 1 year was 97.6% (C.I 95%: 93.1%-100.0%) and 87.5% (C.I. 95%: 76.5%-99,9%) respectively (figure2). At week 24, 15/42 patients still received 45 mg of ponatinib daily, only 4/42 patients permanently withdrew study drug. During the study, 75 adverse events (AE) were reported; 36 of the 75 AEs were considered related to ponatinib. Twenty-six of the 75 AEs were considered serious (SAE); 13/26 SAEs were considered related to ponatinib. A death was suspected to be related to ponatinib. We performed BCR-ABL mutational analysis in 22 patients at diagnosis, and 15 patients at 24w. T315L (abundance 100%) was detected in a patient relapsed during ponatinib therapy. We could not identify the emergency of other mutations. Conclusions. Ponatinib and steroid show a high efficacy in newly diagnosed unfit/elderly Ph+ ALL patients. Toxicities were manageable and cardiovascular AEs were limited. In the small cohort of patients relapsed in the study, relapse mechanisms were unclear; only one patient had evidence of mutations that caused resistance to ponatinib. The fast and deep reduction of the disease burden in the majority of patients, the ability of ponatinib to prevent the emergence of clones harboring BCR-ABL mutations, and the synthetic lethality with steroids on the BCR-ABL, FLT3, HCK, CDK6, MCL1 pathway could explain the therapeutic effectiveness. Acknowledgments. GIMEMA, ELN, AIL, AIRC, Regione-Università 2010-12, FP7 NGS-PTL, HARMONY, Fondazione del Monte BO e RA. Disclosures Soverini: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte Biosciences: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Bocchia: Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Celgene: Other: Travel grant; Roche: Other: Travel grant; Jansen: Other: Travel grant. Cuneo: Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Bonifacio: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Falini: Roche: Research Funding. Galieni: Takeda: Other: Advisory Board; Abbvie: Other: Advisory Board. Foà: Sandoz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Baccarani: Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Final Results of Phase I/II Trial of the Oral mTOR Inhibitor Everolimus (RAD001) in Combination with Bortezomib and Rituximab (RVR) in Relapsed or Refractory Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 3081-3081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Robert Allyn Redd ◽  
Jeffrey Matous ◽  
Philippe Armand ◽  
Erica N Boswell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Background: Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia is a distinct lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Several clinical trials have shown high rates of response in patients with relapsed WM using bortezomib and rituximab combinations. In addition, the TORC1 inhibitor everolimus has previously shown a high response rate of 70% in this patient population. In this trial, we aimed to examine the safety and activity of the combination of everolimus with bortezomib and rituximab (RVR) and to determine whether a deep response can be achieved with a triple combination of targeted therapeutic agents in WM. Methods: The phase I portion of the study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose of everolimus, rituximab combination or RVR combination, while the phase II portion evaluated the depth of responses to the RVR combination. Patients were eligible for this trial if they had relapsed or refractory WM. There was no limit on the number of prior therapies. Patients were required to be ≥18 years old and have measurable and symptomatic disease. For the phase I, patients were assigned to a dose level in the order of study entry. In the dose-escalation scheme, everolimus was given at 5 or 10 mg PO with rituximab, or with bortezomib at 1.3 or 1.6 mg/m2 and rituximab. Rituximab was given at a fixed dose of 375 mg/m2 IV. In the phase II, patients received everolimus 10 mg flat dose PO daily, Bortezomib IV 1.6mg/m2 weekly on days 1, 8, 15 q 28 days and rituximab IV 375 mg/ m2 weekly on days 1, 8, 15 22 q 28 days on cycles 1 and 4 only. Treatment was daily and 4 weeks (28 days) was considered one cycle. Patients received a total of 6 cycles followed by maintenance therapy with everolimus 10 mg PO daily until progression. Dexamethasone was not permitted. Patients were assessed every cycle while on combination therapy, and every 3 months while on maintenance therapy. Patients with stable disease (SD) or responding disease could continue therapy until progression. Results: From April 2010 to July 2013, a total of 46 patients were enrolled on this trial; of these, 23 patients were in the phase I study and 23 patients in the phase II study. The median number of prior treatments was 2 (range 1-9) Prior therapies received included bortezomib-based therapy (26, 56%) and rituximab (45, 98%). Median treatment duration was 10 months (range, 3 weeks to 41 months) for all patients. There were no DLTs observed and no deaths occurred on this study. The most common toxicities in all patients on study were fatigue (29 patients, 63%); anemia and leukopenia (each in 24 patients, 52%); neutropenia (22, 48%); diarrhea (20, 43%); and neuropathy, pneumonitis/pulmonary infiltrates (each in 19 patients, 41%). The overall response rate (ORR) which includes patients with minor response (MR) or better in the phase II study (N=23) was 91% (95% CI, 72-99%) with 1 CR, 1 VGPR, 16 PR, and 3 MR. When all 36 patients on the phase I and phase II studies who received full dose of RVR were combined, the ORR was 89% (95% CI 74 – 97%), with 2 CR, 3 VGPR, 21 PR, and 6 MR. Conclusions: The RVR regimen is safe and well tolerated. RVR led to an overall response rate of 89% with PR or better achieved in 72% making this a highly effective regimen even in patients previously treated with bortezomib and/or rituximab. This study represents one of the first combination efforts of novel agents targeting the PI3K signaling pathway with a proteasome inhibitor. Disclosures Ghobrial: Sanofi: Research Funding; Noxxon: Research Funding; BMS: Advisory board, Advisory board Other, Research Funding; Onyx: Advisory board Other; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Bortezomib and everolimus are not approved for WM. Laubach:Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Acetylon: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Oncoprep: Scientific Founder Other; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Phase I Study of Ixazomib Added to Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Older Adults

