Therapeutic value of clofarabine in younger and middle-aged (18-65 years) adults with newly diagnosed AML.

Clofarabine has demonstrated antileukemic activity in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but has yet to be critically evaluated in younger adults in the frontline with standard chemotherapy. We compared 2 induction regimens in newly diagnosed patients ages 18 to 65 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML)/high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, that is, idarubicine-cytarabine (cycle I) and amsacrine-cytarabine (cycle II) without or with clofarabine (10 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of each of both cycles). Consolidation involved chemotherapy with or without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Event-free survival (EFS, primary endpoint) and other clinical endpoints and toxicities were assessed. We randomized 402 and 393 evaluable patients to the control or clofarabine induction treatment arms. Complete remission rates (89%) did not differ but were attained faster with clofarabine (66% vs 75% after cycle I). Clofarabine added grades 3 to 4 toxicities and delayed hematological recovery. At a median follow-up of 36 months, the study reveals no differences in overall survival and EFS between the control (EFS, 35% ± 3 [standard error] at 4 years) and clofarabine treatments (38% ± 3) but a markedly reduced relapse rate (44% ± 3 vs 35% ± 3) in favor of clofarabine and an increased death probability in remission (15% ± 2 vs 22% ± 3). In the subgroup analyses, clofarabine improved overall survival and EFS for European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2010 intermediate I prognostic risk AML (EFS, 26% ± 4 vs 40% ± 5 at 4 years; Cox P = .002) and for the intermediate risk genotype NPM1 wild-type/FLT3 without internal-tandem duplications (EFS, 18% ± 5 vs 40% ± 7; Cox P < .001). Clofarabine improves survival in subsets of intermediate-risk AML only. HOVON-102 study is registered at Netherlands Trial Registry #NTR2187.

Addition of lenalidomide to intensive treatment in younger and middle-aged adults with newly diagnosed AML: the HOVON-SAKK-132 trial.

Lenalidomide, an antineoplastic and immunomodulatory drug, has therapeutic activity in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but definitive studies about its therapeutic utility have been lacking. In a phase 3 study, we compared 2 induction regimens in newly diagnosed patients age 18 to 65 years with AML: idarubicine-cytarabine (cycle 1) and daunorubicin and intermediate-dose cytarabine (cycle 2) without or with lenalidomide (15 mg orally on days 1-21). One final consolidation cycle of chemotherapy or autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) or allogeneic SCT (allo-SCT) was provided according to a prognostic risk and minimal residual disease (MRD)-adapted approach. Event-free survival (EFS; primary end point) and other clinical end points were assessed. A second random assignment in patients in complete response or in complete response with incomplete hematologic recovery after cycle 3 or auto-SCT involved 6 cycles of maintenance with lenalidomide (10 mg on days 1-21) or observation. In all, 392 patients were randomly assigned to the control group, and 388 patients were randomly assigned to lenalidomide induction. At a median follow-up of 41 months, the study revealed no differences in outcome between the treatments (EFS, 44% ± 2% standard error and overall survival, 54% ± 2% at 4 years for both arms) although in an exploratory post hoc analysis, a lenalidomide benefit was suggested in SRSF2-mutant AML. In relation to the previous Dutch-Belgian Hemato-Oncology Cooperative Group and Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (HOVON-SAKK) studies that used a similar 3-cycle regimen but did not pursue an MRD-guided approach, these survival estimates compare markedly more favorably. MRD status after cycle 2 lost prognostic value in intermediate-risk AML in the risk-adjusted treatment context. Maintenance with lenalidomide showed no apparent effect on relapse probability in 88 patients randomly assigned for this part of the study.

Graft-Versus-Leukemia Effect of Allogeneic Stem-Cell Transplantation and Minimal Residual Disease in Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia in First Complete Remission.

PURPOSE: The detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may improve future risk-adapted treatment strategies. We assessed whether MRD-positive and MRD-negative patients with AML benefit differently from the graft-versus-leukemia effect of allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (alloHSCT). METHODS: A total of 1,511 patients were treated in subsequent Dutch-Belgian Hemato-Oncology Cooperative Group and the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research AML trials, of whom 547 obtained a first complete remission, received postremission treatment (PRT), and had available flow cytometric MRD before PRT. MRD positivity was defined as more than 0.1% cells with a leukemia-associated immunophenotype within the WBC compartment. PRT consisted of alloHSCT (n = 282), conventional PRT by a third cycle of chemotherapy (n = 160), or autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (n = 105). RESULTS: MRD was positive in 129 patients (24%) after induction chemotherapy before proceeding to PRT. Overall survival and relapse-free survival were significantly better in patients without MRD before PRT compared with MRD-positive patients (65% ± 2% v 50% ± 5% at 4 years; P = .002; and 58% ± 3% v 38% ± 4%; P < .001, respectively), which was mainly because of a lower cumulative incidence of relapse (32% ± 2% compared with 54% ± 4%; P < .001, respectively). Multivariable analysis with adjustment for covariables showed that the incidence of relapse was significantly reduced after alloHSCT compared with chemotherapy or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .001), which was similarly exerted in both MRD-negative and MRD-positive patients (HR, 0.38; P < .001; and HR, 0.35; P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The graft-versus-leukemia effect of alloHSCT is equally present in MRD-positive and MRD-negative patients, which advocates a personalized application of alloHSCT, taking into account the risk of relapse determined by AML risk group and MRD status, as well as the counterbalancing risk of nonrelapse mortality.

Phase 1a/1b and pharmacogenetic study of docetaxel, oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with advanced cancer of the stomach or the gastroesophageal junction.

PURPOSE: The prognosis of gastroesophageal cancer is poor, and current regimens are associated with limited efficacy. The purpose of this study was to explore the safety and preliminary efficacy of docetaxel, oxaliplatin plus capecitabine for advanced cancer of the stomach or the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic analyses. METHODS: Patients were treated in escalating dose levels with docetaxel and oxaliplatin (both on day 1), plus capecitabine b.i.d. on days 1-14 every 3 weeks, to determine the dose-limiting toxicity and maximum tolerated dose (MTD). An expansion cohort was treated at the MTD. A total of ten polymorphisms in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic candidate genes were analyzed and tested for association with treatment outcome. RESULTS: A total of 34 evaluable patients were enrolled. The MTD was docetaxel 50 mg/m(2), oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) plus capecitabine 850 mg/m(2) b.i.d. The median number of treatment cycles was 6 (range 2-8). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities included neutropenia (24 %), leukocytopenia (15 %), febrile neutropenia (12 %), fatigue (9 %) and diarrhea (6 %). The overall response rate was 45 %; two patients achieved a complete response. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.5 months (95 % CI 5.4-7.6) and 11.0 months (95 % CI 7.9-14.1), respectively. The polymorphisms ERCC1 354C>T, TYMS 1053C>T and rs2612091 in ENOSF1 were associated with severe toxicity; ERCC1 354C>T and ERCC2 2251A>C were associated with poor progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel, oxaliplatin plus capecitabine are a well-tolerable, safe and effective treatment regimen for patients with advanced cancer of the stomach or GEJ. Pharmacogenetic markers in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic candidate genes may be predictive for treatment outcome.