Somatic gene mutation patterns and burden influence outcomes with enasidenib in relapsed/refractory IDH2-mutated AML.

Limited treatment options are available for patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML). We recently reported results from the phase 3 IDHENTIFY trial (NCT02577406) showing improved response rates and event-free survival with enasidenib monotherapy compared with conventional care regimens (CCR) in heavily pretreated, older patients with late-stage R/R AML bearing IDH2 mutations. Here we investigated the prognostic impact of mutational burden and different co-mutation patterns at study entry within the predominant IDH2 variant subclasses, IDH2-R140 and IDH2-R172. The prognostic relevance of these variants is well documented in newly diagnosed AML, but data are lacking in R/R AML. In this large R/R AML patient cohort, targeted next-generation sequencing at baseline (screening) revealed distinct co-mutation patterns and mutational burden between subgroups bearing different IDH2 variants: variant IDH2-R140 was associated with greater mutational burden and was enriched predominantly with poor-risk mutations, including FLT3, RUNX1, and NRAS, while variant IDH2-R172 was associated with lower mutational burden and was preferentially co-mutated with DNMT3A. In multivariable analyses, RAS and RTK pathway mutations were significantly associated with decreased overall survival, after adjusting for treatment arm, IDH2 variant, and mutational burden. Importantly, enasidenib-mediated survival benefit was more pronounced in patients with IDH2-R172 variants.

Differentiation syndrome associated with treatment with IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib: pooled analysis from clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: Treatment with enasidenib, a selective mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase isoform 2 (IDH2) inhibitor, has been associated with the development of differentiation syndrome (DS) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Studies on the incidence and clinical features of DS are limited in this setting, and diagnosis is challenging because of nonspecific symptoms. This study assessed the incidence, diagnostic criteria, risk factors, and correlation with clinical response of DS based on the pooled analysis of 4 clinical trials in patients with IDH2-mutated AML treated with enasidenib as monotherapy, or in combination with azacitidine or with chemotherapy. Across the total AML population, 67 of 643 (10.4%) had ≥1 any-grade DS event, with highest incidence in patients who received enasidenib plus azacitidine and lowest incidence in patients who received enasidenib plus chemotherapy (13/74 [17.6%] and 2/93 [2.2%]). The most common symptoms of DS were dyspnea/hypoxia (80.6%) and pulmonary infiltrate (73.1%). Median time to onset of first DS event across all studies was 32 days (range, 4-129). Most patients (88.1%) received systemic steroids for treatment of DS. Evaluation of baseline risk factors for DS identified higher levels of bone marrow blasts and lactate dehydrogenase as independent factors associated with increased grade 3 to 5 DS risk. Overall, these results suggest that DS associated with IDH inhibition is manageable, given the benefits of enasidenib treatment in IDH2-mutated AML. We further characterized enasidenib-related DS in these patients and identified risk factors, which could be used for DS management in clinical practice. These trials were registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as # NCT01915498, NCT02577406, NCT02677922, and NCT02632708.

Survival outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia who received subsequent therapy for relapse in QUAZAR AML-001.

In the phase 3 QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535) of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) in remission following intensive chemotherapy (IC) and ineligible for haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) maintenance significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) versus placebo. The impact of subsequent treatment following maintenance has not been evaluated. In this post hoc analysis, OS was estimated for patients who received subsequent AML therapy, and by regimen received (IC or lower-intensity therapy). First subsequent therapy (FST) was administered after treatment discontinuation in 134/238 Oral-AZA and 173/234 placebo patients. OS from randomization in patients who received FST after Oral-AZA versus placebo was 17.8 versus 12.9 months (HR: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.64-1.04], median follow-up: 56.7 months); OS from FST was similar between arms. Among patients who received injectable hypomethylating agents as FST, median OS was 8.2 versus 4.9 months in the Oral-AZA versus placebo groups (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.41-1.06]). Forty-eight patients (16/238 Oral-AZA, 32/234 placebo) received HSCT following treatment discontinuation, including six Oral-AZA patients still in first remission; Oral-AZA OS benefit persisted when censoring these patients. Oral-AZA maintenance can prolong AML remission duration without negatively impacting survival outcomes after salvage therapies.

