Ponatinib vs Imatinib in Frontline Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), disease progression due to acquired resistance to first- or second-generation BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors is common. Ponatinib inhibits BCR::ABL1 and all single-mutation variants, including T315I. Objective: To compare frontline ponatinib vs imatinib in adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. Design, Setting, and Participants: Global registrational, phase 3, open-label trial in adults aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. From January 2019 to May 2022, eligible patients at 77 sites were randomized 2:1 to ponatinib (30 mg/d) or imatinib (600 mg/d) with reduced-intensity chemotherapy, followed by single-agent ponatinib or imatinib after the cycle 20 phase of the trial. The last date of follow-up for this analysis was August 12, 2022. Intervention: Patients received ponatinib, 30 mg/d, or imatinib, 600 mg/d, with reduced-intensity chemotherapy, followed by single-agent ponatinib or imatinib after cycle 20. The ponatinib dose was reduced to 15 mg on achievement of minimal residual disease-(MRD) negative complete remission. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point of this interim analysis was MRD-negative complete remission (≤0.01% BCR::ABL1 [MR4] centrally assessed by reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction), with complete remission maintained for at least 4 weeks at the end of cycle 3. The key secondary end point was event-free survival. Results: Of 245 patients randomized (median age, 54 years; 133 [54.3%] female), 232 (ponatinib, n = 154; imatinib, n = 78) who had p190 or p210 dominant isoforms verified by the central laboratory were analyzed for the primary end point. The MRD-negative complete remission rate (primary end point) was significantly higher with ponatinib (34.4% [53/154]) vs imatinib (16.7% [13/78]) (risk difference, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.06-0.29]; P = .002). At the data cutoff, event-free survival had not met the prespecified number of events. Median event-free survival was not reached in the ponatinib group and was 29 months in the imatinib group. The most common adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Arterial occlusive events were infrequent and comparable between groups (ponatinib, 2.5%; imatinib, 1.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: Ponatinib demonstrated a superior rate of MRD-negative complete remission at the end of induction vs imatinib when combined with reduced-intensity chemotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. The safety profile of ponatinib was comparable with imatinib. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03589326.

Dose modification dynamics of ponatinib in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) from the PACE and OPTIC trials.

Ponatinib, the only approved all known-BCR::ABL1 inhibitor, is a third-generation tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) designed to inhibit BCR::ABL1 with or without any single resistance mutation, including T315I, and induced robust and durable responses at 45 mg/day in patients with CP-CML resistant to second-generation TKIs in the PACE trial. However, cardiovascular toxicities, including arterial occlusive events (AOEs), have emerged as treatment-related AEs within this class of TKIs. The OPTIC trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ponatinib using a novel, response-based, dose-reduction strategy in patients with CP-CML whose disease is resistant to ≥2 TKIs or who harbor T315I. To assess the dose-response relationship and the effect on the safety of ponatinib, we examined the outcomes of patients with CP-CML enrolled in PACE and OPTIC who received 45 mg/day of ponatinib. A propensity score analysis was used to evaluate AOEs across both trials. Survival rates and median time to achieve ≤1% BCR::ABL1IS in OPTIC were similar or better than in PACE. The outcomes of patients with T315I mutations were robust in both trials. Patients in OPTIC had a lower exposure-adjusted incidence of AOEs compared with those in PACE. This analysis demonstrates that response-based dosing for ponatinib improves treatment tolerance and mitigates cardiovascular risk.

Ixazomib Versus Placebo as Postinduction Maintenance Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: An Analysis by Age and Frailty Status of the TOURMALINE-MM4 Study.

BACKGROUND: The TOURMALINE-MM4 trial demonstrated a significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with ixazomib versus placebo as postinduction maintenance in nontransplant, newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, with a manageable and well-tolerated toxicity profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this subgroup analysis, efficacy and safety were assessed by age (< 65, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years) and frailty status (fit, intermediate-fit, and frail). RESULTS: In this analysis, PFS benefit with ixazomib versus placebo was seen across age subgroups, including patients aged < 65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.576; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.299-1.108; P = .095), 65-74 years (HR, 0.615; 95% CI, 0.467-0.810; P < .001), and ≥ 75 years (HR, 0.740; 95% CI, 0.537-1.019; P = .064). PFS benefit was also seen across frailty subgroups, including fit (HR, 0.530; 95% CI, 0.387-0.727; P < .001), intermediate-fit (HR, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.526-1.058; P = .098), and frail (HR, 0.733; 95% CI, 0.481-1.117; P = .147) patients. With ixazomib versus placebo, rates of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 28-44% vs. 10-36%), serious TEAEs (15-29% vs. 3-29%), and discontinuation due to TEAEs (7-19% vs. 5-11%) were higher or similar across age and frailty subgroups, and generally somewhat higher in older age groups and intermediate-fit/frail patients in both arms. Treatment with ixazomib versus placebo did not adversely affect patient-reported quality-of-life scores across age and frailty status subgroups. CONCLUSION: Ixazomib is a feasible and effective maintenance option for prolonging PFS across this heterogeneous patient population.