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 41-42
Author(s):  
Philip C. Amrein ◽  
Karen K. Ballen ◽  
Kristen E. Stevenson ◽  
Traci M. Blonquist ◽  
Andrew M. Brunner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Complete Remission ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Survival Estimate ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Experienced Grade

Introduction: While progress has been made in the treatment of childhood leukemia, the outlook for patients >60 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is poor with complete remission rates (CR) of approximately 60% and 3-year survivals (OS) of less than 15%. Intensified treatment in a later CALGB trial showed little improvement with a CR=61% and 5-year OS=6% (Stock, Cancer 2013). Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor, which has shown single agent activity and promising combination activity in pediatric ALL patients (Messinger, Blood 2012). We sought to assess the safety and tolerability, as well as early efficacy of adding ixazomib to a current MGH-DFCI/HCC multi-agent regimen for older adults with ALL. Methods: Patients aged 51 to 75 years of age with newly diagnosed B-ALL and T-ALL were screened for eligibility. Patients with mature ALL (including Burkitt's) were excluded. Patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive ALL (BCR-ABL1+) were eligible, and dasatinib was added to the chemotherapy on Day 10 for these patients. The chemotherapy treatment schedule from induction through maintenance is outlined in Table 1. A standard 3 + 3 patient cohort dose escalation design was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ixazomib during induction for these patients, the primary objective of the trial. After consolidation I, patients in complete remission (CR) with a suitable donor were offered a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) as per institutional guidelines. Those not going to HSCT continued therapy as noted in the table. Results: There were 19 patients with B-ALL enrolled, none with T-ALL. Among these patients, 7 harbored BCR-ABL1 rearrangements. The median age was 65 years, 74% were male, and 90% had a performance status 0 or 1. The MTD was 2.3 mg of ixazomib, as 2 patients at 3.0 mg developed DLT's: a grade 3 peripheral neuropathy and a grade 5 acute kidney injury (Table 2). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities encountered at any time consisted mainly of grade 4 neutropenia in 13 patients and grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 12 patients. One patient experienced grade 3 neutropenia and 5 patients experienced grade 3 thrombocytopenia. Two patients with grade 2 neuropathy did not meet the definition of DLT. Among the 19 patients, 15 (79%, [95% confidence interval (CI), 54-94%]) achieved CR (14) or CRi (1), and 5 patients went on to HSCT. The median follow-up time was 2 years (range, 1-5) for 8 patients remaining alive. The 1-year overall survival estimate was 53% [95% CI, 29-72%], while the 2-year overall survival estimate was 47% [95% CI, 24-67%]. Conclusions: A dose of 2.3 mg of ixazomib in combination with induction chemotherapy among older patients with ALL was well-tolerated and associated with a promising rate of complete remission. Disclosures Amrein: Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Brunner:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Forty-Seven Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding. Hobbs:Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Constellation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Neuberg:Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Madrigak Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fathi:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; PTC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Amphivena: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Newlink Genetics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Blueprint: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Forty Seven: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: MLN 9708, ixazomib is FDA approved for multiple myeloma. In this trial it is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

