Ivosidenib and Azacitidine in IDH1-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: The combination of ivosidenib - an inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) - and azacitidine showed encouraging clinical activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia who were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy to receive oral ivosidenib (500 mg once daily) and subcutaneous or intravenous azacitidine (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area for 7 days in 28-day cycles) or to receive matched placebo and azacitidine. The primary end point was event-free survival, defined as the time from randomization until treatment failure (i.e., the patient did not have complete remission by week 24), relapse from remission, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 146 patients: 72 in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group and 74 in the placebo-and-azacitidine group. At a median follow-up of 12.4 months, event-free survival was significantly longer in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group than in the placebo-and-azacitidine group (hazard ratio for treatment failure, relapse from remission, or death, 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.69; P = 0.002). The estimated probability that a patient would remain event-free at 12 months was 37% in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group and 12% in the placebo-and-azacitidine group. The median overall survival was 24.0 months with ivosidenib and azacitidine and 7.9 months with placebo and azacitidine (hazard ratio for death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.73; P = 0.001). Common adverse events of grade 3 or higher included febrile neutropenia (28% with ivosidenib and azacitidine and 34% with placebo and azacitidine) and neutropenia (27% and 16%, respectively); the incidence of bleeding events of any grade was 41% and 29%, respectively. The incidence of infection of any grade was 28% with ivosidenib and azacitidine and 49% with placebo and azacitidine. Differentiation syndrome of any grade occurred in 14% of the patients receiving ivosidenib and azacitidine and 8% of those receiving placebo and azacitidine. CONCLUSIONS: Ivosidenib and azacitidine showed significant clinical benefit as compared with placebo and azacitidine in this difficult-to-treat population. Febrile neutropenia and infections were less frequent in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group than in the placebo-and-azacitidine group, whereas neutropenia and bleeding were more frequent in the ivosidenib-and-azacitidine group. (Funded by Agios Pharmaceuticals and Servier Pharmaceuticals; AGILE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03173248.).

Enasidenib vs conventional care in older patients with late-stage mutant-IDH2 relapsed/refractory AML: a randomized phase 3 trial.

This open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 (isocitrate dehydrogenase 2) inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCRs) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care) and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg per day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n = 158) or CCR (n = 161). The median age was 71 years, median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3 to 1270), and CCR was 36 days (1 to 1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. The median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio], 0.86; P = .23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median, 4.9 vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR, 0.68; P = .008), TTF (median, 4.9 vs 1.9 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001), ORR (40.5% vs 9.9%; P <.001), HI (42.4% vs 11.2%), and red blood cell (RBC)-TI (31.7% vs 9.3%). Enasidenib safety was consistent with prior reports. The primary study endpoint was not met, but OS was confounded by early dropout and subsequent AML-directed therapies. Enasidenib provided meaningful benefits in EFS, TTF, ORR, HI, and RBC-TI in this heavily pretreated older mutant-IDH2 R/R AML population.

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.

Flow cytometry-based measurable residual disease (MRD) analysis identifies AML patients who may benefit from allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Measurable residual disease (MRD) monitoring independently predicts long-term outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Of the various modalities available, multiparameter flow cytometry-based MRD analysis is widely used and relevant for patients without molecular targets. In the transplant (HCT) setting, the presence of MRD pre-HCT is associated with adverse outcomes. MRD-negative remission status pre-HCT was also associated with longer overall (OS) and progression-free survival and a lower risk of relapse. We hypothesize that the combination of disease risk and MRD at the time of first complete remission (CR1) could identify patients according to the benefit gained from HCT, especially for intermediate-risk patients. We performed a retrospective analysis comparing the outcomes of HCT versus non-HCT therapies based on MRD status in AML patients who achieved CR1. Time-dependent analysis was applied considering time-to-HCT as a time-dependent covariate and compared HCT versus non-HCT outcomes according to MRD status at CR1. Among 336 patients assessed at CR1, 35.1% were MRD positive (MRDpos) post-induction. MRDpos patients benefitted from HCT with improved OS and relapse-free survival (RFS), while no benefit was observed in MRDneg patients. In adverse-risk patients, HCT improved OS (HR for OS 0.55; p = 0.05). In intermediate-risk patients, HCT benefit was not significant for OS and RFS. Intermediate-risk MRDpos patients were found to have benefit from HCT with improved OS (HR 0.45, p = 0.04), RFS (HR 0.46, p = 0.02), and CIR (HR 0.41, p = 0.02). Our data underscore the benefit of HCT in adverse risk and MRDpos intermediate-risk AML patients.

