An Ongoing Phase 3 Study of Bosutinib (SKI-606) Versus Imatinib In Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

Abstract Abstract 208 Bosutinib is an orally bioavailable dual Src/Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), with minimal inhibitory activity against PDGFR or c-kit. In a phase 2 study, bosutinib demonstrated activity in patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) chronic phase (CP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in the second- and third-line treatment settings (Cortes JE, et al. ASCO 2010, Abstract #6502; Khoury JH, et al. ASCO 2010, Abstract #6514), as well as in patients with advanced Ph+ leukemias (Gambacorti-Passerini C, et al. ASCO 2010, Abstract #6509) following resistance or intolerance to imatinib and other TKIs. The current randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared the activity and safety of bosutinib with that of imatinib in newly diagnosed patients with CP CML. The study enrolled adults aged 318 years with cytogenetic diagnosis of Ph+ CP CML within 6 months, adequate hepatic and renal function, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomized to daily oral treatment with 500 mg bosutinib or 400 mg imatinib. Adverse events were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria, version 3.0. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at 1 year; the rates of hematologic response, molecular response, and progression and transformation to accelerated or blast phase were also evaluated. The study randomized 502 patients: 56.6% male, median age of 48 years (range, 18–91 years), and median time since diagnosis of 0.7 months (range, -0.3-7.9 months; the range minimum is negative due to CML diagnosis during the study screening period, and the range maximum is >6 months because of 1 patient considered a major protocol violator). The median duration of treatment was 11.1 months (range, 0.03–24.8 months). At Week 48 (approximately 11 months), 71.5% and 74.8% of patients (both treatment arms combined) were in CCyR and complete hematologic response (CHR), respectively. During the study, 81.4% of patients achieved a CCyR at or before Week 48, with a median time to CCyR of 24 weeks; 82.6% of patients achieved a CHR, with a median time to CHR of 8 weeks; and 40.6% of patients achieved a major molecular response (MMR), with a median time to MMR of 49 to 61 weeks for the 2 treatment arms. For the combined treatment arms, common treatment-emergent adverse events included diarrhea (43.7%), nausea (32.3%), vomiting (22.0%), rash (16.8%), pyrexia (11.6%), and fatigue (11.0%). The only grade 33 treatment-emergent adverse event observed in 32% of patients was diarrhea (5.2%), which was usually limited to the first weeks of treatment. Grade 33 hematologic laboratory abnormalities included neutropenia (14.2%), thrombocytopenia (12.4%), and anemia (5.8%). Other grade 33 laboratory abnormalities (35% of patients) included alanine aminotransferase elevation (11.6%), phosphatemia (7.6%), and aspartate aminotransferase elevation (6.4%). Overall, 22.2% patients discontinued therapy; adverse events led to discontinuation or death in 12.8% of patients, and 4.2% of patients discontinued due to disease progression. The high combined percentage of patients achieving MMR, CCyR, and CHR and the relatively low incidence of generally manageable grade 33 events observed suggest good efficacy and an overall favorable safety profile. Data for individual treatment arms will be unblinded by the end of August 2010, and will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Gambacorti-Passerini: Pfizer Inc: Research Funding. Kim:BMS, Novartis, Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS, Pfizer: Research Funding. Brummendorf:Pfizer Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griskevicius:Pfizer Inc: Research Funding. Goh:Novartis and Janssen Ciliag: Research Funding. Wang:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gogat:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cortes:Pfizer Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Treatment-Free Remission in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase According to Reasons for Switching from Imatinib to Nilotinib: Subgroup Analysis from ENESTop

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.792.792 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 792-792 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Timothy P. Hughes ◽

Carla Maria Boquimpani ◽

Naoto Takahashi ◽

Noam Benyamini ◽

Nelma Cristina D Clementino ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Loss Of Response ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Treatment Free Remission

Abstract Background: ENESTop, an ongoing, single-arm, phase 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01698905), is the first trial specifically evaluating treatment-free remission (TFR; ie, stopping tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI] treatment without a loss of response) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) who achieved a sustained deep molecular response after switching from imatinib (IM) to nilotinib (NIL). Of 126 patients in ENESTop who were eligible to stop NIL, 57.9% (95% CI, 48.8%-66.7%) maintained TFR at 48 weeks. Here we present results from a subgroup analysis based on reasons for switching from IM to NIL, categorized as intolerance, resistance, and physician preference. Methods:Eligible patients were adults with CML-CP who received ≥ 3 years of total TKI therapy (> 4 weeks of IM, followed by ≥ 2 years of NIL) and achieved a sustained MR4.5 (BCR-ABL1 ≤ 0.0032% on the International Scale [BCR-ABL1IS]) on NIL therapy; patients with a documented MR4.5 at the time of switch from IM to NIL were not eligible. Enrolled patients continued NIL treatment in a 1-year consolidation phase, and those without confirmed loss of MR4.5 (ie, consecutive BCR-ABL1IS > 0.0032%) were eligible to stop NIL in the TFR phase. Patients with loss of major molecular response (MMR; ie, BCR-ABL1IS > 0.1%) or confirmed loss of MR4 (ie, consecutive BCR-ABL1IS > 0.01%) during the TFR phase reinitiated NIL treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who maintained TFR (ie, no loss of MMR, confirmed loss of MR4, or treatment reinitiation) at 48 weeks after stopping NIL. In this post hoc analysis, rates of TFR at 48 weeks after stopping NIL and a Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis of treatment-free survival (TFS; defined as the time from the start of TFR to the earliest occurrence of any of the following: loss of MMR, confirmed loss of MR4, reinitiation of NIL due to any cause, progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis, death due to any cause) were evaluated in subgroups of patients who switched from IM to NIL due to intolerance, resistance, or physician preference. These categories were determined by grouping the reasons for switching from IM to NIL, as reported by the investigators, based on relatedness to safety (intolerance), loss of response/treatment failure (resistance), and the physician's clinical judgment (physician preference); individual reasons included within each category are presented in the Figure. Results:A total of 125 patients who entered the TFR phase were included in this analysis; 1 patient who was found to have had atypical transcripts was excluded. Among these 125 patients, the reasons for switching to NIL were categorized as intolerance in 51 patients (40.8%), resistance in 30 patients (24.0%), and physician preference in 44 patients (35.2%). The proportion of patients who maintained TFR at 48 weeks after stopping NIL was generally similar across the 3 subgroups: 30 of 51 (58.8%; 95% CI, 44.2%-72.4%) in the intolerance subgroup, 16 of 30 (53.3%; 95% CI, 34.3%-71.7%) in the resistance subgroup, and 27 of 44 (61.4%; 95% CI, 45.5%-75.6%) in the physician preference subgroup. KM analysis of TFS showed that in all 3 subgroups, the majority of TFS events occurred within the first 24 weeks after stopping NIL (Figure). There were no notable differences in the kinetics of TFS events among subgroups. The KM-estimated median duration of TFS was not reached by the data cutoff date in all 3 subgroups. Conclusion: Primary analysis from ENESTop showed that among patients with CML-CP who achieved a sustained MR4.5after switching from IM to NIL, 57.9% of those who stopped NIL maintained TFR at 48 weeks. In the present analysis, TFR was maintained at 48 weeks after stopping NIL by > 50% of patients in the intolerance, resistance, and physician preference subgroups, with generally similar results across subgroups. These findings suggest that the rate of successful TFR following second-line NIL does not differ based on the reasons for switching from IM to NIL. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Hughes: Ariad: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG): Other: Chair of the CML/MPN Disease Group. Boquimpani:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Takahashi:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria. Shuvaev:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis pharma: Honoraria. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Lipton:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding. Turkina:Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Moiraghi:BMS: Speakers Bureau; NOVARTIS: Speakers Bureau. Nicolini:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ariad pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sacha:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adamed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kim:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ILYANG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Fellague-Chebra:Novartis: Employment. Acharya:Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.: Employment. Krunic:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jin:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahon:BMS: Honoraria; PFIZER: Honoraria; NOVARTIS PHARMA: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Bosutinib in Imatinib-Resistant Vs Dasatinib/Nilotinib-Resistant Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Results from the Phase 4 BYOND Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-122230 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1650-1650 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

