A phase 3b study of venetoclax and azacitidine or decitabine in an outpatient setting in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Venetoclax, a highly selective BCL-2 inhibitor, combined with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine or decitabine, is approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND AML) in patients who are ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy. Previous clinical studies initiated venetoclax plus HMA in an inpatient setting owing to concerns of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). This study (NCT03941964) evaluated the efficacy and safety of venetoclax plus HMA in a United States community-based outpatient setting in patients with ND AML (N = 60) who were treatment naïve for AML, ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy, had no evidence of spontaneous TLS at screening, and were deemed as appropriate candidates for outpatient initiation of venetoclax plus HMA by the investigator. Patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (75 mg/m2) or decitabine (20 mg/m2) for up to 6 cycles during the study. With a median time on study of 18.3 weeks, the best response rate of composite complete remission was 66.7%, and the overall post-baseline red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusion independence rate was 55.0%, consistent with results of studies in which treatment was initiated in an inpatient setting. Key adverse events included nausea, anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and white blood cell count decrease of any grade (≥50% of patients). The observed safety profile was generally consistent with that of venetoclax plus HMA observed in inpatient AML studies. With close monitoring, 2 cases of TLS were identified, appropriately managed, and the patients were able to continue study treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The registration identification number is NCT03941964.

Efficacy and safety of venetoclax-based combination therapy for previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To explore the efficacy and safety of venetoclax-based combination therapy for older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing venetoclax plus hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) with mono-HMAs or LDAC. The random or fixed effects model was applied to the studies based on heterogeneity. Dichotomous data were summarized using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous variable data were reported as weighted mean differences (WMDs). RESULTS: Nine studies, including a total of 1232 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Thec complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete hematological recovery (CRi) rate of the venetoclax (Ven) + azacytidine (Aza) group was significantly greater than that of the Aza monotherapy group (RR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.85-3.15; P < 0.001). Similarly, the CR/CRi rate of the Ven + LDAC group was also significantly greater than that of the LDAC monotherapy group (RR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.58-4.17; P = 0.00). The same results were observed for OS among these groups. However, the incidence of febrile neutropenia was greater in the Ven + Aza group than in the Ven + Decitabine (Dec) or monotherapy Aza group (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.90; P = 0.006 and RR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.58-3.03; P < 0.001, respectively). In addition, the Ven + LDAC group had significantly greater rates of constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting than the LDAC monotherapy group, with RRs and CIs of 0.61 (95% CI 0.44-0.83, P = 0.002), 1.81 (95% CI 1.22-2.67, P = 0.003), 1.39 (95% CI 1.06-1.82, P = 0.016), and 1.80 (95% CI 1.19-2.72, P = 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSION: Venetoclax combined with azacitidine, decitabine, or LDAC significantly improved the CR/CRi and OS of patients with previously untreated AML. However, venetoclax plus azacitidine or LDAC was more likely to lead to increased febrile neutropenia and gastrointestinal toxicity.

The efficacy of the combination of venetoclax and hypomethylating agents versus HAG agents in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the combination of venetoclax and hypomethylating agents with the HAG regimen. METHODS: We studied 52 cases of newly diagnosed AML and 26 cases of relapsed refractory AML, (including AML patients with treatment-related and ELN-adverse risk disease (n = 50)). These patients were treated with venetoclax and hypomethylating agents and HAG regimens, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients newly diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia were treated with VEN-HMA (venetoclax-hypomethylating agent), while 23 patients were treated with HAG. The median age of the VEN-HMA group was 70 years, while the HAG group had a median age of 69 years. The VEN-HMA group achieved a significantly higher rate of complete remission (82.7%) compared to the cohort treated with the HAG regimen (21.7%) (P < 0.001). At the same time, the VEN-HMA group exhibited a significant survival advantage compared to the HAG treatment group(HR = 0.328, 95%CI: 0.158-0.683, P = 0.003).In patients with relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, 43.8% of patients in the VEN-HMA treatment group achieved complete remission, which was similar to the 50% in the HAG treatment group (P > 0.99). The median overall survival was similar between the VEN-HMA and HAG groups, with 4 and 3.67 months, respectively (P = 0.290). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our analyses indicated that VEN-HMA resulted in better therapeutic outcomes compared to HAG for newly diagnosed AML patients, with higher rates of complete remission and overall survival. In relapsed/refractory AML patients, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the two treatments and further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

