Guadecitabine vs TC in relapsed/refractory AML after intensive chemotherapy: a randomized phase 3 ASTRAL-2 trial.

ABSTRACT: Guadecitabine is a novel hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to deamination by cytidine deaminase. Patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) were randomly assigned to guadecitabine or a preselected treatment choice (TC) of high-intensity chemotherapy, low-intensity treatment with HMAs or low-dose cytarabine, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). A total of 302 patients were randomly assigned to guadecitabine (n = 148) or TC (n = 154). Preselected TCs were low-intensity treatment (n = 233 [77%; mainly HMAs]), high-intensity chemotherapy (n = 63 [21%]), and BSC (n = 6 [2%]). The median OS were 6.4 and 5.4 months for guadecitabine and TC, respectively (hazard ratio 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.14]; log-rank P = .33). Survival benefit for guadecitabine was suggested in several prospective subgroups, including age <65 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1, refractory AML, and lower peripheral blood blasts ≤30%. Complete response (CR) + CR with partial hematologic recovery rates were 17% for guadecitabine vs 8% for TC (P < .01); CR+CR with incomplete count recovery rates were 27% for guadecitabine vs 14% for TC (P < .01). Safety was comparable for the 2 arms, but guadecitabine had a higher rate of grade ≥3 neutropenia (32% vs 17%; P < .01). This study did not demonstrate an OS benefit for guadecitabine. Clinical response rates were higher for guadecitabine, with comparable safety to TC. There was an OS benefit for guadecitabine in several prespecified subgroups. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02920008.

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacitidine and decitabine for individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are available in parenteral form. Oral therapy with similar exposure for these diseases would offer potential treatment benefits. We aimed to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of oral decitabine plus the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine. METHODS: We did a registrational, multicentre, open-label, crossover, phase 3 trial of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and individuals with acute myeloid leukaemia, enrolled as separate cohorts; results for only participants with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are reported here. In 37 academic and community-based clinics in Canada and the USA, we enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older who were candidates to receive intravenous decitabine, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 days of oral decitabine-cedazuridine (one tablet once daily containing 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine as a fixed-dose combination) or intravenous decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day by continuous 1-h intravenous infusion) in a 28-day treatment cycle, followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. Thereafter, all participants received oral decitabine-cedazuridine from the third cycle on until treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was total decitabine exposure over 5 days with oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for cycles 1 and 2, measured as area under the curve in participants who received the full treatment dose in cycles 1 and 2 and had decitabine daily AUC0-24 for both oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine (ie, paired cycles). On completion of the study, all patients were rolled over to a maintenance study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03306264. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2018, and June 7, 2021, 173 individuals were screened, 138 (80%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment sequence, and 133 (96%) participants (87 [65%] men and 46 [35%] women; 121 [91%] White, four [3%] Black or African-American, three [2%] Asian, and five [4%] not reported) received treatment. Median follow-up was 966 days (IQR 917-1050). Primary endpoint of total exposure of oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine was 98·93% (90% CI 92·66-105·60), indicating equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure on the basis of area under the curve. The safety profiles of oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine were similar. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were thrombocytopenia (81 [61%] of 133 participants), neutropenia (76 [57%] participants), and anaemia (67 [50%] participants). The incidence of serious adverse events in cycles 1-2 was 31% (40 of 130 participants) with oral decitabine-cedazuridine and 18% (24 of 132 participants) with intravenous decitabine. There were five treatment-related deaths; two deemed related to oral therapy (sepsis and pneumonia) and three to intravenous treatment (septic shock [n=2] and pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Oral decitabine-cedazuridine was pharmacologically and pharmacodynamically equivalent to intravenous decitabine. The results support use of oral decitabine-cedazuridine as a safe and effective alternative to intravenous decitabine for treatment of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals.

Clinical impact of the genomic landscape and leukemogenic trajectories in non-intensively treated elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients.