Evaluating the economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia in Canada.

Background Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represents a significant burden for patients and their families, and to the healthcare system. This study estimated the total cost of illness associated with newly diagnosed AML patients in Canada. Methods The economic burden of AML was estimated using an incidence-based model, analyzing different types of AML cases in Canada. Direct and indirect costs were calculated using scientific literature and Canadian clinical experts' inputs. Patients were categorized depending on their eligibility for intensive chemotherapy (fit and unfit patients) as well as according to age and cytogenetic markers. Results The total average cost of AML per patient is estimated to be $178,073 with a cost of $210,983 and $145,163 for fit and unfit patients, respectively. The costs related to treatment represent half of the total average cost (52%), followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplant (23%), best supportive care (16%), productivity loss (6%) and wastage (4%) Conclusions For patients with AML, the costs associated with fit patients are higher than unfit patients. Hospitalization and best supportive care costs are key cost drivers for the total costs of fit and unfit patients, respectively. This study highlights that AML is associated with a significant economic burden in Canada.

Mutational profile, outcomes, and impact of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia and inconclusive cytogenetic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inconclusive cytogenetic analysis (IC) at baseline has been reported as a predictor of poor prognosis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The mutational profile in this group of patients, and its impact on outcomes have not been reported. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed adult patients (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed AML treated with intensive induction chemotherapy between 2015 and 2019. Patients with any documented cytogenetic abnormalities were excluded. Targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) was performed in all patients. Baseline characteristics, mutation profile, and outcomes were compared between patients with normal cytogenetics(NC) and those with IC. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (males 39.3%; median age 59 years) had IC at diagnosis. The proportion of patients with mutations in genes with proven prognostic impact were not different between AML patients with IC and NC. AML patients with NC were more likely to harbor the prognostically favorable NPM1mut /FLT3-ITDwt mutational combination conferring "favorable" risk status. As a result, a larger proportion of patients in the IC group underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo HCT; 54.1% vs. 39.6%; p = .02). The 2-year RFS (55.9% vs. 58.5%; p = .29) and OS (61.9% vs. 66.9%; p = .48) were similar in IC and NC patients. There was no difference in survival of patients who underwent allo HCT when compared with patients who did not (p = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Inconclusive cytogenetic analysis may not be an independent prognostic indicator in AML. In such patients, molecular abnormalities detected through NGS or whole genome sequencing are more likely to be informative.

Comparative Efficacy of Venetoclax-Based Combination Therapies and Other Therapies in Treatment-Naive Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of venetoclax (VEN) + azacitidine (AZA) and VEN + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) compared with AZA, LDAC, and decitabine monotherapies and best supportive care (BSC) in adults with untreated acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review and feasibility assessment was conducted to select phase III randomized controlled trials for inclusion in the NMA. Complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery and overall survival (OS) were compared using a Bayesian fixed-effects NMA. Treatments were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) with higher values indicating a higher likelihood of being effective. RESULTS: A total of 1140 patients across 5 trials were included. VEN + LDAC (SUCRA 91.4%) and VEN + AZA (87.5%) were the highest ranked treatments for complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery. VEN + LDAC was associated significantly higher response rates versus AZA (odds ratio 5.64), LDAC (6.39), and BSC (23.28). VEN + AZA was also associated significantly higher response rates than AZA (5.06), LDAC (5.74), and BSC (20.68). In terms of OS, VEN + AZA (SUCRA: 95.2%) and VEN + LDAC (75.9%) were the highest ranked treatments. VEN + AZA was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with AZA (hazard ratio 0.66), LDAC (0.57), and BSC (0.37), and VEN + LDAC was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with LDAC (0.70) and BSC (0.46). CONCLUSIONS: VEN + AZA and VEN + LDAC demonstrated improved efficacy compared with alternative therapies among treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Impact of Geographical Distance from Quaternary Treatment Center on Clinical Trial Participation, Intensive Induction Chemotherapy, and Outcomes in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: Care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is centralized in the Ontario single-payer public healthcare system, with intensive induction chemotherapy and clinical trials only offered at specialized cancer centers with large catchment areas. METHODS: We therefore conducted a retrospective single-center review of all AML patients assessed at a large specialized cancer center in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2017, 1,310 patients were assessed by our center for upfront AML therapy. The median distance was 33.1 km, with 29% of patients living more than 50 km away from the center. There was no significant difference in probability of intensive induction chemotherapy or clinical trial by distance from center, both in univariate and multivariable analysis adjusting for age, sex, cytogenetics and molecular testing, and performance status. There was no significant difference in overall survival by distance from center on univariate and multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, geographic distance from treatment center does not appear to impact choice of upfront therapy, participation in clinical trials, or clinical outcomes in this study of newly diagnosed patients with AML treated in a single-payer environment.