[The Efficacy and Safety of Venetoclax Combined with Azacitidine in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Who Are Unfit for Intensive Chemotherapy].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical efficacy and safety of venetoclax (VEN) combined with azacitidine (AZA) in the treatment of adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients who are unfit for intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: The clinical data of 21 adult patients with unfit AML who were treated with VEN combined with AZA in the Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University from January 2021 to May 2022 were collected, and the efficacy and safety were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: After one course of treatment with VEN and AZA, 16 out of 21 unfit AML patients reached complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), 2 patients reached partial remission (PR), the overall response rate (ORR) was 85.7%. Among the 16 patients with CR/CRi, 13 achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. Among the 11 patients with adverse prognosis, 8 achieved CR/CRi. By the deadline of follow-up, the median overall suivival (OS) of the entire cohort was not reached, with 1-year OS rate of 61.7%. The main adverse events of VEN combined with AZA were myelosuppression, gastrointestinal reactions and infections. There were 13 cases of leukopenia, 7 cases of neutropenia, 7 cases of anemia, 4 cases of thrombocytopenia, and these hematologic adverse events were all grade 3-4. There were 11 cases with gastrointestinal reactions and 7 cases with infections. The above adverse events were controllable and tolerable. No tumor lysis syndrome or infection related death occurred. CONCLUSION: VEN combined with AZA can quickly achieve deep remission in adult patients with unfit AML, and it shows a good safety profile.

Efficacy of Venetoclax and Azacitidine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Compared to Azacitidine Monotherapy: Real-World Experience.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The combination of venetoclax (VEN) and azacitidine (AZA) (VEN+AZA) leads to higher complete remission rates and longer overall survival (OS) in patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for intensive combination chemotherapy. In practice, the doses of VEN and AZA are reduced at the attending physician's discretion to avoid adverse events; however, the impact of dose and duration reductions has not been fully clarified. We analyzed whether the efficacy was maintained with reduced VEN+AZA compared to AZA monotherapy in the real world. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 33 patients were included; 17 (10 newly diagnosed, 7 primary refractory or relapsed) received VEN+AZA, and 16 (7 newly diagnosed, 9 primary refractory or relapsed) received AZA. We analyzed complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rates, OS, and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: CR/CRi were achieved in 7/17 (41.2%) and 11/17 (64.7%) patients in the VEN+AZA group and 0/15 (0%) and 2/15 (6.7%) patients in the AZA group, respectively. The CR/CRi rate was higher in the VEN+AZA group than in the AZA group (p=0.001). OS was longer in the VEN+AZA group than in the AZA group (p=0.03), with a median of 506 days [95% confidence interval (CI)=234-585 days] and 208 days (95% CI=52-343 days), respectively. CONCLUSION: The doses of the VEN+AZA combination were reduced at the attending physician's discretion, resulting in a higher CR/CRi rate and longer OS than AZA monotherapy and is considered useful for AML in the real world.

Combination of venetoclax and azacitidine in relapsed/refractory acute B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia: a case series from a single center.