scholarly journals The Application of Machine Learning to Improve the Subclassification and Prognostication of Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 28-28
Author(s):  
Hassan Awada ◽  
Arda Durmaz ◽  
Carmel Gurnari ◽  
Ashwin Kishtagari ◽  
Manja Meggendorfer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Somatic Mutations ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Genomic Features ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Genetic mutations (somatic or germline), cytogenetic abnormalities and their combinations contribute to the heterogeneity of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) phenotypes. To date, prototypic founder lesions [e.g., t(8;21), inv(16), t(15;17)] define only a fraction of AML subgroups with specific prognoses. Indeed, in a larger proportion of AML patients, somatic mutations or cytogenetic abnormalities potentially serve as driver lesions in combination with numerous acquired secondary hits. However, their combinatorial complexity can preclude the resolution of distinct genomic classifications and overlap across classical pathomorphologic AML subtypes, including de novo/primary (pAML) and secondary AML (sAML) evolving from an antecedent myeloid neoplasm (MN). These prognostically discrete AML subtypes are themselves nonspecific due to variable understanding of their pathogenetic links, especially in cases without overt dysplasia. Without dysplasia, reliance is mainly on anamnestic clinical information that might be unavailable or cannot be correctly assigned due to a short prodromal history of antecedent MN. We explored the potential of genomic markers to sub-classify AML objectively and provide unbiased personalized prognostication, irrespective of the clinicopathological information, and thus become a standard in AML assessment. We collected and analyzed genomic data from a multicenter cohort of 6788 AML patients using standard and machine learning (ML) methods. A total of 13,879 somatic mutations were identified and used to predict traditional pathomorphologic AML classifications. Logistic regression modeling (LRM) detected mutations in CEBPA (both monoallelic "CEBPAMo" and biallelic "CEBPABi"), DNMT3A, FLT3ITD, FLT3TKD, GATA2, IDH1, IDH2R140, NRAS, NPM1 and WT1 being enriched in pAML while mutations in ASXL1, RUNX1, SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, -5/del(5q), -7/del(7q), -17/del(17P), del(20q), +8 and complex karyotype being prevalent in sAML. Despite these significant findings, the genomic profiles of pAML vs. sAML identified by LRM resulted in only 74% cross-validation accuracy of the predictive performance when used to re-assign them. Therefore, we applied Bayesian Latent Class Analysis that identified 4 unique genomic clusters of distinct prognoses [low risk (LR), intermediate-low risk (Int-Lo), intermediate-high risk (Int-Hi) and high risk (HR) of poor survival) that were validated by survival analysis. To link each prognostic group to pathogenetic features, we generated a random forest (RF) model that extracted invariant genomic features driving each group and resulted in 97% cross-validation accuracy when used for prognostication. The model's globally most important genomic features, quantified by mean decrease in accuracy, included NPM1MT, RUNX1MT, ASXL1MT, SRSF2MT, TP53MT, -5/del(5q), DNMT3AMT, -17/del(17p), BCOR/L1MT and others. The LR group was characterized by the highest prevalence of normal cytogenetics (88%) and NPM1MT (100%; 86% with VAF>20%) with co-occurring DNMT3AMT (52%), FLT3ITD-MT (27%; 91% with VAF <50%), IDH2R140-MT (16%, while absent IDH2R172-MT), and depletion or absence of ASXL1MT, EZH2MT, RUNX1MT, TP53MT and complex cytogenetics. Int-Lo had a higher percentage of abnormal cytogenetics cases than LR, the highest frequency of CEBPABi-MT (9%), IDH2R172K-MT (4%), FLT3ITD-MT (14%) and FLT3TKD-MT (6%) occurring without NPM1MT, while absence of NPM1MT, ASXL1MT, RUNX1MT and TP53MT. Int-Hi had the highest frequency of ASXL1MT (39%), BCOR/L1MT (16%), DNMT3AMT without NPM1MT (19%), EZH2MT (9%), RUNX1MT (52%), SF3B1MT (7%), SRSF2MT (38%) and U2AF1MT (12%). Finally, HR had the highest prevalence of abnormal cytogenetics (96%), -5/del(5q) (68%), -7del(7q) (35%), -17del(17p) (31%) and the highest odds of complex karyotype (76%) as well as TP53MT (70%). The model was then internally and externally validated using a cohort of 203 AML cases from the MD Anderson Cancer Center. The RF prognostication model and group-specific survival estimates will be available via a web-based open-access resource. In conclusion, the heterogeneity inherent in the genomic changes across nearly 7000 AML patients is too vast for traditional prediction methods. Using newer ML methods, however, we were able to decipher a set of prognostic subgroups predictive of survival, allowing us to move AML into the era of personalized medicine. Disclosures Advani: OBI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Steering committee/ honoraria, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board/ honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: steering committee/ honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory board/ honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Takeda: Research Funding. Ravandi:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Orsenix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Carraway:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Independent Advisory Committe (IRC); Stemline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Other: Independent Advisory Committe (IRC); ASTEX: Other: Independent Advisory Committe (IRC); Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Saunthararajah:EpiDestiny: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Kantarjian:Sanofi: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aptitute Health: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Adaptive biotechnologies: Honoraria; Ascentage: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioAscend: Honoraria; Delta Fly: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Oxford Biomedical: Honoraria. Kadia:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Cellenkos: Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pulmotec: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Sekeres:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maciejewski:Alexion, BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis, Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals Increased Idarubicin Dosage during Consolidation Therapy for Adult Acute Myeloid Leukemia Improves Leukemia-Free Survival