A 17-gene stemness score for rapid determination of risk in acute leukaemia.

Refractoriness to induction chemotherapy and relapse after achievement of remission are the main obstacles to cure in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). After standard induction chemotherapy, patients are assigned to different post-remission strategies on the basis of cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities that broadly define adverse, intermediate and favourable risk categories. However, some patients do not respond to induction therapy and another subset will eventually relapse despite the lack of adverse risk factors. There is an urgent need for better biomarkers to identify these high-risk patients before starting induction chemotherapy, to enable testing of alternative induction strategies in clinical trials. The high rate of relapse in AML has been attributed to the persistence of leukaemia stem cells (LSCs), which possess a number of stem cell properties, including quiescence, that are linked to therapy resistance. Here, to develop predictive and/or prognostic biomarkers related to stemness, we generated a list of genes that are differentially expressed between 138 LSC+ and 89 LSC- cell fractions from 78 AML patients validated by xenotransplantation. To extract the core transcriptional components of stemness relevant to clinical outcomes, we performed sparse regression analysis of LSC gene expression against survival in a large training cohort, generating a 17-gene LSC score (LSC17). The LSC17 score was highly prognostic in five independent cohorts comprising patients of diverse AML subtypes (n = 908) and contributed greatly to accurate prediction of initial therapy resistance. Patients with high LSC17 scores had poor outcomes with current treatments including allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The LSC17 score provides clinicians with a rapid and powerful tool to identify AML patients who do not benefit from standard therapy and who should be enrolled in trials evaluating novel upfront or post-remission strategies.

Enasidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia (AG221-AML-005): a single-arm, phase 1b and randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Enasidenib is an oral inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 (IDH2) proteins. We evaluated the safety and activity of enasidenib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: This open-label, phase 1b/2 trial was done at 43 clinical sites in 12 countries (the USA, Germany, Canada, the UK, France, Spain, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, and South Korea). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In the phase 1b dose-finding portion, patients received oral enasidenib 100 mg/day or 200 mg/day in continuous 28-day cycles, plus subcutaneous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 per day for 7 days of each cycle. In phase 2, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive web response system to enasidenib plus azacitidine or azacitidine-only, stratified by acute myeloid leukaemia subtype (de novo or secondary). The primary endpoint in the phase 2 portion was the overall response rate in the intention-to-treat population at a prespecified interim analysis (Aug 20, 2019) when all patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02677922, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 3, 2016, and Aug 2, 2018, 322 patients were screened and 107 patients with mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia were enrolled. At data cutoff for the interim analysis, 24 patients (including two from the phase 1 portion) were still receiving their assigned treatment. Six patients were enrolled in the phase 1b dose-finding portion of the trial and received enasidenib 100 mg (n=3) or 200 mg (n=3) in combination with azacitidine. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred and the enasidenib 100 mg dose was selected for phase 2. In phase 2, 101 patients were randomly assigned to enasidenib plus azacitidine (n=68) or azacitidine only (n=33). Median age was 75 years (IQR 71-78). 50 (74%; 95% CI 61-84) patients in the enasidenib plus azacitidine combination group and 12 (36%; 20-55) patients in the azacitidine monotherapy group achieved an overall response (odds ratio 4·9 [95% CI 2·0-11·9]; p=0·0003). Common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with enasidenib plus azacitidine were thrombocytopenia (25 [37%] of 68 vs six [19%] of 32 in the azacitidine-only group), neutropenia (25 [37%] vs eight [25%]), anaemia (13 [19%] vs seven [22%]), and febrile neutropenia (11 [16%] vs five [16%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 29 (43%) patients in the combination group and 14 (44%) patients in the azacitidine-only group; serious treatment-related adverse events occurring in more than 5% of patients in either group were febrile neutropenia (nine [13%] in the combination group vs five [16%] in the azacitidine-only group), differentiation syndrome (seven [10%] vs none), and pneumonia (three [4%] vs two [6%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Combination enasidenib plus azacitidine was well tolerated and significantly improved overall response rates compared with azacitidine monotherapy, suggesting that this regimen can improve outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukaemia. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

