Tipifarnib Is Well Tolerated as Maintenance Therapy In Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). Significant, but Non-Fatal, Hematologic Toxicity Not Ameliorated by Dose Reduction. Preliminary Results of the Phase III Intergroup Trial E2902

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3315-3315
Author(s):  
Selina Luger ◽  
Xiaopan Yao ◽  
Elisabeth Paietta ◽  
Rhett Ketterling ◽  
Witold Rybka ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3315 The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial, E2902, was a randomized phase III intergroup trial of the Farnesyl Transferase Inhibitor, R115777(Tipifarnib), as maintenance therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients (pts) with AML in remission after requiring salvage therapy (primary induction failure or second or subsequent remission) or over the age of 60 in first remission were eligible. A confirmatory bone marrow exam was required within 2 weeks prior to randomization. Pts were eligible if they were in a complete remission (CR) or morphologic remission (MR). Consolidation or post remission therapy prior to enrollment was allowed but not required. Pts who had received an allogeneic transplant in this remission were ineligible. Adequate blood counts (absolute neutrophil count >= 1000/mm3 and platelet count >=50,000/mm3), and normal renal, and hepatic function were required within 2 weeks of randomization. Pts were randomized to either receive tipifarnib twice daily (BID) or to observation. The main objective of this study was to compare disease free survival in the two groups. Although the study has completed accrual, an insufficient number of events have been recorded at this point to allow for evaluation of the survival data. However, toxicity data are now available. Between August 2004 and December 2009, 144 pts were accrued to the study. The median age of the pts is 70 (range 28–86). Seventy-three pts (51%) were male and 135 pts (94%) were white. Seventy-three pts were enrolled onto the treatment arm (Arm A) and 71 pts were enrolled onto the observation arm (Arm B). When the study was initially opened, pts on Arm A were treated with tipifarnib at a dose of 400 mg BID with dose reductions and interruptions defined per protocol for toxicity. After the first planned interim analysis, based on toxicity data, the ECOG Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the starting dose be decreased to 300 mg BID. The majority of pts enrolled on the study were in first CR (CR1) (Table 2). Among the 30 pts treated with the initial 400 mg BID dose, 23 pts (77%) had their dose held or reduced to a lower dose in the subsequent treatment cycles. For the 41 pts whose initial dose was 300 mg BID, 61% required either dose modification (n=19) or discontinued (n=6) due to toxicity. Table 1: Baseline characteristics Arm A 400 mg BID n=31 Arm A 300 mg BID n=42 Arm B Observation n=71 CR1 16 (52%) 34 (81%) 47 (66%) >CR1 10 (32%) 8 (19%) 16 (23%) Unknown 5 (16%) 16 (11%) Table 2: Toxicity Toxicity Type Arm A 400 mg n=31 Arm A 300 mg n=41 Arm B Observation n=69 Grade (n) Grade (n) Grade (n) 3 4 3 4 3 4 Hemoglobin 1 1 6 1 1 2 Leukocytes 2 4 16 4 3 Neutrophils 5 8 3 7 1 Platelets 4 10 11 11 1 5 Cardiac-ischemia 1 Fatigue 1 Diarrhea 1 Nausea 1 Febrile neutropenia 1 1 Infection w/gr 3-4 neutrophils (ANC) 1 Infection Gr0-2 ANC 1 1 3 GGT 1 Hypokalemia 1 Confusion 1 Agitation 1 Neuropathy-sensory 1 Back pain 1 Worst degree Non Hematologic 4 2 9 1 1 While non-hematologic toxicity was acceptable, significant hematologic toxicity was seen in pts treated at an initial dose of either 400 mg or 300 mg BID (Table 2). Of note, hematologic toxicity was also seen on the observation arm although less frequently than with both treatment doses. Non-hematologic toxicity was much less frequent overall and there were no significant non-hematologic toxicities in the observation arm. Reduction of the initial dose did not ameliorate either the hematologic or non-hematologic toxicity seen on the treatment arms. There was however no fatal toxicity at either dose level. Results of the randomization with respect to efficacy remain essential to determining the utility of this agent as maintenance therapy in AML. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail J Roboz ◽  
Pau Montesinos ◽  
Dominik Selleslag ◽  
Andrew Wei ◽  
Jun-Ho Jang ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1308-1308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selina Luger ◽  
Victoria X Wang ◽  
Elisabeth Paietta ◽  
Rhett P. Ketterling ◽  
Witold Rybka ◽  
...  