B. Douglas Smith ◽

Tim H Brümmendorf ◽

Gail J. Roboz ◽

Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini ◽

Aude Charbonnier ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Cytogenetic Response ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Imatinib Resistant ◽

Equity Ownership

Introduction: The tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) bosutinib is approved for patients with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant/intolerant to prior therapy and newly diagnosed patients in chronic phase (CP). Methods: The ongoing phase 4 BYOND study (NCT02228382) is further evaluating the efficacy and safety of bosutinib for CML resistant/intolerant to prior TKIs. Patients were administered bosutinib at a starting dose of 500 mg once daily (QD). Primary results were previously reported. Here, we report the efficacy of bosutinib 500 mg QD in patients with Ph+ CP CML and resistance to imatinib (but not to nilotinib or dasatinib) vs patients with resistance to ≥1 second-generation TKI (dasatinib and/or nilotinib), as well as in patients with intolerance to all prior TKIs. Data are reported at ≥1 year after last enrolled patient; 85% of patients had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Results: Of 163 patients who received bosutinib, 156 had Ph+ CP CML: 52 had resistance only to imatinib, 31 had resistance to dasatinib/nilotinib, and 73 were intolerant to all prior TKIs. Corresponding median treatment duration (range) was 24.1 (0.2-42.2), 8.9 (0.9-41.6), and 25.3 (0.4-41.9) months, and median dose intensity (range) was 360 (125-500), 431 (195-561) and 292 (80-500) mg/day. In all, 69.2%, 41.9%, and 53.4% of imatinib-resistant, dasatinib/nilotinib-resistant, and TKI-intolerant patients, respectively, were still receiving treatment as of the data cutoff date. The main reason for discontinuation was adverse events (AEs), with 10 (19.2%), 8 (25.8%), and 21 (28.8%) imatinib-resistant, dasatinib/nilotinib-resistant, and TKI-intolerant patients, respectively, discontinuing due to AEs. Corresponding discontinuations due to insufficient response occurred in 2 (3.8%), 5 (16.1%), and 1 (1.4%) patients. No patient experienced on-treatment transformation to advanced phase CML or discontinued treatment due to disease progression. In the evaluable cytogenetic population, cumulative major cytogenetic response (MCyR) rates were 85.4%, 69.0%, and 88.1% in imatinib-resistant, dasatinib/nilotinib-resistant, and TKI-intolerant patients, respectively (Table). The majority of patients, across all cohorts, achieved a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR). In the evaluable molecular population, cumulative major molecular response (MMR) rates were 72.3%, 44.8%, and 82.2% in imatinib-resistant, dasatinib/nilotinib-resistant, and TKI-intolerant patients, respectively; the 50th percentile of the cumulative incidence curve was 5.66 months, not reached and 3.22 months, respectively. Correspondingly, 59.6%, 24.1%, and 68.5% achieved molecular response (MR)4, and 48.9%, 17.2%, and 56.2% achieved MR4.5. In imatinib-resistant, dasatinib/nilotinib-resistant, and TKI-intolerant patients, respectively, Kaplan-Meier estimated overall survival rates (95% confidence interval) were 96.1% (85.2-99.0), 100% (100-100), and 98.6% (90.5-99.8) at 1 year, and 96.1% (85.2-99.0), 92.6% (73.4-98.1), and 97.2% (89.2-99.3) at 2 years with 4, 3, and 3 deaths occurring on study. Conclusions: Cytogenetic and molecular responses were seen in a high proportion of patients with Ph+ CP CML and TKI-resistance or TKI-intolerance. Response rates were similar between patients with resistance to imatinib and patients who were intolerant to all prior TKIs. Although to a lesser degree, responses were also seen in patients with resistance to second-generation TKIs, including patients achieving MR despite the shorter treatment duration. These results further support bosutinib use for patients with Ph+ CP CML and resistance/intolerance to prior TKIs. Disclosures Smith: Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Brümmendorf:Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen: Employment; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gambacorti-Passerini:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Charbonnier:Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Viquiera:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Leip:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Giles:Novartis: Consultancy; Epigene Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Other: leadership, stock/other ownership ; Actuate Therapeutics Inc: Employment. Ernst:Novartis: Research Funding. Hochhaus:Incyte: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Rosti:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Subset Analysis of Response to Treatment of Chronic Phase CML in a Phase 1 Study of Ponatinib in Refractory Hematologic Malignancies

