A randomised evaluation of low-dose cytosine arabinoside plus lenalidomide versus single-agent low-dose cytosine arabinoside in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: Results from the LI-1 trial.

Improving outcomes for older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia remains an unmet need. As part of the LI-1 trial, we evaluated lenalidomide (LEN) in combination with low-dose cytosine arabinoside (LDAC) in patients aged >60 years unfit for intensive therapy and compared this to LDAC alone. Two hundred and two patients, randomised 1:1, were evaluable. Overall response rate (CR + CRi) was higher for LDAC + LEN versus LDAC (26% and 13.7% respectively p = 0.031). However, there was no difference in overall survival between the arms (14% and 11.5% at 2 years for LDAC + LEN and LDAC respectively). The addition of LEN was associated with increased toxicity and supportive care requirements.

A randomised evaluation of low-dose Ara-C plus pegylated recombinant arginase BCT-100 versus low dose Ara-C in older unfit patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: Results from the LI-1 trial.

The survival of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients aged over 60 has been suboptimal historically, whether they are treated using hypomethylating agents, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) or venetoclax-based regimens. Progress is being made, however, for subgroups with favourable molecular or cytogenetic findings. Arginine metabolism plays a key role in AML pathophysiology. We report the only randomised study of LDAC with recombinant arginase BCT-100 versus LDAC alone in older AML patients unsuitable for intensive therapy. Eighty-three patients were randomised to the study. An overall response rate was seen in 19.5% (all complete remission [CR]) and 15% (7.5% each in CR and CR without evidence of adequate count recovery [CRi]) of patients in the LDAC+BCT-100 and LDAC arms respectively (odds ratio 0.73, confidence interval 0.23-2.33; p = 0.592). No significant difference in overall or median survival between treatment arms was seen. The addition of BCT-100 to LDAC was well tolerated.

A randomised comparison of FLAG-Ida versus daunorubicin combined with clofarabine in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia: Results from the UK NCRI AML17 trial.

The prognosis for younger patients with relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is generally dismal. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation is the preferred therapy for these patients. As part of the UK NCRI AML17 trial, daunorubicin/clofarabine (DClo) was compared with fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with idarubicin (FLAG-Ida) in 311 patients designated high-risk following course one of induction therapy, which has previously been reported. We now report the results of the same randomisation in patients who were refractory to two induction courses or subsequently relapsed. A total of 94 relapsed or refractory AML patients, usually less than 60 years of age and with mainly favourable or intermediate-risk cytogenetics, were randomised to receive up to three courses of DClo or FLAG-Ida, with the aim of proceeding to transplant. Complete remission was achieved in 74% of patients with no difference between the arms. Overall, 57% of patients received a transplant with no difference between the arms, likewise overall survival at five years showed no significant difference (21% for DClo vs. 22% for FLAG-Ida). No patient who did not receive a transplant survived beyond 21months. A stratified analysis including the 311 post course 1 high-risk patients who underwent the same randomisation showed a consistent treatment benefit for FLAG-Ida.

A randomized comparison of daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 vs 60 mg/m2 in AML induction: results from the UK NCRI AML17 trial in 1206 patients.

Modifying induction therapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may improve the remission rate and reduce the risk of relapse, thereby improving survival. Escalation of the daunorubicin dose to 90 mg/m(2) has shown benefit for some patient subgroups when compared with a dose of 45 mg/m(2), and has been recommended as a standard of care. However, 60 mg/m(2) is widely used and has never been directly compared with 90 mg/m(2). As part of the UK National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) AML17 trial, 1206 adults with untreated AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, mostly younger than 60 years of age, were randomized to a first-induction course of chemotherapy, which delivered either 90 mg/m(2) or 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 3, and 5 combined with cytosine arabinoside. All patients then received a second course that included daunorubicin 50 mg/m(2) on days 1, 3, and 5. There was no overall difference in complete remission rate (73% vs 75%; odds ratio, 1.07 [0.83-1.39]; P = .6) or in any recognized subgroup. The 60-day mortality was increased in the 90 mg/m(2) arm (10% vs 5% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.98 [1.30-3.02]; P = .001), which resulted in no difference in overall 2-year survival (59% vs 60%; HR, 1.16 [0.95-1.43]; P = .15). In an exploratory subgroup analysis, there was no subgroup that showed significant benefit, although there was a significant interaction by FLT3 ITD mutation. This trial is registered at http://www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN55675535.