Efficacy and safety of luspatercept versus epoetin alfa in erythropoiesis-stimulating agent-naive, transfusion-dependent, lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (COMMANDS): interim analysis of a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are the standard-of-care treatment for anaemia in most patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes but responses are limited and transient. Luspatercept promotes late-stage erythroid maturation and has shown durable clinical efficacy in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. In this study, we report the results of a prespecified interim analysis of luspatercept versus epoetin alfa for the treatment of anaemia due to lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes in the phase 3 COMMANDS trial. METHODS: The phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled COMMANDS trial is being conducted at 142 sites in 26 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes of very low risk, low risk, or intermediate risk (per the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System), were ESA-naive, and required red blood cell transfusions (2-6 packed red blood cell units per 8 weeks for ≥8 weeks immediately before randomisation). Integrated response technology was used to randomly assign patients (1:1, block size 4) to luspatercept or epoetin alfa, stratified by baseline red blood cell transfusion burden (<4 units per 8 weeks vs ≥4 units per 8 weeks), endogenous serum erythropoietin concentration (≤200 U/L vs >200 to <500 U/L), and ring sideroblast status (positive vs negative). Luspatercept was administered subcutaneously once every 3 weeks starting at 1·0 mg/kg body weight with possible titration up to 1·75 mg/kg. Epoetin alfa was administered subcutaneously once a week starting at 450 IU/kg body weight with possible titration up to 1050 IU/kg (maximum permitted total dose of 80 000 IU). The primary endpoint was red blood cell transfusion independence for at least 12 weeks with a concurrent mean haemoglobin increase of at least 1·5 g/dL (weeks 1-24), assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The COMMANDS trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03682536 (active, not recruiting). FINDINGS: Between Jan 2, 2019 and Aug 31, 2022, 356 patients were randomly assigned to receive luspatercept (178 patients) or epoetin alfa (178 patients), comprising 198 (56%) men and 158 (44%) women (median age 74 years [IQR 69-80]). The interim efficacy analysis was done for 301 patients (147 in the luspatercept group and 154 in the epoetin alfa group) who completed 24 weeks of treatment or discontinued earlier. 86 (59%) of 147 patients in the luspatercept group and 48 (31%) of 154 patients in the epoetin alfa group reached the primary endpoint (common risk difference on response rate 26·6; 95% CI 15·8-37·4; p<0·0001). Median treatment exposure was longer for patients receiving luspatercept (42 weeks [IQR 20-73]) versus epoetin alfa (27 weeks [19-55]). The most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events with luspatercept (≥3% patients) were hypertension, anaemia, dyspnoea, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, pneumonia, COVID-19, myelodysplastic syndromes, and syncope; and with epoetin alfa were anaemia, pneumonia, neutropenia, hypertension, iron overload, COVID-19 pneumonia, and myelodysplastic syndromes. The most common suspected treatment-related adverse events in the luspatercept group (≥3% patients, with the most common event occurring in 5% patients) were fatigue, asthenia, nausea, dyspnoea, hypertension, and headache; and none (≥3% patients) in the epoetin alfa group. One death after diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia was considered to be related to luspatercept treatment (44 days on treatment). INTERPRETATION: In this interim analysis, luspatercept improved the rate at which red blood cell transfusion independence and increased haemoglobin were achieved compared with epoetin alfa in ESA-naive patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Long-term follow-up and additional data will be needed to confirm these results and further refine findings in other subgroups of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, including non-mutated SF3B1 or ring sideroblast-negative subgroups. FUNDING: Celgene and Acceleron Pharma.

Oral azacitidine modulates the bone marrow microenvironment in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia in remission: A subanalysis from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial.

Oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) maintenance therapy improved relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) significantly versus placebo for AML patients in remission after intensive chemotherapy (IC) in the phase 3 QUAZAR AML-001 study. Immune profiling was performed on the bone marrow (BM) at remission and on-treatment in a subset of patients with the aim of identifying prognostic immune features and evaluating associations of on-treatment immune effects by Oral-AZA with clinical outcomes. Post-IC, increased levels of lymphocytes, monocytes, T cells and CD34 + CD117+ BM cells were prognostically favourable for RFS. CD3+ T-cell counts were significantly prognostic for RFS in both treatment arms. At baseline, high expression of the PD-L1 checkpoint marker was identified on a subset of CD34 + CD117+ BM cells; many of which were PD-L2+. High co-expression of T-cell exhaustion markers PD-1 and TIM-3 was associated with inferior outcomes. Oral-AZA augmented T-cell numbers during early treatment, increased CD4+:CD8+ ratios and reversed T-cell exhaustion. Unsupervised clustering analysis identified two patient subsets defined by T-cell content and expression of T-cell exhaustion markers that were enriched for MRD negativity. These results indicate that Oral-AZA modulates T-cell activity in the maintenance setting of AML, and these immune-mediated responses are associated with clinical outcomes.

Venetoclax plus azacitidine compared with intensive chemotherapy as induction for patients with acute myeloid leukemia: retrospective analysis of an electronic medical record database in the United States.

Intensive chemotherapy (IC) is commonly used to achieve remission in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Venetoclax plus azacitidine (VEN-AZA) is FDA-approved to treat patients with AML aged ≥ 75 years or who are ineligible for IC. This retrospective analysis used de-identified electronic health records from the US-based Flatiron Health database from patients diagnosed 11/21/2018 to 10/31/2021 to compare treatment outcomes with VEN-AZA vs. IC. Patients were 1:1 propensity score-matched ([Formula: see text]). Assessments included rates of complete remission (CR) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). CR and HSCT rates were higher with IC than with VEN-AZA (60.9% vs. 44.2% [P = 0.006] and 18.1% vs. 8.0% [P = 0.012], respectively). Median OS was 17.7 months in patients treated with IC and 11.3 months with VEN-AZA without censoring (P = 0.278) and 13.7 vs. 10.6 months, respectively, with censoring at HSCT (P = 0.584). Median RFS was 12.0 months in patients treated with IC vs. 9.5 months with VEN-AZA without censoring (P = 0.431) and 6.4 vs. 7.4 months, respectively, with censoring at HSCT (P = 0.444). No OS or RFS differences observed between the two arms reached statistical significance. Randomized controlled trials comparing the two approaches are warranted, as are novel approaches to reduce relapse rates following CR.

Olutasidenib alone or with azacitidine in IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndrome: phase 1 results of a phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olutasidenib (FT-2102) is a potent, selective, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1). The aims for phase 1 of this phase 1/2 study were to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of olutasidenib, as monotherapy or in combination with azacitidine, in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome, harbouring mutant IDH1. METHODS: In this phase 1/2, multicentre, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia or intermediate, high, or very high risk myelodysplastic syndrome harbouring mutant IDH1 at 18 study sites in the USA, Australia, France, and Spain. Other key eligibility criteria included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 with adequate liver and renal function. The primary outcomes were dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose, maximum evaluated dose, and the recommended phase 2 dose of olutasidenib. Olutasidenib was administered orally in doses of 150 mg once daily, 150 mg twice per day, and 300 mg once daily. Azacitidine (75 mg/m2) was administered subcutaneously or intravenously daily for 7 days on, 21 days off. The study was ongoing at the data cutoff (Oct 2, 2019) and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02719574. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Aug 8, 2016, and Nov 14, 2018. 78 patients received olutasidenib as monotherapy (n=32) or in combination with azacitidine (n=46). The median follow-up was 8·3 months (IQR 3·1-13·3) for monotherapy and 10·1 months (4·2-15·3) for combination therapy. 16 (50%) of 32 patients in the monotherapy group and 24 (52%) of 46 patients in the combination therapy group were women. Most patients were White (26 [81%] for monotherapy and 31 [67%] for combination therapy). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the dose-escalation cohorts and 150 mg twice per day was declared the recommended phase 2 dose on the basis of safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. The most common (≥20%) grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events with monotherapy were thrombocytopenia (nine [28%] of 32 patients), febrile neutropenia (seven [22%] of 32), and anaemia (seven [22%] of 32); and with combination therapy were thrombocytopenia (19 [41%] of 46), febrile neutropenia (13 [28%] of 46), neutropenia (13 [28%] of 46), and anaemia (nine [20%] of 46). 11 (34%) of 32 patients in the monotherapy group and nine (20%) of 46 patients in the combination therapy group died (most commonly from disease progression [three (9%) of 32 and four (9%) of 46]). No deaths were considered study-drug related. For patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, 41% (95% CI 21-64; nine of 22) receiving monotherapy and 46% (27-67; 12 of 26) receiving combination therapy had an overall response. For treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, 25% (1-81; one of four) receiving monotherapy and 77% (46-95; ten of 13) receiving combination therapy had an overall response. INTERPRETATION: Olutasidenib, with or without azacitidine, was well tolerated and showed meaningful clinical activity in patients with IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukaemia. The results of this phase 1 study provide rationale for the continued evaluation of olutasidenib in multiple patient populations with myeloid malignancies. FUNDING: Forma Therapeutics.