To characterize the genomic landscape and leukemogenic pathways of older, newly diagnosed, non-intensively treated patients with AML and to study the clinical implications, comprehensive genetics analyses were performed including targeted DNA sequencing of 263 genes in 604 patients treated in a prospective Phase III clinical trial. Leukemic trajectories were delineated using oncogenetic tree modeling and hierarchical clustering, and prognostic groups were derived from multivariable Cox regression models. Clonal hematopoiesis-related genes (ASXL1, TET2, SRSF2, DNMT3A) were most frequently mutated. The oncogenetic modeling algorithm produced a tree with five branches with ASXL1, DDX41, DNMT3A, TET2, and TP53 emanating from the root suggesting leukemia-initiating events which gave rise to further subbranches with distinct subclones. Unsupervised clustering mirrored the genetic groups identified by the tree model. Multivariable analysis identified FLT3 internal tandem duplications (ITD), SRSF2, and TP53 mutations as poor prognostic factors, while DDX41 mutations exerted an exceptionally favorable effect. Subsequent backwards elimination based on the Akaike information criterion delineated three genetic risk groups: DDX41 mutations (favorable-risk), DDX41wildtype/FLT3-ITDneg/TP53wildtype (intermediate-risk), and FLT3-ITD or TP53 mutations (high-risk). Our data identified distinct trajectories of leukemia development in older AML patients and provide a basis for a clinically meaningful genetic outcome stratification for patients receiving less intensive therapies.

Guadecitabine vs treatment choice in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: a global phase 3 randomized study.

This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the new hypomethylating agent guadecitabine (n = 408) vs a preselected treatment choice (TC; n = 407) of azacitidine, decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine in patients with acute myeloid leukemia unfit to receive intensive induction chemotherapy. Half of the patients (50%) had poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (2-3). The coprimary end points were complete remission (19% and 17% of patients for guadecitabine and TC, respectively [stratified P = .48]) and overall survival (median survival 7.1 and 8.5 months for guadecitabine and TC, respectively [hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.14; stratified log-rank P = .73]). One- and 2-year survival estimates were 37% and 18% for guadecitabine and 36% and 14% for TC, respectively. A large proportion of patients (42%) received <4 cycles of treatment in both the arms. In a post hoc analysis of patients who received ≥4 treatment cycles, guadecitabine was associated with longer median survival vs TC (15.6 vs 13.0 months [hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.96; log-rank P = .02]). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) between guadecitabine (92%) and TC (88%); however, grade ≥3 AEs of febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, and pneumonia were higher with guadecitabine. In conclusion, no significant difference was observed in the efficacy of guadecitabine and TC in the overall population. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02348489.

Overview of Optical Biosensors for Early Cancer Detection: Fundamentals, Applications and Future Perspectives.

Conventional cancer detection and treatment methodologies are based on surgical, chemical and radiational processes, which are expensive, time consuming and painful. Therefore, great interest has been directed toward developing sensitive, inexpensive and rapid techniques for early cancer detection. Optical biosensors have advantages in terms of high sensitivity and being label free with a compact size. In this review paper, the state of the art of optical biosensors for early cancer detection is presented in detail. The basic idea, sensitivity analysis, advantages and limitations of the optical biosensors are discussed. This includes optical biosensors based on plasmonic waveguides, photonic crystal fibers, slot waveguides and metamaterials. Further, the traditional optical methods, such as the colorimetric technique, optical coherence tomography, surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy and reflectometric interference spectroscopy, are addressed.

Modified Lateral Orbitotomy Approach to Lesions of the Orbital Apex, Superior Orbital Fissure, Cavernous Sinus, and Middle Cranial Fossa.