3+7 Combined Chemotherapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Is It Time to Say Goodbye?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the recent approval of multiple new drugs for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the relevance of conventional treatment approaches, such as daunorubicin and cytarabine ("3+7") induction chemotherapy, has been challenged. We review the AML risk stratification, the efficacy of the newly approved drugs, and the role of "3+7". RECENT FINDINGS: Treatment of AML is becoming more niched with specific subtypes more appropriately treated with gemtuzumab, midostaurin, and CPX-351. Although lower intensity therapies can yield high response rates, they are less efficient at preventing relapses. The only curative potential for poor-risk AML is still an allogeneic stem cell transplant. The number of AML subtypes where 3+7 alone is an appropriate therapeutic option is shrinking. However, it remains the backbone for combination therapy with newer agents in patients suitable for intensive chemotherapy.

Anticoagulation prophylaxis reduces venous thromboembolism rate in adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia treated with asparaginase-based therapy.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a well-known complication in adults receiving asparaginase (ASNase)-based intensification chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). The optimal preventative strategy is unclear. Our objective is to determine the effects of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as primary VTE prophylaxis. A single-centred retrospective cohort study of adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome negative (Ph-) ALL who received ASNase-based intensification from 2001 to 2017, with prophylaxis given from 2011 to 2017. In all, 214 patients were included in this study with 99 in the historical control group and 125 in the prophylaxis group. The mean (range) enoxaparin dose was 0·79 (0·39-1·2) mg/kg. Of the 125 patients in the prophylaxis group 17 (13·6%) developed VTE during the intensification phase, while 27/99 patients (27·3%) in the control cohort experienced at least one thrombotic event (odds ratio [OR] 0·42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·21-0·83). Overall, the main sites of VTE incidences included deep vein thrombosis in the lower extremity (54·6%), pulmonary embolism (13·6%) and catheter-related thrombosis (22·7%). In addition, we found that after adjusting for age, T-phenotype ALL was associated with VTE development (OR 3·07, 95% CI 1·04-9·08). There was no documented major bleeding in the prophylaxis group. LMWH prophylaxis reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in adult patients with ALL receiving intensification chemotherapy with ASNase.

Blinatumomab versus Chemotherapy for Advanced Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Blinatumomab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody construct that enables CD3-positive T cells to recognize and eliminate CD19-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) blasts, was approved for use in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL on the basis of single-group trials that showed efficacy and manageable toxic effects. METHODS: In this multi-institutional phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults with heavily pretreated B-cell precursor ALL, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive either blinatumomab or standard-of-care chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 405 patients who were randomly assigned to receive blinatumomab (271 patients) or chemotherapy (134 patients), 376 patients received at least one dose. Overall survival was significantly longer in the blinatumomab group than in the chemotherapy group. The median overall survival was 7.7 months in the blinatumomab group and 4.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death with blinatumomab vs. chemotherapy, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.93; P=0.01). Remission rates within 12 weeks after treatment initiation were significantly higher in the blinatumomab group than in the chemotherapy group, both with respect to complete remission with full hematologic recovery (34% vs. 16%, P<0.001) and with respect to complete remission with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery (44% vs. 25%, P<0.001). Treatment with blinatumomab resulted in a higher rate of event-free survival than that with chemotherapy (6-month estimates, 31% vs. 12%; hazard ratio for an event of relapse after achieving a complete remission with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery, or death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.71; P<0.001), as well as a longer median duration of remission (7.3 vs. 4.6 months). A total of 24% of the patients in each treatment group underwent allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 87% of the patients in the blinatumomab group and in 92% of the patients in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with blinatumomab resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor ALL. (Funded by Amgen; TOWER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02013167 .).

Health-related quality of life in adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with blinatumomab.

In the phase 3 TOWER study, blinatumomab significantly improved overall survival in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph-) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) relative to standard-of-care chemotherapy. A secondary objective of this study was to assess the impact of blinatumomab on health-related quality of life (HRQL) as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). This analysis included the 342 of 405 randomized patients for whom baseline and ≥1 postbaseline result were available in any EORTC multi-item scale or single-item measure. In general, patients receiving blinatumomab (n = 247) reported better posttreatment HRQL across all QLQ-C30 subscales, based on descriptive mean change from baseline, than did those receiving chemotherapy (n = 95). The hazard ratios for time to deterioration (TTD) of ≥10 points from baseline in HRQL or death ranged from 0.42 to 0.81 in favor of blinatumomab, with the upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval <1.0 across all measures, except insomnia, social functioning, and financial difficulties; sensitivity analysis of TTD in HRQL without the event of death were consistent with these findings. When treatment effect over time was tested using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures analysis, P < .05 was reached for blinatumomab vs chemotherapy for all subscale measures except financial difficulties. The clinically meaningful benefits in overall survival and HRQL support the clinical value of blinatumomab in patients with R/R Ph- BCP-ALL when compared with chemotherapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02013167.

