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.

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.

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.

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.

Azacitidine improves clinical outcomes in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia with myelodysplasia-related changes compared with conventional care regimens.

BACKGROUND: Compared with World Health Organization-defined acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) not otherwise specified, patients with AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC) are generally older and more likely to have poor-risk cytogenetics, leading to poor response and prognosis. More than one-half of all older (≥65 years) patients in the phase 3 AZA-AML-001 trial had newly diagnosed AML-MRC. METHODS: We compared clinical outcomes for patients with AML-MRC treated with azacitidine or conventional care regimens (CCR; induction chemotherapy, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care only) overall and within patient subgroups defined by cytogenetic risk (intermediate or poor) and age (65-74 years or ≥75 years). The same analyses were used to compare azacitidine with low-dose cytarabine in patients who had been preselected to low-dose cytarabine before they were randomized to receive azacitidine or CCR (ie, low-dose cytarabine). RESULTS: Median overall survival was significantly prolonged with azacitidine (n = 129) versus CCR (n = 133): 8.9 versus 4.9 months (hazard ratio 0.74, [95%CI 0.57, 0.97]). Among patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics, median overall survival with azacitidine was 16.4 months, and with CCR was 8.9 months (hazard ratio 0.73 [95%CI 0.48, 1.10]). Median overall survival was significantly improved for patients ages 65-74 years treated with azacitidine compared with those who received CCR (14.2 versus 7.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio 0.64 [95%CI 0.42, 0.97]). Within the subgroup of patients preselected to low-dose cytarabine before randomization, median overall survival with azacitidine was 9.5 months versus 4.6 months with low-dose cytarabine (hazard ratio 0.77 [95%CI 0.55, 1.09]). Within the low-dose cytarabine preselection group, patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics who received azacitidine had a median overall survival of 14.1 months versus 6.4 months with low-dose cytarabine, and patients aged 65-74 years had median survival of 14.9 months versus 5.2 months, respectively. Overall response rates were similar with azacitidine and CCR (24.8% and 17.3%, respectively), but higher with azacitidine versus low-dose cytarabine (27.2% and 13.9%). Adverse events were generally comparable between the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Azacitidine may be the preferred treatment for patients with AML-MRC who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy, particularly patients ages 65-74 years and those with intermediate-risk cytogenetics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at clinicalTrials.gov on February 16, 2010 ( NCT01074047 ).

Predictive value of molecular remissions postconsolidation chemotherapy in patients with Core Binding Factor Acute Myeloid Leukemia (CBF-AML) - a single center analysis.

We analyzed the outcome of 80 sequential patients with core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia and evaluated the influence of molecular monitoring by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. With a median follow-up of 5 years, the estimated 5-year relapse-free survival and overall survival were 58% and 66%, respectively. Patients who were in molecular remission at the completion of consolidation chemotherapy had a 21% risk of relapse, while the relapse risk for those in molecular remission at the end of 2 years was 5.5%. Our data indicate that postconsolidation molecular remission does not necessarily preclude disease relapse and further monitoring is required. In contrast, molecular negativity by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction at the end of 2 years is associated with a low risk of relapse.

Azacitidine for Front-Line Therapy of Patients with AML: Reproducible Efficacy Established by Direct Comparison of International Phase 3 Trial Data with Registry Data from the Austrian Azacitidine Registry of the AGMT Study Group.

We recently published a clinically-meaningful improvement in median overall survival (OS) for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), >30% bone marrow (BM) blasts and white blood cell (WBC) count ≤15 G/L, treated with front-line azacitidine versus conventional care regimens within a phase 3 clinical trial (AZA-AML-001; NCT01074047; registered: February 2010). As results obtained in clinical trials are facing increased pressure to be confirmed by real-world data, we aimed to test whether data obtained in the AZA-AML-001 trial accurately represent observations made in routine clinical practice by analysing additional AML patients treated with azacitidine front-line within the Austrian Azacitidine Registry (AAR; NCT01595295; registered: May 2012) and directly comparing patient-level data of both cohorts. We assessed the efficacy of front-line azacitidine in a total of 407 patients with newly-diagnosed AML. Firstly, we compared data from AML patients with WBC ≤ 15 G/L and >30% BM blasts included within the AZA-AML-001 trial treated with azacitidine ("AML-001" cohort; n = 214) with AAR patients meeting the same inclusion criteria ("AAR (001-like)" cohort; n = 95). The current analysis thus represents a new sub-analysis of the AML-001 trial, which is directly compared with a new sub-analysis of the AAR. Baseline characteristics, azacitidine application, response rates and OS were comparable between all patient cohorts within the trial or registry setting. Median OS was 9.9 versus 10.8 months (p = 0.616) for "AML-001" versus "AAR (001-like)" cohorts, respectively. Secondly, we pooled data from both cohorts (n = 309) and assessed the outcome. Median OS of the pooled cohorts was 10.3 (95% confidence interval: 8.7, 12.6) months, and the one-year survival rate was 45.8%. Thirdly, we compared data from AAR patients meeting AZA-AML-001 trial inclusion criteria (n = 95) versus all AAR patients with World Health Organization (WHO)-defined AML ("AAR (WHO-AML)" cohort; n = 193). Within the registry population, median OS for AAR patients meeting trial inclusion criteria versus all WHO-AML patients was 10.8 versus 11.8 months (p = 0.599), respectively. We thus tested and confirmed the efficacy of azacitidine as a front-line agent in patients with AML, >30% BM blasts and WBC ≤ 15 G/L in a routine clinical practice setting. We further show that the efficacy of azacitidine does not appear to be limited to AML patients who meet stringent clinical trial inclusion criteria, but instead appears efficacious as front-line treatment in all patients with WHO-AML.

A phase I trial of the aurora kinase inhibitor, ENMD-2076, in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia.

ENMD-2076 is a novel, orally-active molecule that inhibits Aurora A kinase, as well as c-Kit, FLT3 and VEGFR2. A phase I study was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicities of ENMD-2076 in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Patients received escalating doses of ENMD-2076 administered orally daily [225 mg (n = 7), 375 mg (n = 6), 325 mg (n = 9), or 275 mg (n = 5)]. Twenty-seven patients were treated (26 AML; 1 CMML-2). The most common non-hematological toxicities of any grade, regardless of association with drug, were fatigue, diarrhea, dysphonia, dyspnea, hypertension, constipation, and abdominal pain. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) consisted of grade 3 fatigue, grade 3 typhilitis, grade 3 syncope and grade 3 QTc prolongation). Of the 16 evaluable patients, one patient achieved a complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi), three experienced a morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS) with a major hematologic improvement in platelets (HI-P), and 5 other patients had a reduction in marrow blast percentage (i.e. 11-65 %). The RP2D in this patient population is 225 mg orally once daily.