Abstract The ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group Led Trial, E2902, was a randomized phase III North American Leukemia Intergroup trial of the Farnesyl Transferase Inhibitor , R115777(Tipifarnib), as maintenance therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients (pts) with AML in remission after requiring salvage therapy (primary induction failure or second or subsequent remission) or over the age of 60 in first remission were eligible. Pts were eligible if they were in a complete remission (CR) or complete remission without platelet recovery (CRp) as confirmed by bone marrow examination within 2 weeks prior to randomization. Consolidation or post remission therapy prior to enrollment was allowed but not required. Pts who had received an allogeneic transplant in this remission were ineligible. Adequate blood counts (absolute neutrophil count >= 1000/mm3 and platelet count >=50,000/mm3), and normal renal, and hepatic function were required within 2 weeks of randomization. Pts were randomized to either receive tipifarnib twice daily (BID) or to observation. Pts were stratified by remission ( CR1 vs > CR1) and whether or not they received consolidation therapy in the current remission. The main objective of this study was to compare disease free survival(DFS) in the two groups. Between August 2004 and December 2009, 144 pts were accrued to the study. The median age of the pts was 69 (range 28-86). Seventy-three pts (51%) were male and 135 pts (94%) were white. The majority of pts enrolled on the study (70%) were in first CR, and had post remission chemotherapy (56%) prior to randomization. Seventy-three pts were enrolled onto the treatment arm (Arm A) and 71 pts were enrolled onto the observation arm (Arm B). When the study was initially opened, pts on Arm A were treated with tipifarnib at a dose of 400 mg BID with dose reductions and interruptions defined per protocol for toxicity. After the first planned interim analysis, based on toxicity data, the ECOG Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the starting dose be decreased to 300 mg BID. While non-hematologic toxicity was acceptable, significant hematologic toxicity was seen in pts treated at an initial dose of either 400 mg or 300 mg BID. Of note, hematologic toxicity was also seen on the observation arm although less frequently than with both treatment doses. The primary endpoint of the study was analysis of DFS on an intent to treat basis. The median DFS for arms A and B are 8.87 months and 5.26 months respectively ( p=0.058, HR 0.760). When restricted to eligible patients only(n=134 ), the DFS for arms A and B are 10.81 vs 5.26 months, respectively ( p=0.019, HR 0.690). An unplanned subgroup analysis was performed by gender. The median DFS for male pts (n=73) is 5.36 vs 5.91 months for arms A and B respectively (p=0.868, HR 1.320) and 12.09 vs 3.91 months for female pts (n=71)(p=0.0002, HR=0.408) In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to adjust for baseline clinical variables, there is a significant interaction between treatment and gender. (Table 1) Similar results were noted for OS (Figure 1). ECOG ACRIN Trial E2902 evaluated the potential role of Tipifarnib ( R115777) in patients with AML in remission with a high risk of relapse. While the primary endpoint for improved DFS was not reached when evaluating all randomized pts, when restricted to eligible patients only, there is a statistically significant improvement in DFS seen. Moreover, an unplanned subgroup analysis by gender demonstrates an improvement in DFS and OS for females who were enrolled on the study which persists on multivariate analysis. Possible explanations include the use of flat dosing rather than BSA based dosing on this study. However futher evaluation of patient and disease characteristics, dosing and toxicity profiles of responders and nonresponders is needed. Given what appears to be a potentially clinically relevant benefit, further evaluation of this agent is warranted. Table 1. Multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards Model for DFS: All Randomized Patients Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P value Arm B vs A 2.559(1.547,4.236) 0.00025 Male vs Female 2.005(1.228,3.274) 0.00544 CR1 vs >CR1 0.447 (0.305,0.656) 0.00004 Figure 1. (A) DFS (B) OS in Female Patients Figure 1. (A) DFS (B) OS in Female Patients Disclosures Rowe: BioSight Ltd.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; BioLineRx Ltd.: Consultancy. Larson:Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 1936-1951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raghav Dogra ◽  