OBJECTIVES: Relapsed/refractory acute B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL) often responds poorly to induction chemotherapy. However, recent research has shown a novel and effective drug treatment for R/R B-ALL. METHODS: A total of eight patients with R/R B-ALL were enrolled in the study from November 2021 to August 2022. All patients received chemotherapy based on a combination regimen of venetoclax and azacitidine. The regimen was as follows venetoclax 100 mg d1, 200 mg d2, 400 mg d3-14, azacitidine 75 mg/m2 d1-7. RESULTS: Five of eight patients achieved very deep and complete remission (CR) with minimal residual disease (MRD) less than 0.1%. One patient achieved partial remission. Two patients did not achieve remission. There were no serious adverse events and all patients were well tolerated. Three patients were eligible for consolidation chemotherapy and were bridged to CAR-T therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The combined regimen of venetoclax and azacitidine may be beneficial for patients with R/R B-ALL.

Clinical activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of oral hypomethylating agents for myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms and acute myeloid leukemia: A multidisciplinary review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles, disease setting, dosing, and safety of oral and parenteral hypomethylating agents (HMAs) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and to provide a multidisciplinary perspective on treatment selection and educational needs relating to HMA use. DATA SOURCES: Clinical and real-world data for parenteral decitabine and azacitidine and two oral HMAs: decitabine-cedazuridine (DEC-C) for MDS and azacitidine (CC-486) for AML maintenance therapy. DATA SUMMARY: Differences in the PK-PD profiles of oral and parenteral HMA formulations have implications for their potential toxicities and planned use. Oral DEC-C (decitabine 35 mg and cedazuridine 100 mg) has demonstrated equivalent systemic area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) exposure to a 5-day regimen of intravenous (IV) decitabine 20 mg/m2 and showed no significant difference in PD. The AUC equivalence of oral DEC-C and IV decitabine means that these regimens can be treated interchangeably (but must not be substituted within a cycle). Oral azacitidine has a distinct PK-PD profile versus IV or subcutaneous azacitidine, and the formulations are not bioequivalent or interchangeable owing to differences in plasma time-course kinetics and exposures. Clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate oral HMA combinations and novel oral HMAs, such as NTX-301 and ASTX030. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with oral HMAs has the potential to improve quality of life, treatment adherence, and disease outcomes versus parenteral HMAs. Better education of multidisciplinary teams on the factors affecting HMA treatment selection may help to improve treatment outcomes in patients with MDS or AML.

Azacitidine combined with venetoclax alleviates AML-MR with TP53 mutation in SDS: a case report and literature review.

Shwachman-Diamond syndrome (SDS) is an autosomal recessive genetic disease, which is prone to transform into myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). TP53 mutation is a driving factor involved in the transformation of SDS into MDS/AML, and in the evolution of MDS to AML. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Allo-HSCT) is the only curable approach, however, challenge remains regarding the balance between efficacy and the high risk from treatment-related toxicity and mortality to achieve temporary disease control before transplantation to gain time and opportunities for transplantation. At present, pre-transplant bridging therapy has emerged as one of the important options with improved efficacy, reduced tumor burden, and less treatment-related toxicity. Here we reported azacitidine combined with venetoclax was used as pre-transplant bridging regimen in a TP53-mutant AML-MR case developed from SDS. He achieved complete remission with incomplete recovery and proceeded to Allo-HSCT. We hope to provide some evidence and insight for in-depth research and clinical treatment by presenting this case.

Pracinostat combined with azacitidine in newly diagnosed adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients unfit for standard induction chemotherapy: PRIMULA phase III study.

Non-intensive therapies such as the hypomethylating agent (HMA) azacitidine (AZA) have been used in patients with AML ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy (IC) or stem cell transplant due to advanced age, comorbidities, and/or risk factors. However, response rates and survival remain dismal. Pre-clinical studies indicate the epigenetic combination of HMAs and HDAC inhibitors induce re-expression of silenced genes synergistically. The activity of pracinostat, an oral pan-HDAC inhibitor, has been shown in xenograft tumor models of AML and promising efficacy was seen in a Phase 2 study. This Phase 3 study (NCT03151408) evaluated the efficacy/safety of pracinostat administered with AZA in adult patients with newly diagnosed AML ineligible to receive IC. Patients were randomized to either pracinostat plus AZA or placebo/AZA and stratified by cytogenetic risk and ECOG status. As planned, an interim analysis was performed when 232/390 events (deaths) occurred. A total of 406 patients were randomized (203/group) at the time of the analysis. Median overall survival was 9.95 months for both treatment groups (p=0.8275). There was no significant difference between treatments in secondary efficacy endpoints, reflecting a lack of clinical response. This study did not show a benefit of adding pracinostat to AZA in elderly patients unfit for IC.

