Oral azacitidine prolongs survival of patients with AML in remission independently of measurable residual disease status.

Measurable residual disease (MRD) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in remission after intensive chemotherapy is predictive of early relapse and poor survival. Postremission maintenance therapy that prolongs MRD negativity or converts MRD+ patients to MRD- status may delay or prevent relapse and improve overall survival (OS). In the phase 3 QUAZAR AML-001 trial, oral azacitidine (oral-AZA; formerly CC-486), a hypomethylating agent, significantly prolonged OS and relapse-free survival (RFS) compared with placebo in patients aged ≥55 years with AML in first remission after intensive chemotherapy who were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In this trial, MRD (≥0.1% leukemic cells in bone marrow) was assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry in serial samples collected at baseline and on day 1 of every 3 cycles. As expected, baseline MRD status was significantly associated with both OS and RFS. Multivariate analyses showed oral-AZA significantly improved OS and RFS vs placebo independent of baseline MRD status. Oral-AZA treatment also extended the duration of MRD negativity by 6 months vs placebo and resulted in a higher rate of conversion from MRD+ at baseline to MRD- during treatment: 37% vs 19%, respectively. In the oral-AZA arm, 24% of MRD responders achieved MRD negativity >6 months after treatment initiation. Although presence or absence of MRD was a strong prognostic indicator of OS and RFS, there were added survival benefits with oral-AZA maintenance therapy compared with placebo, independent of patients' MRD status at baseline. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01757535.

Oral Azacitidine Maintenance Therapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in First Remission.

BACKGROUND: Although induction chemotherapy results in remission in many older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), relapse is common and overall survival is poor. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the oral formulation of azacitidine (CC-486, a hypomethylating agent that is not bioequivalent to injectable azacitidine), as maintenance therapy in patients with AML who were in first remission after intensive chemotherapy. Patients who were 55 years of age or older, were in complete remission with or without complete blood count recovery, and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation were randomly assigned to receive CC-486 (300 mg) or placebo once daily for 14 days per 28-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included relapse-free survival and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 472 patients underwent randomization; 238 were assigned to the CC-486 group and 234 were assigned to the placebo group. The median age was 68 years (range, 55 to 86). Median overall survival from the time of randomization was significantly longer with CC-486 than with placebo (24.7 months and 14.8 months, respectively; P<0.001). Median relapse-free survival was also significantly longer with CC-486 than with placebo (10.2 months and 4.8 months, respectively; P<0.001). Benefits of CC-486 with respect to overall and relapse-free survival were shown in most subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics. The most common adverse events in both groups were grade 1 or 2 gastrointestinal events. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (in 41% of patients in the CC-486 group and 24% of patients in the placebo group) and thrombocytopenia (in 22% and 21%, respectively). Overall health-related quality of life was preserved during CC-486 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: CC-486 maintenance therapy was associated with significantly longer overall and relapse-free survival than placebo among older patients with AML who were in remission after chemotherapy. Side effects were mainly gastrointestinal symptoms and neutropenia. Quality-of-life measures were maintained throughout treatment. (Supported by Celgene; QUAZAR AML-001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01757535.).

Randomised phase 3 open-label trial of first-line treatment with gemcitabine in association with docetaxel or paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of different schedules and treatments.