Rohit Bhatia ◽  
Ravi Shankar ◽  
Parveen Bansal ◽  
Ravindra K. Rawal

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia is the collective name for different types of leukemias of myeloid origin affecting blood and bone marrow. The overproduction of immature myeloblasts (white blood cells) is the characteristic feature of AML, thus flooding the bone marrow and reducing its capacity to produce normal blood cells. USFDA on August 1, 2017, approved a drug named Enasidenib formerly known as AG-221 which is being marketed under the name Idhifa to treat R/R AML with IDH2 mutation. The present review depicts the broad profile of enasidenib including various aspects of chemistry, preclinical, clinical studies, pharmacokinetics, mode of action and toxicity studies. Methods: Various reports and research articles have been referred to summarize different aspects related to chemistry and pharmacokinetics of enasidenib. Clinical data was collected from various recently published clinical reports including clinical trial outcomes. Result: The various findings of enasidenib revealed that it has been designed to allosterically inhibit mutated IDH2 to treat R/R AML patients. It has also presented good safety and efficacy profile along with 9.3 months overall survival rates of patients in which disease has relapsed. The drug is still under study either in combination or solely to treat hematological malignancies. Molecular modeling studies revealed that enasidenib binds to its target through hydrophobic interaction and hydrogen bonding inside the binding pocket. Enasidenib is found to be associated with certain adverse effects like elevated bilirubin level, diarrhea, differentiation syndrome, decreased potassium and calcium levels, etc. Conclusion: Enasidenib or AG-221was introduced by FDA as an anticancer agent which was developed as a first in class, a selective allosteric inhibitor of the tumor target i.e. IDH2 for Relapsed or Refractory AML. Phase 1/2 clinical trial of Enasidenib resulted in the overall survival rate of 40.3% with CR of 19.3%. Phase III trial on the Enasidenib is still under process along with another trial to test its potency against other cell lines. Edasidenib is associated with certain adverse effects, which can be reduced by investigators by designing its newer derivatives on the basis of SAR studies. Hence, it may come in the light as a potent lead entity for anticancer treatment in the coming years.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (35) ◽  
pp. 4424-4430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Amadori ◽  
Stefan Suciu ◽  
Roberto Stasi ◽  
Helmut R. Salih ◽  
Dominik Selleslag ◽  
...  

Purpose This randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of sequential gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) and standard chemotherapy in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients and Methods Patients (n = 472) age 61 to 75 years were randomly assigned to induction chemotherapy with mitoxantrone, cytarabine, and etoposide preceded, or not, by a course of GO (6 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15). In remission, patients received two consolidation courses with or without GO (3 mg/m2 on day 0). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results The overall response rate was comparable between the two arms (GO, 45%; no GO, 49%), but induction and 60-day mortality rates were higher in the GO arm (17% v 12% and 22% v 18%, respectively). With median follow-up of 5.2 years, median OS was 7.1 months in the GO arm and 10 months in the no-GO arm (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.45; P = .07). Other survival end points were similar in both arms. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic and liver toxicities were greater in the GO arm. Treatment with GO provided no benefit in any prognostic subgroup, with the possible exception of patients age < 70 years with secondary AML, but outcomes were significantly worse in the oldest age subgroup because of a higher risk of early mortality. Conclusion As used in this trial, the sequential combination of GO and standard chemotherapy provides no benefit for older patients with AML and is too toxic for those age ≥ 70 years.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document