Identification of pre-leukaemic haematopoietic stem cells in acute leukaemia.

In acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), the cell of origin, nature and biological consequences of initiating lesions, and order of subsequent mutations remain poorly understood, as AML is typically diagnosed without observation of a pre-leukaemic phase. Here, highly purified haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), progenitor and mature cell fractions from the blood of AML patients were found to contain recurrent DNMT3A mutations (DNMT3A(mut)) at high allele frequency, but without coincident NPM1 mutations (NPM1c) present in AML blasts. DNMT3A(mut)-bearing HSCs showed a multilineage repopulation advantage over non-mutated HSCs in xenografts, establishing their identity as pre-leukaemic HSCs. Pre-leukaemic HSCs were found in remission samples, indicating that they survive chemotherapy. Therefore DNMT3A(mut) arises early in AML evolution, probably in HSCs, leading to a clonally expanded pool of pre-leukaemic HSCs from which AML evolves. Our findings provide a paradigm for the detection and treatment of pre-leukaemic clones before the acquisition of additional genetic lesions engenders greater therapeutic resistance.

Aplastic anaemia in pregnancy - a single centre, North American series.

Aplastic anaemia (AA) is infrequently observed in pregnancy. We describe 19 pregnancies in 9 women at a tertiary care centre over a period of 30 years. Spontaneous resolution of AA did not occur postpartum in the five pregnancies where AA was first diagnosed in pregnancy. In the remaining pregnancies, although haematological indices declined and transfusion support was needed in 35% of pregnancies, relapses were not observed. There were no deaths, but complications occurred in 79% of pregnancies. Preterm delivery and postpartum haemorrhage were observed in 21% and 26% of pregnancies, respectively.

A phase II open-label study of aprepitant as anti-emetic prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing induction chemotherapy.

Despite the widespread use of 5-HT3 antagonists as anti-emetic prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving induction chemotherapy, nausea and vomiting persist in many cases. We performed a Phase II single-arm study evaluating the use of aprepitant on days 1-5, in combination with a 5-HT antagonist on days 1-3, in AML patients undergoing induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin on days 1-3 plus cytarabine, given as a continuous infusion, on days 1-7. This was compared to a retrospective cohort of AML patients that received the same chemotherapy regimen with a 5-HT antagonist but without aprepitant. The cumulative incidence of vomiting/retching by the end of day 5 was significantly lower in the aprepitant vs. the control group (26.3 vs. 52.8%, p = 0.013). The cumulative incidence of nausea by the end of day 5 was 61% in the aprepitant group vs. 75% in the control group. The total use of supplemental anti-emetics on days 2-5 was also significantly lower in the aprepitant group (p = 0.01). In contrast, the cumulative incidence of vomiting/retching by the end of day 8, the incidence of vomiting/retching on days 6-8, and the use of anti-emetics on days 6-8, were not significantly different between the two groups. The results suggest that the use of aprepitant may be associated with a lower rate of emesis during aprepitant dosing days, but not afterward. However, this requires confirmation in a randomized trial.

International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts.

This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated azacitidine efficacy and safety vs conventional care regimens (CCRs) in 488 patients age ≥65 years with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with >30% bone marrow blasts. Before randomization, a CCR (standard induction chemotherapy, low-dose ara-c, or supportive care only) was preselected for each patient. Patients then were assigned 1:1 to azacitidine (n = 241) or CCR (n = 247). Patients assigned to CCR received their preselected treatment. Median overall survival (OS) was increased with azacitidine vs CCR: 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-12.7 months) vs 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.6 months), respectively (hazard ratio [HR] was 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.03; stratified log-rank P = .1009). One-year survival rates with azacitidine and CCR were 46.5% and 34.2%, respectively (difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 3.5%-21.0%). A prespecified analysis censoring patients who received AML treatment after discontinuing study drug showed median OS with azacitidine vs CCR was 12.1 months (95% CI, 9.2-14.2 months) vs 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.1-9.6 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96; stratified log-rank P = .0190). Univariate analysis showed favorable trends for azacitidine compared with CCR across all subgroups defined by baseline demographic and disease features. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profile of azacitidine. Azacitidine may be an important treatment option for this difficult-to-treat AML population. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01074047.