Azacitidine Post-transplant Maintenance Improves Disease Progression in High-Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) with hypomethylating agents has yielded conflicting results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a single center retrospective matched-control analysis with the study group (5-azacitidine [AZA] group) including adults with FLT3-negative acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who received post-transplant AZA maintenance off clinical trial (n = 93). A matched control group was comprised of contemporaneous AML/MDS patients who did not receive any maintenance (n = 357). Primary endpoint was disease progression. RESULTS: The AZA and control groups had comparable patient and disease characteristics except for older age (median: 61 vs. 57 years, P = .01) and lower hematopoietic comorbidity index (median: 2 vs. 3, P = .04) in the AZA group. The 3-year cumulative incidence of progression in the AZA and control groups was 29% vs. 33% (P = .09). The protective effect of AZA on progression was limited to patients with high-risk AML/MDS (HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.8, P = .009). This led to improved progression-free survival both in high-risk AML and MDS patients with maintenance (HR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.1-0.6, P = .004 and HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.9, P = .04). CONCLUSION: AZA maintenance was associated with a lower progression rate in patients with high-risk FLT3-negative AML or MDS, and AZA maintenance should be considered for post-alloHCT maintenance in this subset.

Azacitidine, Venetoclax, and Gilteritinib in Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed or Refractory FLT3-Mutated AML.

PURPOSE: Azacitidine plus venetoclax is a standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit for intensive chemotherapy. However, FLT3 mutations are a common mechanism of resistance to this regimen. The addition of gilteritinib, an oral FLT3 inhibitor, to azacitidine and venetoclax may improve outcomes in patients with FLT3-mutated AML. METHODS: This phase I/II study evaluated azacitidine, venetoclax, and gilteritinib in two cohorts: patients with (1) newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML who were unfit for intensive chemotherapy or (2) relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutated AML (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04140487). The primary end points were the maximum tolerated dose of gilteritinib (phase I) and the combined complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rate (phase II). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled (frontline [n = 30]; relapsed/refractory [n = 22]). The recommended phase II dose was gilteritinib 80 mg once daily in combination with azacitidine and venetoclax. In the frontline cohort, the median age was 71 years and 73% of patients had an FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutation. The CR/CRi rate was 96% (CR, 90%; CRi, 6%). Sixty-five percent of evaluable patients achieved FLT3-ITD measurable residual disease <5 × 10-5 within four cycles. With a median follow-up of 19.3 months, the median relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) have not been reached and the 18-month RFS and OS rates are 71% and 72%, respectively. In the relapsed/refractory cohort, the CR/CRi rate was 27%; nine additional patients (41%) achieved a morphologic leukemia-free state. The most common grade 3 or higher nonhematologic adverse events were infection (62%) and febrile neutropenia (38%), which were more frequent in the relapsed/refractory cohort. CONCLUSION: The combination of azacitidine, venetoclax, and gilteritinib resulted in high rates of CR/CRi, deep FLT3 molecular responses, and encouraging survival in newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML. Myelosuppression was manageable with mitigative dosing strategies.

Adverse Event Profile of Azacitidine: Analysis by Route of Administration Using Japanese Pharmacovigilance Database.