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.602.602 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 602-602 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Jorge E. Cortes ◽

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Neil Shah ◽

Dale Bixby ◽

Michael J. Mauro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Median Time ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Hematologic Malignancies ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Mutation Status ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 602 Background: Ponatinib is a potent, oral, pan-BCR-ABL inhibitor active against the native enzyme and all tested resistant mutants, including the uniformly resistant T315I mutation. Initial findings of a phase 1 trial in patients (pts) with refractory hematologic malignancies have been reported. The effect of duration of treatment, prior treatment, and mutation status on response to treatment was examined in CML chronic phase (CP) pts who responded to ponatinib. Methods: An open-label, dose escalation, phase 1 trial of ponatinib in pts with hematologic malignancies is ongoing. The primary aim is to assess the safety; anti-leukemic activity is also being investigated. Pts resistant to prior treatments or who had no standard treatment available were enrolled to receive a single daily oral dose of ponatinib (2 mg to 60 mg). Subset analyses of factors impacting cytogenetic and molecular response endpoints (MCyR and MMR) were performed for pts with CP-CML. Data are presented through April 15, 2011. Results: In total, 81 pts (54% male) received ponatinib. Overall, 43 pts had CP with 34 ongoing at analysis. MCyR was observed as best response in 31/43 (72%), 27 (63%) CCyR. The median time to MCyR was 12 (3 to 104) wks. Response rates were assessed by duration of treatment (1 pt in CCyR at entry was excluded; 6 pts in PCyR had to achieve CCyR). At the 3 month assessment, 22/42 (52%) CP pts achieved MCyR; at 6 months, 24/42 (57%); at 12 months, 29/42 (69%) had MCyR. The impact of prior treatment on response and time to response was assessed. 42 pts (98%) had >2 prior TKIs and 28 (65%) ≥3 prior TKIs, including investigational agents. Of approved TKIs, all pts were previously treated with imatinib, 19 dasatinib or nilotinib after imatinib, and 21 both dasatinib and nilotinib after imatinib. MCyR rate decreased with number of prior TKIs (2 prior TKIs 13/14 [93%], ≥3 prior TKIs 17/28 [61%]) and number of approved TKIs (imatinib followed by dasatinib or nilotinib 17/19 [90%], or by both dasatinib and nilotinib 12/21 [57%]). Time to response was prolonged in pts more heavily treated with prior TKIs. Median time to MCyR increased with the number of prior TKIs and approved TKIs (2 TKIs 12 wks, ≥3 TKIs 32 wks). The effect of mutation status on response and time to response was also evaluated. At entry, 12 pts had the T315I mutation, 15 had other BCR-ABL kinase domain mutations, 12 had no mutations detected, 4 did not allow sequencing. MCyR response rate for CP pts with T315I was 11/12 (92%); for other mutations, 10/15 (67%); and no mutation, 7/12 (58%). Similarly, mutation status had an impact on time to response: median time to MCyR was 12 wks for those with T315I or other mutations and 32 wks in resistant pts with no mutation. All CP patients were evaluable for MMR. At analysis, MMR was 17/43 (40%). MMR rate was inversely related to number of prior TKIs (2 TKIs 10/14 [71%], ≥3 TKIs 6/28 [21%]), approved TKIs (imatinib followed by dasatinib or nilotinib 12/19 [63%], or by both dasatinib and nilotinib 4/21 [19%]), and was higher for T315I pts (7/12, 58%) and those with other mutations (7/15, 47%) compared with no mutation (2/12, 17%). Median time to MMR for CP pts was 97 wks; median time to MMR was shorter for pts who were less heavily treated (2 prior TKIs 24 wks) and those with T315I or other mutations (63 wks). Conclusion: In this subset analysis of the phase 1 data, ponatinib had substantial activity in all subgroups analyzed. Time on treatment, less prior therapy and kinase domain mutations were associated with higher response rates and early responses in CP pts. Cytogenetic responses improved over the first 12 months of treatment and were higher in less heavily treated pts. Disclosures: Cortes: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding. Shah:Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bixby:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Speakers Bureau. Mauro:ARIAD: Research Funding. Flinn:ARIAD: Research Funding. Hu:ARIAD: Employment. Clackson:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rivera:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Turner:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Haluska:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Druker:MolecularMD: OHSU and Dr. Druker have a financial interest in MolecularMD. Technology used in this research has been licensed to MolecularMD. This potential conflict of interest has been reviewed and managed by the OHSU Conflict of Interest in Research Committee and t. Deininger:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Talpaz:ARIAD: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Change in Chronic Low-Grade Nonhematologic Adverse Events (AEs) and Quality of Life (QoL) in Adult Patients (pts) with Philadelphia Chromosome–Positive (Ph+) Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP) Switched From Imatinib (IM) to Nilotinib (NIL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.3782.3782 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 3782-3782 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jorge E. Cortes ◽

Jeffrey H. Lipton ◽

Carole B. Miller ◽

Sikander Ailawadhi ◽

Luke Akard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Median Duration ◽

Research Funding ◽

Philadelphia Chromosome ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Low Grade ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Employment Equity ◽