BACKGROUND: The lateral orbitotomy approach (LOA) provides minimally invasive access to the orbit, cavernous sinus region, and middle cranial fossa. Orbital retraction with this approach can nonetheless injure orbital structures, causing unnecessary morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To describe our clinical experience with the modified LOA (mLOA), wherein the medial aspect of the lateral orbital wall posterior to the orbital rim is preserved. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-institution case series of patients undergoing a mLOA for lesions of the orbital apex, superior orbital fissure, cavernous sinus, and middle cranial fossa. The dimensions and variance of selected anatomic parameters relevant to this approach (orbital rim-superior orbital fossa depth, lateral orbital wall angle) were also analyzed using computed tomography scans from 30 adult patients. RESULTS: Eight patients underwent a mLOA (mean age 54.0 ± 19.6 years; 3 males). Surgical targets included the superior orbital fissure (2; cavernoma and meningioma), sphenoid wing with or without the orbital apex (2; meningioma), cavernous sinus (2; rule out carcinoma and smooth muscle tumor), and anterior/mesial temporal lobe (2; cavernoma). Visual acuity/fields and diplopia was stable or improved in all patients postoperatively. One patient experienced a cerebrospinal fluid leak. On computed tomography analysis, the relevant bony anatomy displayed limited variability, with a mean orbital fossa depth of 42.7 ± 2.8 mm and a lateral orbital wall angle of 44.4° ± 2.7°. CONCLUSION: The mLOA can provide safe, minimally invasive access to select lesions of the orbital apex, superior orbital fissure, cavernous sinus, and middle cranial fossa. The operative corridor has relatively consistent bony anatomy.

Case Series and Systematic Review of Electronic Scooter Crashes and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Electric scooters (e-scooters) are an increasingly popular form of transportation, but their use has also resulted in increased incidence of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Previous reports have predominantly described mild TBI with limited attention to other injury patterns. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of e-scooter use on rates of severe TBI. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective case review of patients who presented with severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score 3-8) related to e-scooter use and undertook a systematic literature review to identify other reports of severe TBI related to e-scooter use. RESULTS: Of the 19 patients (mean age, 38 ± 16 years; 73.7% male) included in the case series, 13 (68.4%) experienced a fall and 6 (31.6%) were involved in a collision. Various cerebral injury patterns, associated craniofacial fractures, and cervical spine injuries were also seen. Twelve patients (63.2%) underwent intracranial pressure monitor placement and 6 (31.6%) underwent a decompressive hemicraniectomy. Most patients (n = 12; 63.2%) were discharged to acute rehabilitation, with a median modified Rankin Scale score of 2 at 4.9 ± 7.7 months follow-up (52.6% had a good outcome of modified Rankin Scale score ≤2), but 4 patients died of primary injuries. The systematic review identified 18 studies with 77,069 patients between 2019 and 2021, with 37 patients who required intensive care and 6 patients who had neurosurgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Severe TBI after e-scooter use is associated with high morbidity and is likely underdiagnosed in the literature. Awareness and public policies may be helpful to reduce the impact of injury.

Role of cedazuridine/decitabine in the management of myelodysplastic syndrome and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia.

Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) are clonal hematopoietic stem cell disorders. Complex disease biology has posed significant challenge to the development of novel therapeutics. Despite myriad clinical trials, none have been superior to azacitidine and decitabine (DEC) therapy. These therapies present a substantial burden for patients with 5 and 7 days of parenteral treatment in an infusion clinic. To overcome this limitation, a fixed drug combination of oral DEC-cedazuridine (C-DEC), a cytidine deaminase inhibitor with documented safety profile was developed. This drug was recently approved by the US FDA, Australian TGA and Health Canada for newly diagnosed or previously treated intermediate or high risk by international prognostic scoring system, MDS and CMML. In this review, we detail the pharmacokinetic and clinical activity of C-DEC in the management of MDS and CMML.