INTRODUCTION: Azacitidine is a useful drug for myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia. In clinical trials, hematologic toxicity and infection have been observed as adverse events (AEs) of this drug. However, information on the time to onset of high risk AEs and subsequent outcomes, as well as differences in the frequency of AEs due to the route of administration is lacking. In this study, we investigated azacitidine-induced AEs comprehensively using the Japanese Adverse Event Reporting Database (JADER) published by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, with disproportionate analysis of AE incidence trends, time to onset, and subsequent outcomes. In addition, we analyzed the differences in AEs by route of administration and the number of days until the occurrence of AEs and generated hypotheses. METHODS: The study used JADER data reported from April 2004 to June 2022. Risk estimation was conducted using reported odds ratio. A signal was detected when the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the calculated ROR was ≥1. RESULTS: A total of 34 signals were detected as AEs due to azacitidine. Among them, 15 were hematologic toxicities and 10 were infections, which demonstrated a particularly high rate of death. Signals of AEs such as tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and cardiac failure, which have been described in case reports, were also detected, and the rate of death after onset was high. In addition, more AEs generally occurred within the first month of treatment. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that more attention should be paid to cardiac failure, hematologic toxicity, infection, and TLS. Because many patients in clinical trials have discontinued treatment due to serious AEs before the therapeutic effect became apparent, appropriate supportive care, dose reduction, and drug withdrawal are important for the continuation of treatment.

Prospective comparison of 5- and 7-day administration of azacitidine for myelodysplastic syndromes: a JALSG MDS212 trial.

The hypomethylating agent azacitidine (AZA) significantly extends overall survival (OS) in patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), when compared with other conventional care regimens, including supportive care and low-dose and intensive chemotherapy. However, the effects of 5- and 7-day treatment schedules of AZA (AZA-5 and AZA-7, respectively) on the OS of MDS patients had not been compared prospectively. We started a phase 3 trial comparing the effects of AZA-7 and AZA-5 on MDS patients with refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB) and RAEB in transformation (RAEB-T). However, this trial was prematurely terminated because of poor recruitment. Using all data, there was no significant difference in the OS of patients between AZA-7 (92 patients) and AZA-5 (95 patients), with the 2-year OS rates of AZA-7 and AZA-5 at 36.4% and 25.8%, respectively (P = 0.293). Adverse event profiles were similar between the two groups. Interestingly, data of the centrally diagnosed RAEB and RAEB-T cases showed that AZA-7 significantly prolonged the time to leukemia transformation compared with AZA-5 (P = 0.022), confirmed by multivariate analysis. Although this trial could not provide definite evidence, the results support the use of AZA-7 for RAEB and RAEB-T. (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000009633).

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.).

Impact of Venetoclax and Azacitidine in Treatment-Naïve Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and IDH1/2 Mutations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of venetoclax + azacitidine among treatment-naïve patients with IDH1/2-mutant (mut) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from patients enrolled in a phase III study (NCT02993523) that compared patients treated with venetoclax + azacitidine or placebo + azacitidine and a prior phase Ib study (NCT02203773) where patients were treated with venetoclax + azacitidine. Enrolled patients were ineligible for intensive therapy due to age ≥75 years and/or comorbidities. Patients on venetoclax + azacitidine received venetoclax 400 mg orally (days 1-28) and azacitidine (75 mg/m2; days 1-7/28-day cycle). RESULTS: In the biomarker-evaluable population, IDH1/2mut was detected in 81 (26%) and 28 (22%) patients in the venetoclax + azacitidine and azacitidine groups. Composite complete remission [CRc, complete remission (CR)+CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi)] rates (venetoclax + azacitidine/azacitidine) among patients with IDH1/2mut were 79%/11%, median duration of remission (mDoR) was 29.5/9.5 months, and median overall survival (mOS) was 24.5/6.2 months. CRc rates among patients with IDH1/2 wild-type (WT) were 63%/31%, mDoR 17.5/10.3 months, and mOS 12.3/10.1 months. In patients with IDH1mut, CRc rates (venetoclax + azacitidine/azacitidine) were 66.7%/9.1% and mOS 15.2/2.2 months. In patients with IDH2mut, CRc rates were 86.0%/11.1% and mOS not reached (NR)/13.0 months. Patients with IDH1/2 WT AML treated with venetoclax + azacitidine with poor-risk cytogenetics had inferior outcomes compared with patients with IDH1/2mut, who had superior outcomes regardless of cytogenetic risk (mOS, IDH1/2mut: intermediate-risk, 24.5 months; poor-risk, NR; IDH1/2 WT: intermediate, 19.2 and poor, 7.4 months). There were no unexpected toxicities in the venetoclax + azacitidine group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IDH1/2mut who received venetoclax + azacitidine had high response rates, durable remissions, and significant OS; cytogenetic risk did not mitigate the favorable outcomes seen from this regimen for IDH1/2mut. See related commentary by Perl and Vyas, p. 2719.