Vosaroxin and vosaroxin plus low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) vs low-dose Ara-C alone in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The development of new treatments for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia is an active area, but has met with limited success. Vosaroxin, a quinolone-derived intercalating agent has several properties that could prove beneficial. Initial clinical studies showed it to be well-tolerated in older patients with relapsed/refractory disease. In vitro data suggested synergy with cytarabine (Ara-C). To evaluate vosaroxin, we performed 2 randomized comparisons within the "Pick a Winner" program. A total of 104 patients were randomized to vosaroxin vs low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) and 104 to vosaroxin + LDAC vs LDAC. When comparing vosaroxin with LDAC, neither response rate (complete recovery [CR]/complete recovery with incomplete count recovery [CRi], 26% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.16 (0.49-2.72); P = .7) nor 12-month survival (12% vs 31%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.94 [1.26-3.00]; P = .003) showed benefit for vosaroxin. Likewise, in the vosaroxin + LDAC vs LDAC comparison, neither response rate (CR/CRi, 38% vs 34%; OR, 0.83 [0.37-1.84]; P = .6) nor survival (33% vs 37%; HR, 1.30 [0.81-2.07]; P = .3) was improved. A major reason for this lack of benefit was excess early mortality in the vosaroxin + LDAC arm, most obviously in the second month following randomization. At its first interim analysis, the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee recommended closure of the vosaroxin-containing trial arms because a clinically relevant benefit was unlikely.

Defining the Optimal Total Number of Chemotherapy Courses in Younger Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Comparison of Three Versus Four Courses.

PURPOSE: The optimum number of treatment courses for younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is uncertain. The United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute AML17 trial randomly assigned patients who were not high risk to a total of three versus four courses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received two induction courses based on daunorubicin and cytarabine (Ara-C), usually with gemtuzumab ozogamicin. Following remission, 1,017 patients were randomly assigned to a third course, MACE (amsacrine, Ara-C, and etoposide), plus a fourth course of MidAc (mitoxantrone and Ara-C) and following an amendment to one or two courses of high-dose Ara-C. Primary end points were cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). Outcomes were correlated with patient characteristics, mutations, cytogenetics, induction treatments, and measurable residual disease (MRD) postinduction. RESULTS: In logrank analyses, CIR and RFS at 5 years were improved in recipients of four courses (50% v 58%: hazard ratio [HR] 0.81 [0.69-0.97], P = .02 and 43% v 36%: HR 0.83 [0.71-0.98], P = .03, respectively). While OS was not significantly better (63% v 57%: HR 0.84 [0.69-1.03], P = .09), the noninferiority of three courses to four courses was not established. The impact on relapse was only significant when the fourth course was Ara-C. In exploratory analyses, although MRD impacted survival, a fourth course had no effect in either MRD-positive or MRD-negative patients. A fourth course was beneficial in patients who lacked a mutation of FLT3 or NPM1, had < 3 mutations in other genes, or had a presenting WBC of < 10 × 109 L-1. CONCLUSION: Although a fourth course of high-dose Ara-C reduced CIR and improved RFS, it did not result in a significant OS benefit. Subsets including those with favorable cytogenetics, those lacking a mutation of FLT3 or NPM1, or those with < 3 other mutations may derive survival benefit.

Randomized evaluation of quizartinib and low-dose ara-C vs low-dose ara-C in older acute myeloid leukemia patients.

Survival for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy is unsatisfactory. Standard nonintensive therapies have low response rates and only extend life by a few months. Quizartinib is an oral Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitor with reported activity in wild-type patients. As part of the AML LI trial, we undertook a randomized evaluation of low-dose ara-C (LDAC) with or without quizartinib in patients not fit for intensive chemotherapy. Overall, survival was not improved (202 patients), but in the 27 FLT3-ITD patients, the addition of quizartinib to LDAC improved response (P = .05) with complete remission/complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery for quizartinib + LDAC in 5/13 (38%) vs 0/14 (0%) in patients receiving LDAC alone. Overall survival (OS) in these FLT3-ITD+ patients was also significantly improved at 2 years for quizartinib + LDAC (hazard ratio 0.36; 95% confidence intervals: 0.16, 0.85, P = .04). Median OS was 13.7 months compared with 4.2 months with LDAC alone. This is the first report of an FLT3-targeted therapy added to standard nonintensive chemotherapy that has improved survival in this population. Quizartinib merits consideration for future triplet-based treatment approaches. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as ISRCTN #ISRCTN40571019 and EUDRACT @2011-000749-19.