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 338-338
Author(s):  
Bradstock Kenneth ◽  
Emma Link ◽  
Juliana Di Iulio ◽  
Jeff Szer ◽  
Paula Marlton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Complete Remission ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Consolidation Therapy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Abstract Background: Anthracylines are one of the major classes of drugs active against acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Increased doses of daunorubicin during induction therapy for AML have been shown to improve remission rates and survival. The ALLG used idarubicin in induction therapy at a dose of 9 mg/m2 x 3 days (total dose 27 mg/m2) in combination with high-dose cytarabine and etoposide (Blood 2005, 105:481), but showed that a total idarubicin dose of 36 mg/m2 was too toxic in this context (Leukemia 2001, 15:1331). In order to further improve outcomes in adult AML by anthracycline dose escalation, we conducted a phase 3 trial comparing standard to an increased idarubicin dose during consolidation therapy. Methods: Patients achieving complete remission after 1 or 2 cycles of intensive induction therapy (idarubicin 9 mg/m2 daily x3, cytarabine 3 g/m2 twice daily on days 1,3,5 and 7, and etoposide 75 mg/m2 daily x7; ICE protocol) were randomized to receive 2 cycles of consolidation therapy with cytarabine 100 mg/m2 per day for 5 days, etoposide 75 mg/m2 for 5 days, and idarubicin 9mg/m2 daily for either 2 or 3 days (standard and intensive arms respectively). No further protocol therapy was given. The primary endpoint was leukemia-free survival from randomization to consolidation therapy (LFS) with overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoint. Results: A total of 422 patients with AML (excluding cases with CBF rearrangements or APL) aged 16 to 60 years were enrolled between 2003-10, with 345 (82%) achieving complete remission, and 293 being randomized to standard (n=146) or intensive (n=147) consolidation arms. The median age was 45 years in both arms (range 16- 60), and both groups were balanced for intermediate versus unfavorable karyotypes and for frequency of mutations involving FLT3-ITD and NPM1 genes. Of the randomized patients, 120 in the standard arm (82%) and 95 in the intensive arm (65%) received the second consolidation cycle (p<0.001). The median total dose of idarubicin received in the 2 consolidation courses was 36 mg/m2 (range 17-45), or 99% (47-125%) of the protocol dose in the standard arm, versus 53 mg/m2 (18-73), or 98% (33-136%) of the protocol dose in the intensive arm. The durations of grades 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly longer in the intensive arm, but there were no differences in grade 3 or 4 non-hematological toxicities. There were no non-relapse deaths during consolidation on the standard arm and 2 in the intensive (0% vs 1%; p =0.50). Subsequently, 41 patients in the standard arm and 37 in the intensive arm underwent elective allogeneic BMT during first remission. On intention to-treat analysis uncensored for transplant and with a median follow-up time of 5.3 years (range 0.6 - 9.9), there was improvement in LFS in the intensive arm compared with the standard arm (3 year LFS 47% (95% CI 40-56%) versus 35% (28-44%); HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.55-0.99); p=0.045) (Figure 1). The 3 year OS for the intensive arm was 61% (95% CI 54-70%) and 50% (95% CI 43-59%) for the standard arm; HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.54-1.05); p=0.092). Although adverse cytogenetics, presence of FLT3-ITD mutation, and absence of NPM1 mutation were all associated with poorer outcomes, there was no evidence of a benefit of intensive consolidation being confined to specific cytogenetic or gene mutation sub-groups. Conclusion: We conclude that in adult patients in complete remission after intensive induction chemotherapy an increased dose of idarubicin delivered during consolidation therapy results in improved LFS, without increased non-hematologic toxicity. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Szer: Ra Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marlton:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wei:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; CTI: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cartwright:ROCHE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roberts:Servier: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Mills:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Meeting attendance sponsorship. Gill:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Seymour:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

A Phase 1 Study of Sea-CD70 in Myeloid Malignancies

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 23-24
Author(s):  
Ahmed Aribi ◽  
Anjali S Advani ◽  
William Donnellan ◽  
Amir T. Fathi ◽  
Marcello Rotta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Immune Evasion ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Myeloid Malignancies