Impact of FLT3 Mutation on Outcomes after Venetoclax and Azacitidine for Patients with Treatment-Naïve Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of venetoclax + azacitidine among treatment-naïve patients with FLT3-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from patients enrolled in a phase III study (NCT02993523) that compared patients treated with venetoclax + azacitidine or placebo + azacitidine and a prior phase Ib study (NCT02203773) where patients were treated with venetoclax + azacitidine. Enrolled patients were ineligible for intensive therapy due to age ≥75 years and/or comorbidities. Patients on venetoclax + azacitidine received venetoclax 400 mg orally (days 1-28) and azacitidine (75 mg/m2; days 1-7/28-day cycle). FLT3 mutation was analyzed centrally on pretreatment bone marrow aspirates. RESULTS: In the biomarker evaluable population, FLT3 mutation was detected in 42 (15%) and 22 (19%) patients in the venetoclax + azacitidine and azacitidine groups. Composite complete remission [CRc; complete remission (CR) + CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi)] rates (venetoclax + azacitidine/azacitidine) for FLT3-mutant patients were 67%/36%, median duration of remission (DoR) was 17.3/5.0 months, and median OS was 12.5/8.6 months. The CRc rates among FLT3 wild-type patients were 67%/25%, median DoR 18.4/13.4 months, and median OS 14.7/10.1 months. In patients treated with venetoclax + azacitidine, CRc in patients with FLT3-ITD and FLT3-TKD was 63% and 77% and median OS was 9.9 and 19.2 months, and in comutated FLT3-ITD + NPM1 patients, CRc was 70%, median DoR was not reached, and median OS was 9.1 months. There were no unexpected toxicities in the venetoclax + azacitidine group. CONCLUSIONS: When treated with venetoclax + azacitidine, patients with FLT3 mutations and FLT3 wild-type had similar outcomes. Future analyses in larger patient populations may further define the impact of venetoclax + azacitidine in patients harboring FLT3-ITD. See related commentary by Perl and Vyas, p. 2719.

Sequential azacitidine and carboplatin induces immune activation in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer cell lines and primes for checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Platinum chemoresistance results in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) disease recurrence. Recent treatment advances using checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy has not benefited platinum-resistant HGSOC. In ovarian cancer, DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) block methylation and allow expression of silenced genes, primarily affecting immune reactivation pathways. We aimed to determine the epigenome and transcriptome response to sequential treatment with DNMTi and carboplatin in HGSOC. METHODS: In vitro studies with azacitidine or carboplatin alone and in sequential combination. Response was determined by cell growth, death and apoptosis. Genome-wide DNA methylation levels and transcript expression were compared between untreated and azacitidine and carboplatin sequential treatment. RESULTS: Sequential azacitidine and carboplatin significantly slowed cell growth in 50% of cell lines compared to carboplatin alone. The combination resulted in significantly higher cell death in 25% of cell lines, and significantly higher cell apoptosis in 37.5% of cell lines, than carboplatin alone. Pathway analysis of upregulated transcripts showed that the majority of changes were in immune-related pathways, including those regulating response to checkpoint inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential azacitidine and carboplatin treatment slows cell growth, and demethylate and upregulate pathways involved in immune response, suggesting that this combination may be used to increase HGSOC response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant patients who have exhausted all currently-approved avenues of treatment.