End Point ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 3782 Background: A large number of Ph+ CML pts treated with IM experience mild to moderate AEs that can negatively impact QoL. A recent study (Efficace F et al. Ann Hematol. 2012) reported that pts and healthcare professionals ranked several AEs induced by BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (fatigue ranked first) in the top 10 issues that adversely impact QoL in pts. The primary objective of the ongoing ENRICH study is to evaluate improvement of IM-related chronic low-grade nonhematologic AEs at the end of cycle (EOC) 3 (ie, after 12 weeks) in CML-CP pts when switched from IM to NIL because of chronic low-grade AEs. This is a report on 45 evaluable pts who completed EOC 3 as of the data cut-off (6/1/2012). Methods: Pts were eligible if they were treated with IM 400 mg/d for ≥3 mo and had IM-related grade (G) 1/2 nonhematologic AEs persisting '2 mo or recurring ≥3 times and recurring despite best supportive care. The study planned to enroll 50 pts in the US and Canada. Pts received NIL 300 mg twice daily for 1 y (or longer if NIL was not yet commercially available for frontline treatment). Nonhematologic AEs were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03; 6/14/2010) grading scale. Molecular response was monitored by a central PCR lab monthly for the first 3 mo and then every 3 mo on study. Pt-reported outcomes, measured by 2 QoL questions and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)-CML, were administered at baseline, EOC 1, EOC 3, and then every 3 mo thereafter. Results: 52 pts were enrolled into the study; enrollment closed in January 2012. The median duration (range) of previous IM treatment (tx) was 24.7 mo (2.3–123.0 mo); median duration (range) of NIL tx was 11.9 mo (0.2–23.7 mo). At baseline 199 IM-related nonhematologic AEs were reported (141 G1; 58 G2). Data for 49 pts were available and included in the safety and molecular response analyses; 45 pts were included in the primary end point analysis since 4 withdrew consent prior to EOC 3. These 45 pts accounted for 183/199 of the baseline IM-related AEs (130 G1; 53 G2); 1 AE evaluation is missing at EOC 3. 130/182 AEs (71.4%) improved by EOC 3 (primary end point): 117 resolved (90, 19, 8 by mo 1, 2, 3, respectively) and 13 improved from G2 to G1 (Table). By EOC 3, 64.1% and 53.8% of pts (n = 39) reported an improvement in global QoL from baseline over the last 24 h and last 7 d, respectively. Mean reductions from baseline in MDASI-CML severity score and interference score, and therefore improvement in symptoms, were 1.1 (n = 40) and 1.4 (n = 39) at EOC 1, and 1.2 (n = 39) and 1.7 (n = 38) at EOC 3, respectively. At baseline, 31/49 (63.3%) pts had major molecular response (MMR, 3-log reduction of BCR-ABL1; ≤0.1% IS); 18 and 10 pts had 4-log (MR4; BCR-ABL1 ≤0.01% IS) and 4.5-log reductions (MR4.5; BCR-ABL1 ≤0.0032% IS) in BCR-ABL1, respectively. After switch to NIL, all pts with a baseline MMR maintained MMR and 14/17 remaining pts without baseline MMR achieved MMR. Deeper responses were reported for 16 pts who reached MR4 after the switch, and 14 reached MR4.5. 20 pts were dose-reduced for NIL-related AEs, 2 of whom did not restart study drug. The other 18 pts were dose-reescalated to the original dose when the AEs improved to G1 or resolved. 40 G3 AEs occurred in 19 pts; of these, 24 AEs were investigator-reported as suspected to be NIL-related (hypophosphatemia, hyperglycemia, hypokalemia, increased bilirubin, increased lipase, arthralgia, pleural effusion, acute pancreatitis, dehydration, bronchitis, pruritus, rash, erythematous rash, exfoliative rash, papular rash, abdominal pain, gastroenteritis, and joint pain). 1 G4 AE (cardiac arrest, NIL-suspected) was reported; the pt recovered from the event but was discontinued from the study. Most AEs were managed by brief dose interruption. 9 pts discontinued study (5 due to AEs; 4 withdrew consent). No QTcF prolongation >500 msec occurred. Conclusions: The majority of IM-related nonhematologic AEs improved within 3 mo after switching to NIL; nearly half of the AEs resolved by EOC 1. More than half of pts experienced improvement in QoL and symptom burden on NIL. In general, pts achieved deeper molecular responses on study and approximately a quarter of pts reached MR4.5 after the switch to nilotinib. Disclosures: Cortes: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Lipton:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Miller:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Akard:Cellerant: Research Funding; ChemGenex: Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding. Pinilla-Ibarz:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lin:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ericson:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mauro:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Nilotinib Shows Safety and Efficacy in Older Patients (≥ 65 years) with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase Comparable with That in Younger Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase: Results From ENESTnd,

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3768.3768 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3768-3768 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Richard A. Larson ◽