Background SEA-CD70 is being developed in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Current treatment options are limited for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) MDS or r/r AML and outcomes remain poor. SEA-CD70 is an investigational humanized, non-fucosylated monoclonal antibody targeting CD70. Expression of CD70 is limited in normal tissue, but is aberrantly expressed on malignant myeloid blasts while absent from healthy hematopoietic progenitor cells. CD70 and its ligand, CD27, may play a role in malignant blast cell survival and/or tumor immune evasion. SEA-CD70 uses a novel sugar-engineered antibody (SEA) platform to produce a non-fucosylated antibody with enhanced effector function. The proposed mechanism of action of SEA-CD70 includes elimination of CD70 positive cells via enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP), and mediation of complement-dependent cytoxicity (CDC). Additionally, SEA-CD70 has the potential to block the interaction of CD70 with CD27, which may disrupt signals that enhance blast proliferation and survival and may modulate the immune system to limit immune evasion and increase antigen specific T cell responses. Methods SGNS70-101 is a phase 1, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation, and cohort expansion study designed to establish the safety, tolerability, and preliminary activity of SEA-CD70 in pts with myeloid malignancies (NCT04227847). Dose escalation is ongoing. In dose escalation, pts must have r/r MDS with 5-20% blasts which has failed prior treatment with a hypomethylating agent (HMA), and have no other therapeutic options known to provide clinical benefit for MDS. After conclusion of dose escalation, monotherapy expansion cohorts will be opened for pts with MDS and for pts with AML. Primary objectives are to evaluate the safety and tolerability, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended expansion dose of SEA-CD70. Secondary objectives are to assess antitumor activity, PK, and immunogenicity of SEA-CD70. Once dose escalation is complete and the recommended monotherapy dose is identified, combination cohorts will be considered in AML and MDS. The study is currently enrolling with sites opening in the US and EU. Disclosures Aribi: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Advani:OBI: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory board/ honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: steering committee/ honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board/ honoraria, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Steering committee/ honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Donnellan:Kite Pharma/Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; TCR2 Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; PTC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Celularity: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Ryvu Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fathi:Astellas: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; NewLink Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; PTC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; TrovaGene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Blue Print Oncology: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rotta:Merck: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Vachani:Blueprint: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Yang:AROG: Research Funding; Protagonist: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Ho:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Garcia-Manero:Novartis: Research Funding; Helsinn Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Onconova: Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Additional Analyses of a Randomized Phase II Study of Azacitidine Combined with Lenalidomide or with Vorinostat Vs. Azacitidine Monotherapy in Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) and Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia (CMML): North American Intergroup Study SWOG S1117

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 908-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikkael A. Sekeres ◽  
Megan Othus ◽  
Alan F. List ◽  
Olatoyosi Odenike ◽  
Richard M. Stone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Response Duration ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Centers Of Excellence ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Data Safety ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii

Abstract Background: The few therapies available to treat higher-risk MDS and CMML have limited impact on outcome. We previously reported initial results of S1117, which compared overall response rates (ORRs) of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy to AZA combined with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), or the immunomodulator lenalidomide (LEN)( ASH 2014 LBA-5). We now report updated response data and overall survival (OS), subgroup analyses, impact of cytogenetics, and effect of treatment center volume/centers of excellence on outcome. Methods: This randomized, Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) enrolled higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts ≥5%) and CMML adult patients (pts) with <20% blasts from 3/12-6/14 to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Pts continued treatment until treatment failure, defined as disease progression, relapse, significant or unresolved toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for grade ≥3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. Cytogenetic risk groups were defined per IPSS-R. The primary endpoint was improvement in ORR, by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). OS was from study entry. MDS Centers of Excellence (MCE) were defined per MDS Foundation; center volume was defined as low (1-4 pts enrolled) or high (5-17 pts). Results: Of 277 pts, 92 received AZA, 93 AZA+LEN, and 92 AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics, previously reported, were similar across arms. Pts received a median of 22 weeks of therapy and were followed for a median of 10 months (range: 0-30). Non-protocol defined dose modification and protocol discontinuation due to toxicity occurred more frequently in combination arms vs. AZA (p=.0014 and p=.018, respectively). Responses are now assessable in all pts (Table 1). ORR was statistically similar for combination arms vs. AZA, with a trend for longer response duration (p=.083) for combinations. Within HI, AZA+LEN pts had higher HI-n than AZA pts (16% vs. 5%, p=.031). ORR for CMML pts was significantly higher for LEN+AZA vs. AZA (63% vs. 29%, p=.04), with a trend for longer response duration for combinations (p=.06); no differences in ORR were seen for therapy-related MDS, IPSS subgroups, or transfusion-dependent pts. Allogeneic transplantation rates were similar. Median OS (Figure) for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 15:18 (p=.38):17 (p=.17) months; p=.19 for combination arms vs. AZA. Median OS after failure was 7:9 (p=.6):9 (p=.05) months; p=.15 for combination arms after failure vs. AZA. For pts on therapy >6 months, there was a trend (p=.08) for higher ORR for AZA+LEN vs. AZA, though response duration was similar; median OS was 18:21 (p=.44 vs. AZA):21 months (p=.45 vs. AZA). Cytogenetic risk category distribution and ORR was similar across arms. OS (compared to Very Good/Good) was worse for Poor (HR 2.07, p=.022) and Very poor (HR 4.41, p<.001), without significant modification by treatment arm (Table 2). Compared to pts without identified cytogenetic abnormalities (abn), ORR across arms was better for pts with Chr 5 abn (OR 2.38, p=.004); OS was better for normal (HR .42, p<.001) and worse for Chr 5 abn (HR 3.1, p<.001), -7 (HR 2.69, p<.001), and 17p (HR 2.61, p<.001). While small numbers prevented definitive conclusions for treatment arm effect, combinations trended towards improving OS in Normal and Chr 5 abn only. The outcome of all pts and pts on discrete study arms treated at MCE (n=75) or high volume (n=138) sites were similar to non-MCE or low-volume sites for ORR, non-protocol defined dose modifications, dose adjustment in first 4 cycles, time to off-protocol (HR 1.2, p=.21 and HR .94, p=.64), and OS (HR .81, p=.3 and HR .77, p=.12). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR and OS was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to combination arms, while for CMML pts, ORR was significantly higher with AZA+LEN. For cytogenetic subgroups, OS was worse for Chr 5 abn, -7, and 17p, and may be improved by combinations in normal or Chr 5 abn. MCE or treatment at a high volume site did not impact these effects or outcomes. Figure 1. Responses Figure 1. Responses Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Odenike:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fang:Affymetrix: Research Funding. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees.

The Abundance of Certain Bacteria in the Intestinal Flora Is Associated with Relapse after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 744-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Peled ◽  
Eric R. Littman ◽  
Lilan Ling ◽  
Satyajit Kosuri ◽  
Molly Maloy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Intestinal Flora ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Streptococcus Anginosus ◽  
Conditioning Intensity

Abstract The major causes of mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) are relapse, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and infection. We have previously reported that changes in the intestinal flora can affect GVHD, bacteremia, and overall survival. As intestinal bacteria are potent modulators of systemic immune responses, and since GVHD is correlated with graft-versus-tumor activity, we hypothesized that components of the intestinal flora could be associated with relapse after allo-HSCT. We applied a biomarker-discovery approach and performed a retrospective observational analysis of 160 adults who received an unmodified (T-cell-replete) allograft. Patients were prospectively enrolled in a fecal biospecimen-collection protocol. For this analysis, we selected patients who had at least one specimen during the first 3 weeks following allo-HSCT. The primary diseases in this cohort were AML (37%), Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (33%), ALL (8%), MDS (7%), CLL (6%), Hodgkin's Lymphoma (6%), CML (2%), and myeloproliferative neoplasm (2%). The mean age of the patients was 52 years (range 21-75). They were conditioned with ablative (17%), reduced-intensity (64%), and nonmyeloablative (19%) regimens. They received grafts from cord blood (46%), unrelated adults (33%), or related adults (22%). Among adult grafts, 92% were from peripheral blood and 8% were from bone marrow. A census of the bacterial species in each stool sample was generated by 16S rRNA deep-sequencing as previously described (Jenq et al., BiolBone Marrow Transplant 2015). The area under the curve of bacterial abundance over time was used as a measure of each patient's cumulative exposure to each bacterial taxon. Bacterial taxa of each patient present at a frequency >1% were evaluated for association with the outcome of relapse or progression of disease within the first year after allo-HSCT using linear discriminant analysis of effect size (LEfSe), a common approach in microbiota studies (Segata et al., Genome Biology, 2011). Among the taxons most significantly associated with freedom from relapse were members of the human oral flora including Streptococcus anginosus. After stratifying the patients by median abundance, we found that those with higher abundance of this bacterium had less relapse after transplantation (Left figure, p = 0.0014). We also identified bacteria associated with increased risk of relapse, such as Enterococcus faecium (Right figure, p = 0.0103). We evaluated these bacteria as biomarkers in multivariate Cox models adjusted for three factors that were associated with relapse in this cohort: Refined Disease Risk Index (RDRI, Armand et al., Blood 2014), conditioning intensity, and graft source (cord blood vs. adult donor). Streptococcus anginosus predicted relapse in a multivariate model adjusted for all three factors (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.96, p = 0.041). Enterococcus faecium predicted relapse in a model adjusted for RDRI and conditioning intensity but failed to do so in a model additionally adjusted for graft source. In this analysis there was no formal adjustment for multiple comparisons; these data are now being validated in an additional cohort of patients whose samples are being sequenced. Finally, although we have previously reported that low bacterial diversity is associated with decreased overall survival after allo-HSCT (Taur et al., Blood 2014), we did not find an association between bacterial diversity and relapse as assessed by reciprocal Simpson diversity index (p > 0.1). Thus, the results of this retrospective analysis have identified an association between relapse after allo-HSCT and the abundance of two bacteria in the intestinal flora. These might serve as potential novel diagnostics or therapeutic targets to prevent relapse and improve overall survival after allo-HSCT. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Peled: Merck: Research Funding. Giralt:SANOFI: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CELGENE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Perales:Merck: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; NMDP: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. van den Brink:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board attendee; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tobira Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board attendee; Regeneron: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria.