BACKGROUND: This open-label study compared docetaxel/gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel/gemcitabine and a weekly (W) vs. 3-weekly (3 W) schedule in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: Patients relapsed after adjuvant/neoadjuvant anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were randomized to: A) gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 Day 1,8 + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Day 1 q3W; B) gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 Day 1,8 + paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Day 1 q3W; C) gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 Day 1,8,15 + docetaxel 30 mg/m2 Day 1,8,15 q4W; D) gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 Day 1,15 + paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 Day 1,8,15 q4W. Primary endpoint was time-to-progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Interim analysis led to accrual interruption (241 patients enrolled of 360 planned). Median TTP (months) was 8.33 (95% CI: 6.19-10.16) with W and 7.51 (95% CI: 5.93-8.33) with 3 W (p=0.319). No differences were observed in median TTP between docetaxel and paclitaxel, with 85.6% and 87.0% of patients progressing, respectively. OS did not differ between regimens/schedules. ORR was comparable between regimens (HR: 0.882; 95% CI: 0.523-1.488; p=0.639), while it was significantly higher in W than in the 3 W (HR: 0.504; 95% CI: 0.299-0.850; p=0.010) schedule. Grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 69.2% and 71.9% of patients on docetaxel and paclitaxel, and in 65.8% and 75.2% in W and 3 W. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment regimens showed similar TTP. W might be associated with a better tumour response compared with 3 W. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrial.gov ID NCT00236899.

Oral Azacitidine (CC-486) for the Treatment of Myeloid Malignancies.

Epigenetic dysregulation leads to aberrant DNA hypermethylation and is common in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). A large number of clinical trials in AML, MDS, and other hematologic malignancies have assessed hypomethylating agents (HMAs), used alone or in combination with other drugs, in the frontline, maintenance, relapsed/refractory, and peritransplant settings. Effective maintenance therapy has long been a goal for patients with AML in remission. Previous large, randomized clinical trials of maintenance with HMAs or other agents had not shown meaningful improvement in overall survival. Oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA [CC-486]) is approved in the United States, Canada, and European Union for treatment of adult patients with AML in first complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) following intensive induction chemotherapy who are ineligible for hematopoietic cell transplant. Regulatory approvals of Oral-AZA were based on outcomes from the randomized, phase III QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed a median overall survival advantage of 9.9 months with Oral-AZA versus placebo. Oral-AZA allows convenient extended AZA dosing for 14 days per 28-day treatment cycle, which is not feasible with injectable AZA. Focusing on AML and MDS, this report reviews the rationale for the use of orally bioavailable AZA and its potential use in all-oral combination therapy regimens; the unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of Oral-AZA compared with injectable AZA; the clinical safety and efficacy of Oral-AZA maintenance therapy in patients with AML in first remission and for treatment of patients with active MDS; and ongoing Oral-AZA clinical trials.

Management of adverse events in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in remission receiving oral azacitidine: experience from the phase 3 randomized QUAZAR AML-001 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who attain morphologic remission with intensive chemotherapy (IC) will eventually relapse and post-relapse prognosis is dismal. In the pivotal QUAZAR AML-001 trial, oral azacitidine maintenance therapy significantly prolonged overall survival by 9.9 months (P < 0.001) and relapse-free survival by 5.3 months (P < 0.001) compared with placebo in patients with AML in first remission after IC who were not candidates for transplant. Currently, the QUAZAR AML-001 trial provides the most comprehensive safety information associated with oral azacitidine maintenance therapy. Reviewed here are common adverse events (AEs) during oral azacitidine treatment in QUAZAR AML-001, and practical recommendations for AE management based on guidance from international cancer consortiums, regulatory authorities, and the authors' clinical experience treating patients in the trial. METHODS: QUAZAR AML-001 is an international, placebo-controlled randomized phase 3 study. Patients aged ≥ 55 years with AML and intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis, who had attained first complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) within 4 months before study entry, were randomized 1:1 to receive oral azacitidine 300 mg or placebo once-daily for 14 days in repeated 28-day cycles. Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. RESULTS: A total of 469 patients received oral azacitidine (n = 236) or placebo (n = 233). Median age was 68 years. Patients received a median of 12 (range 1-80) oral azacitidine treatment cycles or 6 (1-73) placebo cycles. Gastrointestinal AEs were common and typically low-grade. The most frequent grade 3-4 AEs during oral azacitidine therapy were hematologic events. AEs infrequently required permanent discontinuation of oral azacitidine (13%), suggesting they were effectively managed with use of concomitant medications and oral azacitidine dosing modifications. CONCLUSION: Oral azacitidine maintenance had a generally favorable safety profile. Prophylaxis with antiemetic agents, and blood count monitoring every other week, are recommended for at least the first 2 oral azacitidine treatment cycles, and as needed thereafter. Awareness of the type, onset, and duration of common AEs, and implementation of effective AE management, may maximize treatment adherence and optimize the survival benefits of oral azacitidine AML remission maintenance therapy. Trial registration This trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01757535 as of December 2012.

Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of CC-486 (Oral Azacitidine) in Patients With Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

PURPOSE: Treatment options are limited for patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS). This phase III, placebo-controlled trial evaluated CC-486 (oral azacitidine), a hypomethylating agent, in patients with International Prognostic Scoring System LR-MDS and RBC transfusion-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to CC-486 300-mg or placebo for 21 days/28-day cycle. The primary end point was RBC transfusion independence (TI). RESULTS: Two hundred sixteen patients received CC-486 (n = 107) or placebo (n = 109). The median age was 74 years, median platelet count was 25 × 109/L, and absolute neutrophil count was 1.3 × 109/L. In the CC-486 and placebo arms, 31% and 11% of patients, respectively, achieved RBC-TI (P = .0002), with median durations of 11.1 and 5.0 months. Reductions of ≥ 4 RBC units were attained by 42.1% and 30.6% of patients, respectively, with median durations of 10.0 and 2.3 months, and more CC-486 patients had ≥ 1.5 g/dL hemoglobin increases from baseline (23.4% v 4.6%). Platelet hematologic improvement rate was higher with CC-486 (24.3% v 6.5%). Underpowered interim overall survival analysis showed no difference between CC-486 and placebo (median, 17.3 v 16.2 months; P = .96). Low-grade GI events were the most common adverse events in both arms. In the CC-486 and placebo arms, 90% and 73% of patients experienced a grade 3-4 adverse event. Overall death rate was similar between arms, but there was an imbalance in deaths during the first 56 days (CC-486, n = 16; placebo, n = 6), most related to infections; the median pretreatment absolute neutrophil count for the 16 CC-486 patients was 0.57 × 109/L. CONCLUSION: CC-486 significantly improved RBC-TI rate and induced durable bilineage improvements in patients with LR-MDS and high-risk disease features. More early deaths occurred in the CC-486 arm, most related to infections in patients with significant pretreatment neutropenia. Further evaluation of CC-486 in MDS is needed.

Role of gemcitabine in metastatic breast cancer patients: a short review.

Many active cytotoxic drugs, given according to a number of different regimens are approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients. However, these therapies have not changed the outcome of patients affected by this malignancy. As a consequence, the balance between chemotherapy-induced side effects and relief of cancer-related symptoms must be carefully considered in this setting. Gemcitabine is an antimetabolite that is incorporated as a triphosphate into DNA. As a single agent, it yields responses rates ranging from 14% to 37% in chemotherapy-naïve patients and from 12% to 30% in patients previously treated with anthracyclines and/or taxanes. In combination with paclitaxel, it produces a significantly higher response rate (41.4% vs. 26.2%), longer time to progression (6.1 vs. 4 months) and significantly higher overall survival (18.6 vs. 15.8 months) than paclitaxel alone. In addition, a phase III study revealed that gemcitabine plus docetaxel is as effective as capecitabine plus docetaxel, but causes significantly less non-haematologic toxicity. Lastly, in another phase III trial, progression free survival was significantly longer with the combination of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine than with vinorelbine alone (6 vs. 4 months), but without a significant difference in overall survival; the incidence of haematologic toxicity was higher in the group treated with combined therapy. Novel gemcitabine combinations are being investigated in phase II studies.

Could exemestane affect insulin-like growth factors, interleukin 6 and bone metabolism in postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients after failure on aminoglutethimide, anastrozole or letrozole?