Udomsak Bunworasate ◽

Anna G. Turkina ◽

Stuart L. Goldberg ◽

Pedro Dorlhiac-Llacer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3768 Background: Data from the phase 3, randomized multicenter ENESTnd trial have demonstrated the superiority of nilotinib over imatinib after 24 months (mo) of follow-up, with significantly higher rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR), and significantly lower rates of progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC). The current subanalysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (Nil300) and nilotinib 400 mg twice daily (Nil400) in older (≥ 65 years [yrs] at study entry) patients (pts) with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP) with a minimum follow-up of 24 mo. Methods: In ENESTnd, 846 pts stratified by Sokal risk score were randomized 1:1:1 to Nil300 (n = 282), Nil400 (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (n = 283). Pts with impaired cardiac function or ECOG performance status > 2 were excluded. Rates of CCyR and MMR by 24 mo, progression to AP/BC on treatment, and safety were evaluated according to age group (< 65 vs ≥ 65 yrs) in the 2 nilotinib arms. Safety data are reported for any pt who received ≥ 1 dose of nilotinib (n = 279, Nil300; n = 277, Nil400). Results: 36 pts (13%) and 28 pts (10%) were ≥ 65 yrs old in the Nil300 and Nil400 arms, respectively. Of the pts aged ≥ 65 yrs, 51/64 (80%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 at baseline and 60/64 (94%) had intermediate or high Sokal risk scores. Of the older pts, 8 (22%) on Nil300 and 6 (21%) on Nil400 had type 2 diabetes at baseline. CCyR rates by 24 mo were 83% and 68% among older pts treated with Nil300 and Nil400, respectively, and 87% for pts aged < 65 yrs in each nilotinib arm. By 24 mo, MMR was achieved by 72% and 61% of older pts on Nil300 and Nil400, respectively; in pts aged < 65 yrs, the respective rates were 71% and 67%. All 5 pts who progressed to AP/BC on treatment (2 on Nil300 and 3 on Nil400) were aged < 65 yrs. The frequency of grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events (AEs) was low in older pts; no pts had grade 3/4 neutropenia and only 1 older pt reported grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in each nilotinib arm (Table). Transient, asymptomatic lipase elevations were reported in 11% and 16% of older pts treated with Nil300 and Nil400, and 7% of younger pts in each arm. Hyperglycemia occurred in 23% and 16% of older pts on Nil300 and Nil400, respectively, and 4% of younger pts in each arm; regardless of age, no pt discontinued study due to hyperglycemia. Among the 12 older pts with grade 3/4 hyperglycemia (8 on Nil300; 4 on Nil400), 9 pts had type 2 diabetes at baseline. There were no QTcF increases of > 60 msec from baseline in older pts and 3 in nilotinib-treated pts < 65 yrs old (1 on Nil300; 2 on Nil400). QTcF prolongation of > 500 msec did not occur in any pt treated with nilotinib on study. Periodic echocardiograms were done, and there were no decreases of > 15% in left ventricular ejection fraction from baseline in any pt treated with nilotinib on study. There were 4 cases of ischemic heart disease reported in older pts (1/35 [3%] on Nil300; 3/25 [12%] on Nil400) and 7 cases in pts < 65 yrs of age (4/244 [2%] on Nil300; 3/252 [1%] on Nil400). No sudden deaths occurred on study. Discontinuation occurred in approximately 25% of older and younger pts with Nil300, of which, 6% and 9%, respectively, were due to AEs/lab abnormalities. Discontinuation from study with Nil400 was 46% in older pts and 19% in younger pts; of which, 36% and 10% were due to AEs/lab abnormalities. Conclusions: Older pts treated with nilotinib demonstrated high rates of cytogenetic and molecular responses and low rates of progression. Nilotinib was generally well tolerated by older pts. In older pts, Nil300 had numerically higher rates of CCyR and MMR and was generally better tolerated (as evidenced by fewer AEs and discontinuations) vs Nil400. These data support the use of Nil300 in older pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Disclosures: Larson: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bunworasate:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Research Funding. Turkina:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Goldberg:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Research Funding. Dorlhiac-Llacer:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Saglio:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hochhaus:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hoenekopp:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment, Equity Ownership. Blakesley:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment. Yu:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gallagher:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Clark:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hughes:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Nilotinib Demonstrates Superior Efficacy Compared with Imatinib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase: Results From the International Randomized Phase III ENESTnd Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.lba-1.lba-1 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. LBA-1-LBA-1 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Giuseppe Saglio ◽

Dong-Wook Kim ◽

Surapol Issaragrisil ◽

Philipp D. le Coutre ◽

Josy Reiffers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Tolerability Profile ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract LBA-1 Background: Nilotinib is a highly potent and the most selective inhibitor of BCR-ABL, the only proven molecular target for CML therapy. ENESTnd (Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials-Newly Diagnosed Patients) is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter study comparing the efficacy and safety of 300 or 400 mg bid nilotinib with 400 mg qd imatinib in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML in chronic phase (CML-CP). Methods: 846 pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP, diagnosed within 6 mos, and stratified by Sokal risk score, were randomized 1:1:1 to nilotinib 300 mg bid (n=282), nilotinib 400 mg bid (n=281), and imatinib 400 mg qd (n=283) arms. The primary endpoint was rate of major molecular response (MMR) at 12 months (mos). All pts had a minimum of 12 mos of treatment or discontinued early; median follow-up was 14 mos. MMR was defined as a value of ≤ 0.1% of BCR-ABL/ABL ratio on the International Scale. Molecular response was assessed by RQ-PCR at baseline, monthly for 3 mos and every 3 mos thereafter. Samples were analyzed at a central PCR laboratory. The major secondary endpoint was rate of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) by 12 mos based on bone marrow cytogenetics. Results: Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and Sokal scores were well balanced among the 3 arms; pts with high-risk Sokal scores were 28% in all arms. Median dose intensities of nilotinib delivered were 592 mg/day for 300 mg bid and 779 mg/day for 400 mg bid; imatinib dose intensity was 400 mg/day. Overall, 84%, 82%, and 79% of pts remained on the study for 300 mg bid nilotinib, 400 mg bid nilotinib, and 400 mg qd imatinib, respectively. Rates of MMR at 12 mos (Table) were superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid compared with imatinib 400 mg qd (44% vs. 22%,P < .0001) and also for nilotinib 400 mg bid compared with imatinib 400 mg qd (43% vs. 22%,P < .0001). Median time to MMR among pts who achieved MMR was faster for nilotinib 300 mg bid (5.7 mos) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (5.8 mos) compared with imatinib 400 mg qd (8.3 mos). Rates of CCyR by 12 mos were significantly higher for both nilotinib at either 300 mg bid compared with imatinib 400 mg qd (80% vs. 65%,P < .0001) and for nilotinib 400 mg bid compared with imatinib 400 mg qd (78% vs. 65%,P = .0005). Overall, progression to advanced disease was lower for nilotinib 300 mg bid (2 pts) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (1 pt) compared with imatinib 400 mg qd (11 pts). Overall, both drugs were well-tolerated. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events or laboratory abnormalities were 7% for nilotinib 300 mg bid, 11% for nilotinib 400 mg bid, and 9% for imatinib 400 mg qd. Pts were monitored for QT prolongation and LVEF. No patients in any treatment arm showed a QTcF interval > 500 msec. There was no decrease from baseline in mean LVEF anytime during treatment in any arm. The study is ongoing. Conclusions: Nilotinib at both 300 mg bid and 400 mg bid induced significantly higher and faster rates of MMR and CCyR compared with imatinib 400 mg qd, the current standard of care in pts with newly diagnosed CML. Nilotinib was effective across all Sokal scores. After only one year of treatment, both nilotinib arms resulted in a meaningful clinical benefit compared to imatinib, with reduction of transformation to AP/BC. Nilotinib exhibited a favorable safety and tolerability profile. The superior efficacy and favorable tolerability profile of nilotinib compared with imatinib suggests that nilotinib may become the standard of care in newly diagnosed CML. Disclosures: Saglio: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Nilotinib is not currently approved for first-line treatment of CML. The presentation will report the results from a randomized study of imatinib versus nilotinib in patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP. Kim:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Wyeth: Research Funding. le Coutre:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria. Reiffers:Novartis: Research Funding. Pasquini:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Schering: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Clark:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hochhaus:Novartis: Research Funding. Gallagher:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hoenekopp:Novartis: Employment. Dong:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Haque:Novartis: Employment. Larson:Novartis:

Download Full-text

Ponatinib in Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients: Final Report from a Phase 1 Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3063.3063 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3063-3063 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Michael J. Mauro ◽

Jorge E. Cortes ◽

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Neil P. Shah ◽

Dale L. Bixby ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase 1 Trial ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: Ponatinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor with potent activity against native and mutant BCR-ABL1, is approved for patients with refractory chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) or Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL) for whom no other tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy is indicated, or for patients with the T315I mutation. The efficacy and safety of ponatinib in patients with resistant/refractory hematologic malignancies were evaluated in a phase 1 trial (NCT00660920). Here, we report 4-year follow-up data from chronic-phase (CP)-CML patients; final data (approximately 5-year follow-up) will be presented. Methods: In this open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial, 81 patients with resistant/refractory hematologic malignancies (CP-CML, 43 patients; accelerated-phase CML, 9 patients; blast-phase CML, 8 patients; Ph+ ALL, 5 patients) were enrolled. Patients were treated with ponatinib at a starting dose of 2 mg/d - 60 mg/d; intra-patient dose escalation was permitted. In Oct 2013, dose reduction instructions were provided in response to an observed accumulation of arterial occlusive events (AOEs) with longer follow-up across the ponatinib clinical program. For data presented herein, the data cutoff date is 2 Feb 2015, with median follow-up of 53.1 months (range, 1.7 - 69.9 months) for CP-CML patients. Results: Among CP-CML patients, at baseline, median age was 55 years and median time since diagnosis was 6.6 years; BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutations were reported in 63% of patients, with T315I confirmed at a central laboratory in 28% of patients. Patients were heavily pretreated, with 37% having received 2 prior TKIs and 60% having received ≥3 prior TKIs. Of 43 CP-CML patients, 22 (51%) remained on ponatinib treatment at data cutoff. Adverse events (AEs; 26%) and disease progression (9%) were the most common reasons for discontinuation of treatment. Cumulative response rates were: major cytogenetic response (MCyR), 72%; complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), 65%; major molecular response (MMR; assessed at a central laboratory), 56%; molecular response 4 (MR4), 42%; MR4.5, 28%. Responses were durable (Table), with median durations of response not reached for MCyR, CCyR, and MMR. Among patients who received ponatinib at starting doses of ≤30 mg/d (n = 15), MCyR was achieved by 67%, CCyR by 53%, and MMR by 47%; ponatinib dose was ≤30 mg/d in all but one of these patients at the time of response. Of 19 patients who were ongoing and in MCyR as of Oct 2013, 13 had their dose reduced; all 13 dose-reduced patients maintained MCyR at data cutoff. Of the 22 ongoing patients at the time of the present analysis, 18 (82%) had CCyR and 17 (77%) had MMR or better (MMR, 6 patients; MR4, 1 patient; MR4.5, 9 patients; MR5, 1 patient) as their response at the data cutoff; 14/22 (64%) ongoing patients were receiving 15 mg/d as their current dose as of the data cutoff. Rash (65%), fatigue (63%), abdominal pain (58%), headache (58%) and arthralgia (53%) were the most common treatment-emergent AEs. The incidence of AOEs (any/serious) was 40%/30% (by subcategory: cardiovascular, 30%/21%; cerebrovascular, 9%/7%; peripheral vascular, 14%/9%). Conclusions: With median follow-up of over 4 years in this phase 1 study, ponatinib continues to provide clinical benefit to heavily pre-treated CP-CML patients, approximately half of whom continue to receive ponatinib, with a majority in deep response that has been long-lasting; final study data will be presented. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were consistent with the AE profile across the clinical program. Potential for long-term benefit, demonstrated herein, versus risk should be considered when using ponatinib in this patient population. Study sponsor: ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Disclosures Mauro: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cortes:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. Kantarjian:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Shah:ARIAD: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Plexxikon: Research Funding. Flinn:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; RainTree Oncology Services: Equity Ownership. Rivera:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lustgarten:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Santillana:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Heinrich:Novartis: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; MolecularMD: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy. Druker:Agios: Honoraria; Ambit BioSciences: Consultancy; ARIAD: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Array: Patents & Royalties; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses ; BMS: Research Funding; CTI: Equity Ownership; Curis: Patents & Royalties; Cylene: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; D3 Oncology Solutions: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses ; Lorus: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; MolecularMD: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Research Funding; Oncotide Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Patents & Royalties; Roche: Consultancy. Deininger:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Talpaz:Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Other: Travel expense reimbursement, Research Funding; Ariad: Other: Expense reimbursement, travel accomodation expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: travel accomodation expenses, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Rapid and Robust Mobilization of CD34+ HSCs without G-CSF Following Administration of Mgta-145 Alone or in Combination with Plerixafor

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127523 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1961-1961

Author(s):

John F. DiPersio ◽

Jonathan Hoggatt ◽

Steven Devine ◽

Lukasz Biernat ◽

Haley Howell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Single Dose ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Preliminary Data ◽