scholarly journals A Randomized Phase II Study of Azacitidine Combined with Lenalidomide or with Vorinostat Vs. Azacitidine Monotherapy in Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) and Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia (CMML): North American Intergroup Study SWOG S1117

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. LBA-5-LBA-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikkael A. Sekeres ◽  
Megan Othus ◽  
Alan F. List ◽  
Olatoyosi Odenike ◽  
Richard M. Stone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
International Prognostic Scoring System ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
N Rates

Abstract Background: Higher-risk MDS and CMML comprise a spectrum of disorders associated with cytopenias, high risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and truncated survival. Initial treatment with a hypomethylating agent such as azacitidine (AZA) is considered standard of care. Whether addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), which acts synergistically with AZA to reactivate epigenetically silenced genes, or addition of lenalidomide (LEN), which impacts the bone marrow microenvironment, improves response rates compared to AZA monotherapy is unknown. Methods: This Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) randomized higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts >5%) and CMML patients (pts) with <20% blasts to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Eligibility criteria included: >18 years (yrs), no previous allogeneic transplant, no prior treatment with any of the study drugs, and adequate organ function; therapy-related (t)MDS was allowed. Pts continued treatment until disease progression, relapse, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for unresolved grade >3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. The primary endpoint was improvement in overall response rate (ORR), by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA monotherapy per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). Relapse-free survival (RFS) was from time of response. The study had 81% power to detect a 20% improvement in ORR from 35% to 55%. Results: Of 282 pts enrolled from 3/12–6/14, 276 are included in analyses (6 ineligible pts excluded): 92 on the AZA arm, 93 on AZA+LEN, and 91 on AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced across arms (Table). Pts received a median of 23 weeks of therapy: 25 of AZA; 24 of AZA+LEN; and 20 of AZA+VOR and were followed for a median of 9 months (range: 0-26). Numbers of pts with notable adverse events >grade 3 for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR included febrile neutropenia (10:13:13); gastrointestinal disorders (4:11:23); infections (2:3:3); and rash (2:12:1). Responses were assessable in 260 pts (94%). ORR for the entire cohort was 33%: 19% CR, 1% PR, and 13% HI, with a median RFS of 7 months. ORR was similar across study arms: 36% for AZA, 37% for AZA+LEN (p=1.0 vs. AZA), and 22% for AZA+VOR (p=.07 vs. AZA). CR/PR/HI rates across arms were also similar: 23%/0%/13% for AZA; 18%/1%/17% for AZA+LEN (CR p=.47 vs. AZA); and 14%/1%/7% for AZA+VOR (CR p=.18 vs. AZA); rates of bone marrow exams to assess response were 76%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. HI-P/HI-E/HI-N rates were 21%/15%/5% for AZA, 26%/14%/15% for AZA+LEN, and 12%/8%/4% for AZA+VOR. HI-N rates were higher in AZA+LEN vs. AZA (p=.05) but otherwise were similar across arms. Median time to best response across arms was 15 weeks in AZA, 16 weeks in AZA+LEN, and 16 weeks in AZA+VOR. ORR did not vary significantly across arms in subgroup analyses for tMDS, baseline red blood cell (RBC) transfusion dependence, and by IPSS risk group. ORR for CMML pts for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 33%:53%(p=.15 vs. AZA):12%(p=.41 vs. AZA). Allogeneic transplantation rates were: 7 pts on AZA, 6 on AZA+LEN, and 9 on AZA+VOR. For AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR, median RFS was: 6:8:11 months (log-rank p=.3 for combination arms vs. AZA, Figure); and for pts on therapy >6 months, it was 7:7.5:13 months (log-rank p=.11 for AZA+VOR, .74 for AZA+LEN vs. AZA). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to AZA-containing combination arms, though some subgroups may have benefitted from combination therapy. Differences in types of response may have resulted from differential rates of follow-up bone marrow assessments. While a non-significant signal of a DFS advantage for combination therapy was observed, longer-term outcome data are being assessed. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Sekeres: Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: lenalidomide, vorinostat for higher-risk MDS. List:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Attar:Celgene: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Prompt CR Plus Consolidation Therapy Yields Improve Survival after Allogeneic Transplantation for AML Patients Receiving Myeloablative, but Not Reduced-Intensity Conditioning: A CIBMTR Analysis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 414-414
Author(s):  
Michael M. Boyiadzis ◽  
Marcos J.G. de Lima ◽  
Mei-Jie Zhang ◽  
Karen Chen ◽  
Christopher S. Hourigan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Consolidation Therapy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Induction Cycle ◽  
Relapse Rates ◽  
Reduced Intensity