Efficacy and safety of CPX-351 versus 7 + 3 chemotherapy by European LeukemiaNet 2017 risk subgroups in older adults with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML: post hoc analysis of a randomized, phase 3 trial.

CPX-351 (Europe: Vyxeos® liposomal; United States: Vyxeos®) is a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio. In a phase 3 study in older adults with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML, CPX-351 improved the remission frequency, overall survival, and post-transplant survival versus 7 + 3. This post hoc analysis evaluated the final 5-year follow-up outcomes according to the European LeukemiaNet 2017 risk classification. CPX-351-treated patients had a higher remission frequency (adverse risk: 41% vs 26%; intermediate risk: 58% vs 39%) and longer median overall survival (adverse risk: 7.59 vs 5.52 months; intermediate risk: 11.86 vs 7.75 months) and post-transplant survival (adverse risk: 43.14 vs 7.08 months; intermediate risk: not reached vs 13.57 months) versus 7 + 3, with outcomes generally poorer among patients with adverse-risk AML. The safety profile of CPX-351 among patients with adverse-risk or intermediate-risk AML was consistent with that of the overall study population. Early mortality was lower, and hospitalization length of stay per patient-year was shorter with CPX-351 versus 7 + 3 within the adverse-risk and intermediate-risk subgroups. The favorable outcomes observed with CPX-351 in this post hoc analysis are consistent with results for the overall study population and further support the use of CPX-351 in these patients.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01696084.

Co-clinical Modeling of the Activity of the BET Inhibitor Mivebresib (ABBV-075) in AML.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The therapeutic potential of bromodomain and extra-terminal motif (BET) inhibitors in hematological cancers has been well established in preclinical and early-stage clinical trials, although as of yet, no BETtargeting agent has achieved approval. To add insight into potential response to mivebresib (ABBV-075), a broadspectrum BET inhibitor, co-clinical modeling of individual patient biopsies was conducted in the context of a Phase I trial in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Co-clinical modeling involves taking the patient's biopsy and implanting it in mice with limited passage so that it closely retains the original characteristics of the malignancy and allows comparisons of response between animal model and clinical data. Procedures were developed, initially with neonate NOD/Shi-scid-IL2rγnull (NOG) mice and then optimized with juvenile NOG-EXL as host mice, eventually resulting in a robust rate of engraftment (16 out of 26, 62%). RESULTS: Results from the co-clinical AML patient-derived xenograft (PDX) modeling (6 with >60% inhibition of bone marrow blasts) were consistent with the equivalent clinical data from patients receiving mivebresib in monotherapy, and in combination with venetoclax. The modeling system also demonstrated the activity of a novel BD2-selective BET inhibitor (ABBV-744) in the preclinical AML setting. Both agents were also highly effective in inhibiting blast counts in the spleen (10/10 and 5/6 models, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings confirm the validity of the model system in the co-clinical setting, establish highly relevant in vivo models for the discovery of cancer therapy, and indicate the therapeutic value of BET inhibitors for AML and, potentially, myelofibrosis treatment.

A phase 1b study of atezolizumab in combination with guadecitabine for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.