Research Funding ◽

Fold Change ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cd34 Cells ◽

Equity Ownership

Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the standard of care for mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). G-CSF requires 4-7 days of injections and often multiple aphereses to acquire sufficient CD34+ cells for transplant. The number of CD34+ HSCs mobilized can be variable and patients who fail to mobilize enough CD34+ cells are treated with the combination of G-CSF plus plerixafor. G-CSF use is associated with bone pain, nausea, headaches, fatigue, rare episodes of splenic rupture, and is contraindicated for patients with autoimmune and sickle cell disease. MGTA-145 (GroβT) is a CXCR2 agonist. MGTA-145, in combination with plerixafor, a CXCR4 inhibitor, has the potential to rapidly and reliably mobilize robust numbers of HSCs with a single dose and same-day apheresis for transplant that is free from G-CSF. MGTA-145 plus plerixafor work synergistically to rapidly mobilize HSCs in both mice and non-human primates (Hoggatt, Cell 2018; Goncalves, Blood 2018). Based on these data, Magenta initiated a Phase 1 dose-escalating study to evaluate the safety, PK and PD of MGTA-145 as a single agent and in combination with plerixafor. Methods This study consists of four parts. In Part A, healthy volunteers were dosed with MGTA-145 (0.0075 - 0.3 mg/kg) or placebo. In Part B, MGTA-145 dose levels from Part A were selected for use in combination with a clinically approved dose of plerixafor. In Part C, a single dose MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered on day 1 and day 2. In Part D, MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered followed by apheresis. Results MGTA-145 monotherapy was well tolerated in all subjects dosed (Table 1) with no significant adverse events. Some subjects experienced mild (Grade 1) transient lower back pain that dissipated within minutes. In the ongoing study, the combination of MGTA-145 with plerixafor was well tolerated, with some donors experiencing Grade 1 and 2 gastrointestinal adverse events commonly observed with plerixafor alone. Pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure and maximum plasma concentrations increased dose proportionally and were not affected by plerixafor (Fig 1A). Monotherapy of MGTA-145 resulted in an immediate increase in neutrophils (Fig 1B) and release of plasma MMP-9 (Fig 1C). Neutrophil mobilization plateaued within 1-hour post MGTA-145 at doses greater than 0.03 mg/kg. This plateau was followed by a rebound of neutrophil mobilization which correlated with re-expression of CXCR2 and presence of MGTA-145 at pharmacologically active levels. Markers of neutrophil activation were relatively unchanged (<2-fold vs baseline). A rapid and statistically significant increase in CD34+ cells occurred @ 0.03 and 0.075 mg/kg of MGTA-145 (p < 0.01) relative to placebo with peak mobilization (Fig 1D) 30 minutes post MGTA-145 (7-fold above baseline @ 0.03 mg/kg). To date, the combination of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor mobilized >20/µl CD34s in 92% (11/12) subjects compared to 50% (2/4) subjects receiving plerixafor alone. Preliminary data show that there was a significant increase in fold change relative to baseline in CD34+ cells (27x vs 13x) and phenotypic CD34+CD90+CD45RA- HSCs (38x vs 22x) mobilized by MGTA-145 with plerixafor. Mobilized CD34+ cells were detectable at 15 minutes with peak mobilization shifted 2 - 4 hours earlier for the combination vs plerixafor alone (4 - 6h vs 8 - 12h). Detailed results of single dose administration of MGTA-145 and plerixafor given on one day as well as also on two sequential days will be presented along with fully characterized graft analysis post apheresis from subjects given MGTA-145 and plerixafor. Conclusions MGTA-145 is safe and well tolerated, as a monotherapy and in combination with plerixafor and induced rapid and robust mobilization of significant numbers of HSCs with a single dose in all subjects to date. Kinetics of CD34+ cell mobilization for the combination was immediate (4x increase vs no change for plerixafor alone @ 15 min) suggesting the mechanism of action of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor is different from plerixafor alone. Preliminary data demonstrate that MGTA-145 when combined with plerixafor results in a significant increase in CD34+ fold change relative to plerixafor alone. Magenta Therapeutics intends to develop MGTA-145 as a first line mobilization product for blood cancers, autoimmune and genetic diseases and plans a Phase 2 study in multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2020. Disclosures DiPersio: Magenta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; NeoImmune Tech: Research Funding; Cellworks Group, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; RiverVest Venture Partners Arch Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; WUGEN: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bioline Rx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hoggatt:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Devine:Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Biernat:Medpace, Inc.: Employment. Howell:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schmelmer:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Neale:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boitano:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Cooke:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Goncalves:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Raffel:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Falahee:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Morrow:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Davis:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

EZH2 Mutations and Impact on Clinical Outcome Analyzed in 1604 Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-114421 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1528-1528

Author(s):

Sebastian Stasik ◽

Jan Moritz Middeke ◽

Michael Kramer ◽

Christoph Rollig ◽

Alwin Krämer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bone Marrow ◽

Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Mutational Status ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Acute Myeloid