Abstract Leukemia relapse and treatment related mortality (TRM) remain major obstacles for successful allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). The number of induction cycles using intensive chemotherapy at AML diagnosis to achieve complete remission (CR) and the number of consolidation cycles and disease status at the time of allo-HCT for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may each affect TRM and relapse rates. We investigated the impact of the number of induction/consolidation cycles and disease status on the success of allo-HCT in 3113 AML patients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) (2008-2019). They received allo-HCT in first CR or with persistent leukemia (primary induction failure-PIF) receiving myeloablative (MA) or reduced-intensity (RIC) conditioning. 1473 AML patients (median age, 47 years) in CR received MAC; 862 (58%) achieved CR after 1 cycle of intensive induction chemotherapy and 74% of these had no evidence of measurable residual disease (MRD). 454 (31%) patients required 2 cycles to CR (72 % MRD negative) and 157 (11%) patients (69% MRD negative) after ≥ 3 cycles. The overall survival (OS), relapse and TRM by induction cycle number is shown in Table 1. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that CR after 1 cycle led to higher OS vs. 2 cycles (HR 1.32 95%CI 1.11-1.56, p&lt; 0.01) or ≥ 3 cycles (HR 1.47 95%CI 1.16-1.87, p&lt; 0.01), while OS after 2 cycles or ≥ 3 cycles were similar (HR 1.2 95%CI 0.87-1.4, p=0.38). Higher TRM was observed in patients receiving 2 or ≥ 3 cycles vs. only 1 induction cycles (HR 1.34 95%CI 1.05-1.72, p&lt; 0.02). Relapse risk was greater in those needing ≥ 3 cycles to achieve CR. Consolidation therapy after CR was associated with improved OS vs. no consolidation therapy (HR 1.57 95%CI 1.24-1.99, p&lt; 0.01). The need for ≥2 induction cycles plus consolidation therapy was associated with higher TRM (HR 1.34 95%CI 1.05-1.72, p&lt; 0.02). 1162 AML patients (median age, 63 years) in CR received allo-HCT after RIC; 714 (61%) achieved CR after 1 cycle of induction chemotherapy (72% MRD negative); 310 (27%) patients after 2 cycles (67% MRD negative) and 138 (12%) patients (58% MRD negative) after ≥ 3 cycles (Table 1). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the number of induction cycles did not affect the OS or TRM. Relapse risk was greater in patients requiring ≥2 cycles to achieve CR. The use of consolidation therapy did not affect OS or TRM. MRD status at the time of allo-HCT did not have a significant impact on OS, TRM and relapse rates after either MA or RIC conditioning. 478 AML patients received allo-HCT after PIF (328 patients with MAC [median age, 51 years], 150 patients RIC [median age, 61 years], Table 1). After MAC, OS and relapse were significantly worse in PIF patients compared to any CR patients (p&lt;0.01). After RIC, relapse was significantly more frequent in PIF patients vs. CR patients after 1 or more induction cycles (p&lt;0.01). TRM was similar for PIF vs CR patients after MAC or RIC allo-HCT. These data demonstrate that among patients eligible for allo-HCT, the need for only one induction cycle to achieve CR, particularly when combined with consolidation therapy is associated with better outcomes after MA conditioning. Achieving CR prior to allo-HCT needing one or more induction cycles is associated with lower relapse rates and improved OS compared to patients with PIF that receive allo-HCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures de Lima: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hourigan: Govt. COI: Other. Litzow: Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Saber: Govt. COI: Other. Weisdorf: Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document