Response-Based Dosing for Ponatinib: Model-Based Analyses of the Dose-Ranging OPTIC Study.

Optimizing Ponatinib Treatment in CP-CML (OPTIC) was a randomized, phase II dose-optimization trial of ponatinib in chronic phase-chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) resistant to ≥ 2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors or with T315I mutation. Patients were randomized to starting doses of 45-, 30-, or 15-mg ponatinib once daily. Patients receiving 45- or 30-mg reduced to 15-mg upon achievement of ≤ 1% BCR::ABL1IS (≥ molecular response with 2-log reduction (MR2)). The exposure-molecular response relationship was described using a four-state, discrete-time Markov model. Time-to-event models were used to characterize the relationship between exposure and arterial occlusive events (AOEs), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. Increasing systemic exposures were associated with increasing probability of transitioning from no response to ≥ MR1, and from MR1 to ≥ MR1, with odds ratios of 1.63 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-2.73) and 2.05 (95% CI, 1.53-2.89) for a 15-mg dose increase, respectively. Ponatinib exposure was a significant predictor of AOEs (hazard ratio (HR) 2.05, 95% CI, 1.43-2.93, for a 15-mg dose increase). In the exposure-safety models for neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, exposure was a significant predictor of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia (HR 1.31, 95% CI, 1.05-1.64, for a 15-mg dose increase). Model-based simulations predicted a clinically meaningful higher rate of ≥ MR2 response at 12 months for the 45-mg starting dose (40.4%) vs. 30-mg (34%) and 15-mg (25.2%). The exposure-response analyses supported a ponatinib starting dose of 45 mg with reduction to 15 mg at response for patients with CP-CML.

A pooled analysis of outcomes according to cytogenetic abnormalities in patients receiving ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for multiple myeloma.

Some cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM); proteasome inhibitors appear to benefit patients with high-risk CAs. We evaluated 2247 MM patients from the TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2/-MM3/-MM4 trials to assess the PFS benefit of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs placebo-Rd (TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2) or ixazomib vs placebo (TOURMALINE-MM3/-MM4) in specific high-risk CAs. After a pooled median follow-up of 25.6 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for high-risk patients was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.93; median PFS [mPFS] 17.8 vs 13.2 months), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80; mPFS 26.3 vs 17.6 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for expanded high-risk patients was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64-0.87; mPFS 18.1 vs 14.1 months), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85; mPFS 36.1 vs 21.4 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy was 0.68 in patients with t(4;14) (95% CI: 0.48-0.96; mPFS 22.4 vs 13.2 months), and 0.77 for patients with amp1q21 (95% CI: 0.63-0.93; mPFS 18.8 vs 14.5 months). A PFS benefit was demonstrated with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy regardless of cytogenetic status, with greatest benefit observed in patients with t(4;14) and amp1q21.

MRD dynamics during maintenance for improved prognostication of 1280 patients with myeloma in the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 trials.

Measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluation may help to guide treatment duration in multiple myeloma (MM). Paradoxically, limited longitudinal data exist on MRD during maintenance. We investigated the prognostic value of MRD dynamics in 1280 transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients from the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of 2-year ixazomib maintenance. MRD status at randomization showed independent prognostic value (median progression-free survival [PFS], 38.6 vs 15.6 months in MRD- vs MRD+ patients; HR, 0.47). However, MRD dynamics during maintenance provided more detailed risk stratification. A 14-month landmark analysis showed prolonged PFS in patients converting from MRD+ to MRD- status vs those with persistent MRD+ status (76.8% vs 27.6% 2-year PFS rates). Prolonged PFS was observed in patients with sustained MRD- status vs those converting from MRD- to MRD+ status (75.0% vs 34.2% 2-year PFS rates). Similar results were observed at a 28-month landmark analysis. Ixazomib maintenance vs placebo improved PFS in patients who were MRD+ at randomization (median, 18.8 vs 11.6 months; HR, 0.65) or at the 14-month landmark (median, 16.8 vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.65); no difference was observed in patients who were MRD-. This is the largest MM population undergoing yearly MRD evaluation during maintenance reported to date. We demonstrate the limited prognostic value of a single-time point MRD evaluation, because MRD dynamics over time substantially impact PFS risk. These findings support MRD- status as a relevant end point during maintenance and confirm the increased progression risk in patients converting to MRD+ from MRD- status. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02181413 and #NCT02312258.

Oral ixazomib-dexamethasone vs oral pomalidomide-dexamethasone for lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor-exposed multiple myeloma: a randomized Phase 2 trial.

Multiple myeloma (MM) patients typically receive several lines of combination therapy and first-line treatment commonly includes lenalidomide. As patients age, they become less tolerant to treatment, requiring convenient/tolerable/lenalidomide-free options. Carfilzomib and/or bortezomib-exposed/intolerant, lenalidomide-refractory MM patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy were randomized 3:2 to ixazomib-dexamethasone (ixa-dex) (n = 73) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (pom-dex) (n = 49) until progression/toxicity. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7.1 vs 4.8 months with ixa-dex vs pom-dex (HR 0.847, 95% CI 0.535-1.341, P = 0.477; median follow-up: 15.3 vs 17.3 months); there was no statistically significant difference between arms. In patients with 2 and ≥3 prior lines of therapy, respectively, mPFS was 11.0 vs 5.7 months (HR 1.083, 95% CI 0.547-2.144) and 5.7 vs 3.7 months (HR 0.686, 95% CI 0.368-1.279). Among ixa-dex vs pom-dex patients, 69% vs 81% had Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), 51% vs 53% had serious TEAEs, 39% vs 36% had TEAEs leading to drug discontinuation, 44% vs 32% had TEAEs leading to dose reduction, and 13% vs 13% died on study. Quality of life was similar between arms and maintained during treatment. Ixa-dex represents an important lenalidomide-free, oral option for this heavily pretreated, lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor-exposed population.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03170882.

Ixazomib as Postinduction Maintenance for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Not Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation: The Phase III TOURMALINE-MM4 Trial.

PURPOSE: Maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) but has generally been limited to immunomodulatory agents. Other options that complement the induction regimen with favorable toxicity are needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM4 study randomly assigned (3:2) patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT who achieved better than or equal to partial response after 6-12 months of standard induction therapy to receive the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib or placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles as maintenance for 24 months. The primary endpoint was PFS since time of randomization. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive ixazomib (n = 425) or placebo (n = 281). TOURMALINE-MM4 met its primary endpoint with a 34.1% reduction in risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS since randomization, 17.4 v 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.659; 95% CI, 0.542 to 0.801; P < .001; median follow-up, 21.1 months). Ixazomib significantly benefitted patients who achieved complete or very good partial response postinduction (median PFS, 25.6 v 12.9 months; HR, 0.586; P < .001). With ixazomib versus placebo, 36.6% versus 23.2% of patients had grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 12.9% versus 8.0% discontinued treatment because of TEAEs. Common any-grade TEAEs included nausea (26.8% v 8.0%), vomiting (24.2% v 4.3%), and diarrhea (23.2% v 12.3%). There was no increase in new primary malignancies (5.2% v 6.2%); rates of on-study deaths were 2.6% versus 2.2%. CONCLUSION: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS with no unexpected toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT. To our knowledge, this is the first PI demonstrated in a randomized clinical trial to have single-agent efficacy for maintenance and is the first oral PI option in this patient population.

Human immunodeficiency virus infection and chronic myeloid leukemia.

CML (chronic myeloid leukaemia) in association with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection (HIV-CML) is rarely described and is likely to be coincidental. The natural history and behaviour of HIV-CML is different, being more atypical and aggressive. Both conditions, and their respective treatments may cause myelosuppression. Concurrent treatment with cART (combination antiretroviral therapy) and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI's) can result in appropriate control of CML and HIV infection, as well as long term survival. However, drug interactions between ARV's and TKI's may require adjustment of treatment.