Abstract Purpose: The enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) is a histone methyltransferase and key epigenetic regulator involved in transcriptional repression and embryonic development. Loss of EZH2 activity by inactivating mutations is associated with poor prognosis in myeloid malignancies such as MDS. More recently, EZH2 inactivation was shown to induce chemoresistance in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (Göllner et al., 2017). Data on the frequency and prognostic role of EZH2-mutations in AML are rare and mostly confined to smaller cohorts. To investigate the prevalence and prognostic impact of this alteration in more detail, we analyzed a large cohort of AML patients (n = 1604) for EZH2 mutations. Patients and Methods: All patients analyzed had newly diagnosed AML, were registered in clinical protocols of the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL) (AML96, AML2003 or AML60+, SORAML) and had available material at diagnosis. Screening for EZH2 mutations and associated alterations was done using Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) (TruSight Myeloid Sequencing Panel, Illumina) on an Illumina MiSeq-system using bone marrow or peripheral blood. Detection was conducted with a defined cut-off of 5% variant allele frequency (VAF). All samples below the predefined threshold were classified as EZH2 wild type (wt). Patient clinical characteristics and co-mutations were analyzed according to the mutational status. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was used to identify the impact of EZH2 mutations on outcome. Results: EZH2-mutations were found in 63 of 1604 (4%) patients, with a median VAF of 44% (range 6-97%; median coverage 3077x). Mutations were detected within several exons (2-6; 8-12; 14-20) with highest frequencies in exons 17 and 18 (29%). The majority of detected mutations (71% missense and 29% nonsense/frameshift) were single nucleotide variants (SNVs) (87%), followed by small indel mutations. Descriptive statistics of clinical parameters and associated co-mutations revealed significant differences between EZH2-mut and -wt patients. At diagnosis, patients with EZH2 mutations were significantly older (median age 59 yrs) than EZH2-wt patients (median 56 yrs; p=0.044). In addition, significantly fewer EZH2-mut patients (71%) were diagnosed with de novo AML compared to EZH2-wt patients (84%; p=0.036). Accordingly, EZH2-mut patients had a higher rate of secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) (21%), evolving from prior MDS or after prior chemotherapy (tAML) (8%; p=0.036). Also, bone marrow (and blood) blast counts differed between the two groups (EZH2-mut patients had significantly lower BM and PB blast counts; p=0.013). In contrast, no differences were observed for WBC counts, karyotype, ECOG performance status and ELN-2017 risk category compared to EZH2-wt patients. Based on cytogenetics according to the 2017 ELN criteria, 35% of EZH2-mut patients were categorized with favorable risk, 28% had intermediate and 37% adverse risk. No association was seen with -7/7q-. In the group of EZH2-mut AML patients, significantly higher rates of co-mutations were detected in RUNX1 (25%), ASXL1 (22%) and NRAS (25%) compared to EZH2-wt patients (with 10%; 8% and 15%, respectively). Vice versa, concomitant mutations in NPM1 were (non-significantly) more common in EZH2-wt patients (33%) vs EZH2-mut patients (21%). For other frequently mutated genes in AML there was no major difference between EZH2-mut and -wt patients, e.g. FLT3ITD (13%), FLT3TKD (10%) and CEBPA (24%), as well as genes encoding epigenetic modifiers, namely, DNMT3A (21%), IDH1/2 (11/14%), and TET2 (21%). The correlation of EZH2 mutational status with clinical outcomes showed no effect of EZH2 mutations on the rate of complete remission (CR), relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) (with a median OS of 18.4 and 17.1 months for EZH2-mut and -wt patients, respectively) in the univariate analyses. Likewise, the multivariate analysis with clinical variable such as age, cytogenetics and WBC using Cox proportional hazard regression, revealed that EZH2 mutations were not an independent risk factor for OS or RFS. Conclusion EZH mutations are recurrent alterations in patients with AML. The association with certain clinical factors and typical mutations such as RUNX1 and ASXL1 points to the fact that these mutations are associated with secondary AML. Our data do not indicate that EZH2 mutations represent an independent prognostic factor. Disclosures Middeke: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rollig:Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Scholl:Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbivie: Other: Travel support; Alexion: Other: Travel support; MDS: Other: Travel support; Novartis: Other: Travel support; Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; Carreras Foundation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hochhaus:Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Brümmendorf:Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Burchert:AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Krause:Novartis: Research Funding. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Mayer:Eisai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Serve:Bayer: Research Funding. Ehninger:Cellex Gesellschaft fuer Zellgewinnung mbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; Bayer: Research Funding; GEMoaB Monoclonals GmbH: Employment, Equity Ownership. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Response and Outcomes to Nilotinib at 24 Months in Imatinib-Resistant Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients in Chronic Phase (CML-CP) and Accelerated Phase (CML-AP) with and without BCR-ABL Mutations.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.1130.1130 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 1130-1130 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jerald P. Radich ◽

Giovanni Martinelli ◽

Andreas Hochhaus ◽

Enrico Gottardi ◽

Simona Soverini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Median Time ◽

Research Funding ◽

Philadelphia Chromosome ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Cytogenetic Response ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Imatinib Resistant

Abstract Abstract 1130 Poster Board I-152 Background Nilotinib is a selective and potent BCR-ABL inhibitor, with in vitro activity against most BCR-ABL mutants (excluding T315I) indicated for the treatment of patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) CML in CPor AP resistant or -intolerant to prior therapy, including imatinib. In a previous analysis of nilotinib in patients with BCR-ABL mutations, mutations occurring at three specific amino acid residues (E255K/V, Y253H, and F359C/V) were shown to be associated with less favorable response to nilotinib. The current analysis is based on mature data with a minimum follow-up of 24-months for all patients. Outcomes of patients at 24 months were analyzed by mutation type. Methods Imatinib-resistant CML-CP (n = 200) and CML-AP (n = 93) patients were subdivided into the following mutational subsets: no mutation, sensitive mutations (including mutations with unknown in vitro IC50). or E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V mutations at baseline. Patients with mutations of unknown in vitro sensitivity were classified as sensitive in this analysis based on a previous finding that patients with these mutations responded similarly to nilotinib as patients with sensitive mutation. Patients with baseline T315I mutations were excluded from this analysis. Patient groups were analyzed for kinetics and durability of cytogenetic and molecular response to nilotinib, as well as event-free survival (EFS), defined as loss of hematologic or cytogenetic response, progression to AP/BC, discontinuation due to disease progression, or death, and overall survival (OS). Results In CML-CP and -AP patients with no mutation, sensitive mutations, or E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V mutations, hematologic, cytogenetic and molecular responses are provided in the Table. Overall, patients with no mutations responded similarly to patients with sensitive mutations, whereas patients with E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V mutations had less favorable responses. This correlation was observed in both CML-CP and CML-AP patients, respectively. Median time to CCyR was 3.3 months (range, 1.0–26.7) for CML-CP patients with no mutations, and 5.6 months (range, 0.9–22.1) for patients with sensitive mutations. At 24 months, CCyR was maintained in 74% of CML-CP patients with no mutation and in 84% of patients with sensitive mutations. One patient with CML-CP and an E255K mutation achieved CCyR at 25 months and maintained until last assessment at 30 months. Median time to MMR was similar at 5.6 months (range, 0.9–25.8) for CML-CP patients with no mutations and 5.6 months (range, 2.7–22.1) for patients with sensitive mutations. No patient with a less sensitive mutation achieved MMR. Median EFS and 24-month estimated OS rate are provided in the Table. Conclusions Imatinib-resistant CML-CP and CML-AP patients treated with nilotinib therapy with BCR-ABL mutations (excluding E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V) achieved rapid and durable cytogenetic responses, and estimated EFS and OS at 24 months similar to that of patients with no mutations, respectively. Patients with E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V mutations had lower and less-durable responses and shorter EFS than patients with sensitive mutations. Alternative therapies may be considered for patients with these uncommon mutations (E255K/V, Y253H, and F359C/V). Disclosures Radich: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hochhaus:Novartis: Research Funding. Branford:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shou:Novartis: Employment. Haque:Novartis: Employment. Woodman:Novartis: Employment. Kantarjian:Novartis: Research Funding. Hughes:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Advisor, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Advisor, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kim:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Wyeth: Research Funding. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text