This phase 1 b study evaluated the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of atezolizumab in combination with guadecitabine in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) or first-line acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients received atezolizumab 840 mg (days [D] 8 and 22) and guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 (D1 and D5) over 28-day cycles. Sixteen patients (median age 73.0 years) enrolled (R/R cohort, n = 11; first-line cohort, n = 5). All patients reported at least 1 AE; 15 patients (93.8%) reported grade ≥ 3 AEs, and 15 patients (93.8%) reported SAEs. Fourteen of the 16 patients (87.5%) died during the trial period due to disease progression (8/14) or AEs (6/14), hence the study was terminated early. One patient (from the R/R AML cohort) achieved a response (CR with incomplete platelet recovery) with a DOR of 27.8 months at study termination. Atezolizumab plus guadecitabine had limited clinical activity in AML and an overall unfavorable benefit-risk profile at the investigated dose levels.

In vivo anti-tumor effect of PARP inhibition in IDH1/2 mutant MDS/AML resistant to targeted inhibitors of mutant IDH1/2.

Treatment options for patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are scarce. Recurring mutations, such as mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 and -2 (IDH1/2) are found in subsets of AML and MDS, are therapeutically targeted by mutant enzyme-specific small molecule inhibitors (IDHmi). IDH mutations induce diverse metabolic and epigenetic changes that drive malignant transformation. IDHmi alone are not curative and resistance commonly develops, underscoring the importance of alternate therapeutic options. We were first to report that IDH1/2 mutations induce a homologous recombination (HR) defect, which confers sensitivity to poly (ADP)-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Here, we show that the PARPi olaparib is effective against primary patient-derived IDH1/2-mutant AML/ MDS xeno-grafts (PDXs). Olaparib efficiently reduced overall engraftment and leukemia-initiating cell frequency as evident in serial transplantation assays in IDH1/2-mutant but not -wildtype AML/MDS PDXs. Importantly, we show that olaparib is effective in both IDHmi-naïve and -resistant AML PDXs, critical given the high relapse and refractoriness rates to IDHmi. Our pre-clinical studies provide a strong rationale for the translation of PARP inhibition to patients with IDH1/2-mutant AML/ MDS, providing an additional line of therapy for patients who do not respond to or relapse after targeted mutant IDH inhibition.

Azacitidine maintenance in AML post induction and posttransplant.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Disease relapse remains the most common cause of death among patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) following induction therapy and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT). Prolonging the duration of remission with minimal nonrelapse mortality risk is an area of unmet need for AML patients. RECENT FINDINGS: In QUAZAR AML-001 study, the oral azacitidine analogue CC-486 demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit when given as postremission therapy (PRT) for patients in CR1 that were ineligible to proceed to allo-HCT. Used as maintenance post allo-HCT, CC-486 has also shown safety with encouraging disease-free survival (DFS). Although a recent randomized trial of parenteral azacitidine vs. placebo post allo-HCT failed to show relapse reduction, a subsequent meta-analysis of maintenance studies posttransplant has shown good utility with this approach. Such conflicting results emphasize the need for robust study designs to identify subsets of patients that derive maximal benefits using latest tools to risk stratify relapse risk. SUMMARY: PRT with hypomethylating agents is feasible and in select population, there is a survival advantage with CC-486. Better understanding of distinct epigenetic and immunomodulatory properties of azacitidine, holds significant promise to synergize pharmacologic and cellular drivers of disease control as PRT in future AML trials.

Comprehensive Clinicopathologic and Molecular Analysis of Mast Cell Leukemia With Associated Hematologic Neoplasm: A Report and In-Depth Study of 5 Cases.

Mast cell leukemia with associated hematologic neoplasm (MCL-AHN) is a rare and highly aggressive entity that remains understudied due to the paucity of cases. We present a case of a 45-year-old man who was concurrently diagnosed with mast cell leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia. We identified four additional patients who had MCL-AHN in our institution and performed whole-exome sequencing of all available tumors. Our series revealed a novel and identical NR2F6 variant shared among two of the patients. This case series and sequencing results demonstrate the importance of fully characterizing rare tumors that are resistant to treatment.

Venetoclax-based combinations in AML and high-risk MDS prior to and following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant.