Postmenopausal hormone-sensitive breast cancer is currently treated with either antioestrogens or aromatase inhibitors (AIs), due to the clinical efficacy and safety of these drugs. Today's challenge is the sequential use of AIs with different structure and no cross-resistance to improve the therapeutic outcome. The present study describes the biological action of the steroidal structure (SS)-AI exemestane (EXE), in patients progressing on aminoglutethimide (AG) or other non-steroidal structure (NSS)-AIs (letrozole or anastrozole). Thirteen patients were evaluated for serum insulin-like growth factor (IGF) components [total IGF-1, IGF-2 and IGF binding protein (IGFBP)-3], interleukin (IL)-6 system [IL-6 and soluble IL-6 receptor (sIL-6-R)] and bone metabolism markers [bone gla protein/osteocalcin (BGP), bone-specific isoform of alkaline phosphatase (BAP) and carboxy-telopeptide of type I procollagen (ICTP)]. IGF system components show a trend to increase both in patients progressing on AG and in patients progressing on other NSS-AIs. Such an increase depends on the wash-out length from the previous treatment and is strictly linked to the circulating oestrogen levels. Serum IL-6 and sIL-6-R are mainly related to the patients' clinical outcome. Bone formation (BGP and BAP) and bone resorption (ICTP) markers seem to be at equilibrium with oestrogen levels when starting EXE and do not appear to be uncoupled over treatment. The observed variations seem to be mainly linked to the circulating oestrogen levels rather than directly to the way of action of the AI employed.

Bone turnover markers and insulin-like growth factor components in metastatic breast cancer: results from a randomised trial of exemestane vs megestrol acetate.

The aim of this randomised study was to compare the effects of progestins and aromatase inactivators on bone remodelling markers and the components of insulin-like growth factor in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Within the framework of a large (769 patients), randomised double-blind clinical trial comparing exemestane (EXE) with megestrol acetate (MA), serum 17 beta-estradiol (E2), estrone (E1), estrone sulphate (E1S), bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (ICTP) and the components of insulin-like growth factor (IGF) family (IGF-1, IGF-2 and IGFBP-3) were determined in 53 patients (24 randomised to EXE and 29 ramdomised to MA). After eight weeks of treatment, both ICTP and BAP increased (p < 0.01) in the EXE group, but only ICTP in the MA group (p < 0.03). The 8-week suppression of E2 and E1S was more pronounced in the EXE group (to, respectively, 11.2% and 9.9% of baseline values) than in the MA group (33.1% and 29.7%). IGF-1 increased (p < 0.01) in both groups, but more so in the patients treated with MA. Estrogen levels negatively correlated with ICTP in both groups, but were not related to BAP in either. IGF-1 negatively correlated with estrogens in both groups. The results of this study indicate that anti-aromatase therapy is associated with increased osteoclast activity, and suggest the existence of possible differential effects of different hormonal therapies on bone remodelling markers regardless of the estrogen suppression induced by EXE.

The estrogen suppression after sequential treatment with formestane in advanced breast cancer patients.

In postmenopausal patients, estrogens have an important role in breast cancer growth and aromatase inhibitors (AI) suppress the aromatase enzyme system which converts androgens into estrogens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on estrogen suppression of formestane 250 mg i.m. fortnightly, given immediately after the failure of a previous treatment with non-steroidal AI. Twenty-two advanced breast cancer patients progressing on letrozole, anastrozole and aminoglutethimide entered the study. At the beginning of the study, the serum estrogen levels were suppressed by the previous treatment with non-steroidal AI, and the following treatment with formestane moderately maintained this suppression; in four patients serum estrogen levels increased fivefold after 10 weeks. Neither complete nor partial responses were observed; 11 patients (50%) showed a stable disease lasting > or = 6 months, and the median time to progression was 6 months (range 3-9 months). No correlation was observed between clinical responses and serum estrogen suppression. Tolerability was satisfactory, and no patient withdrew from the study due to adverse events. In conclusion, formestane has demonstrated a moderate activity in estrogen suppression, and there is evidence that, at the failure of a previous treatment with non-steroidal AI, the sequential use of steroidal AI is feasible. This approach can be used in clinical practice in order to offer a disease control with a satisfactory quality of life.