The role of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) as consolidation after initial venetoclax therapy and the efficacy of venetoclax salvage therapy for relapse after allo-HCT in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are unclear. We conducted a retrospective study of patients with AML or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who received venetoclax either before or after allo-HCT at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Yale University from 11 August 2016 to 16 November 2020. Among 39 heavily pretreated patients who received venetoclax before allo-HCT, median OS from allo-HCT was not reached after a median follow up of 12.5 months resulting in a 12-month OS estimate of 79.0%. In 37 patients who had received venetoclax-based combinations as salvage therapy after allo-HCT, the overall response rate was 32% with a median OS of 4.7 months (12-month OS estimate: 43.4%). Four patients underwent a second allo-HCT following venetoclax-based salvage therapy suggesting it as a potential salvage treatment option.

Current challenges and unmet medical needs in myelodysplastic syndromes.

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) represent a heterogeneous group of myeloid neoplasms that are characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis, variable cytopenias, and a risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia. Most patients with MDS are affected by anemia and anemia-related symptoms, which negatively impact their quality of life. While many patients with MDS have lower-risk disease and are managed by existing treatments, there currently is no clear standard of care for many patients. For patients with higher-risk disease, the treatment priority is changing the natural history of the disease by delaying disease progression to acute myeloid leukemia and improving overall survival. However, existing treatments for MDS are generally not curative and many patients experience relapse or resistance to first-line treatment. Thus, there remains an unmet need for new, more effective but tolerable strategies to manage MDS. Recent advances in molecular diagnostics have improved our understanding of the pathogenesis of MDS, and it is becoming clear that the diverse nature of genetic abnormalities that drive MDS demands a complex and personalized treatment approach. This review will discuss some of the challenges related to the current MDS treatment landscape, as well as new approaches currently in development.

A phase 1 study of the pan-bromodomain and extraterminal inhibitor mivebresib (ABBV-075) alone or in combination with venetoclax in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogenous malignancy driven by genetic and epigenetic factors. Inhibition of bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) proteins, epigenetic readers that play pivotal roles in the regulation of genes relevant to cancer pathogenesis, constitutes a novel AML treatment approach. METHODS: In this first-in-human study of the pan-BET inhibitor mivebresib as monotherapy (MIV-mono) or in combination with venetoclax (MIV-Ven), the safety profile, efficacy, and pharmacodynamics of mivebresib were determined in patients with relapsed/refractory AML (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02391480). Mivebresib was administered at 3 monotherapy dose levels (1.5, 2.0, or 2.5 mg) or in combination with venetoclax (400 or 800 mg). RESULTS: Forty-four patients started treatment: of 19 who started MIV-mono, 5 went on to receive MIV-Ven combination therapy after disease progression and a washout period. Twenty-five patients started MIV-Ven, resulting in a total of 30 patients treated with the combination. The most common mivebresib-related treatment-emergent adverse events were dysgeusia (74%), decreased appetite (42%), and diarrhea (42%) in the MIV-mono group and decreased appetite (44%), vomiting (44%), and nausea (40%) in the MIV-Ven group. Serious adverse events occurred in 14 patients (74%) who received MIV-mono and in 22 patients (88%) who received MIV-Ven. In the MIV-mono group, responses were complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery in 1 patient and resistant disease in 15 patients. In the MIV-Ven group, responses were complete remission in 2 patients, partial remission in 2 patients, morphologic leukemia-free state in 2 patients, resistant disease in 12 patients, and aplasia in 1 patient. The pharmacodynamic effects of mivebresib were proportional to dose and drug exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Mivebresib was tolerated and showed antileukemic effects as monotherapy and in combination with venetoclax in patients with relapsed/refractory AML. LAY SUMMARY: Mivebresib is a novel drug that influences the way cancer cells read genetic information. Mivebresib was tested together with venetoclax in patients with acute myeloid leukemia after standard medicines failed and the disease returned, or when standard medicine was unavailable. Adverse effects were described for different drug doses, and the dose that is tolerable was determined. In some patients, their leukemia improved for some time. More studies are necessary to determine whether mivebresib can be used to treat acute myeloid leukemia.