Lay abstract Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia are rare types of blood cancers. When treatment for these conditions is required, azacitidine or decitabine are the most commonly used chemotherapies. These medications are administered into blood through a medical port. Since these cancers are common in elderly, management of the port and frequent visits to infusion centers for treatment leads to noncompliance with treatment plan. With addition of a new compound by name cedazuridine to decitabine, now a new US FDA-approved medication, INQOVI^® (decitabine and cedazuridine) can be taken by mouth at home. This new treatment has shown to be equally effective with a similar safety profile to decitabine. In this review article, we describe the investigational details and drug development of the oral medication, INQOVI^®.

Understanding the factors influencing healthcare providers' burnout during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Jordanian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. The nature of healthcare providers' occupation puts them at an increased risk of getting any contagious disease, including COVID-19. They are on the front line of the COVID-19 outbreak response and as such are at risk of contracting this virus. The infectious disease started from China in December 2019 and spread rapidly throughout countries, including Jordan. Especially, recent studies indicated that Jordanian healthcare providers' work conditions and demographic are significant factors for healthcare providers' burnout. Additionally, burnout has been increased among healthcare providers in Jordanian hospital. AIM: The present investigation aims to better understand the factors affecting pharmacists', physicians', and nurses' burnout during the outbreak of COVID-19 to provide basic information for lowering and preventing the level of burnout in Jordanian hospitals. METHOD: This study is qualitative in nature, adopting face-to-face interviews as the key instrument of data collection in one hospital in Jordan. The sample interviewed consisted of 30 healthcare providers in total (10 nurses, 10 physicians. and 10 pharmacists). RESULT: Three key factors to healthcare providers' burnout were identified in the sampled hospitals: job stress, staff and resource adequacy, fear of COVID-19 infection, and interprofessional relationships in healthcare practice. The examination also offers recommendations for lowering and preventing healthcare providers' burnout in Jordanian hospitals. CONCLUSION: This study explored the main factors of healthcare providers' burnout during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Jordanian hospitals, thereby making an original contribution to existing knowledge, as it is the first empirical exploration of healthcare providers' burnout during the outbreak of COVID-19. As such, it has attempted to offer an in-depth understanding of the factors impacting this issue.

Oral cedazuridine/decitabine for MDS and CMML: a phase 2 pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic randomized crossover study.

This phase 2 study was designed to compare systemic decitabine exposure, demethylation activity, and safety in the first 2 cycles with cedazuridine 100 mg/decitabine 35 mg vs standard decitabine 20 mg/m2 IV. Adults with International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-1/2- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) were randomized 1:1 to receive oral cedazuridine/decitabine or IV decitabine in cycle 1, followed by crossover to the other treatment in cycle 2. All patients received oral cedazuridine/decitabine in subsequent cycles. Cedazuridine and decitabine were given initially as separate capsules in a dose-confirmation stage and then as a single fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet. Primary end points: mean decitabine systemic exposure (geometric least-squares mean [LSM]) of oral/IV 5-day area under curve from time 0 to last measurable concentration (AUClast), percentage long interspersed nuclear element 1 (LINE-1) DNA demethylation for oral cedazuridine/decitabine vs IV decitabine, and clinical response. Eighty patients were randomized and treated. Oral/IV ratios of geometric LSM 5-day AUClast (80% confidence interval) were 93.5% (82.1-106.5) and 97.6% (80.5-118.3) for the dose-confirmation and FDC stages, respectively. Differences in mean %LINE-1 demethylation between oral and IV were ≤1%. Clinical responses were observed in 48 patients (60%), including 17 (21%) with complete response. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events regardless of causality were neutropenia (46%), thrombocytopenia (38%), and febrile neutropenia (29%). Oral cedazuridine/decitabine (100/35 mg) produced similar systemic decitabine exposure, DNA demethylation, and safety vs decitabine 20 mg/m2 IV in the first 2 cycles, with similar efficacy. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02103478.

Oral Azacitidine and Cedazuridine Approximate Parenteral Azacitidine Efficacy in Murine Model.

BACKGROUND: DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTis) improve survival for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and those with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) unable to receive standard cytotoxic chemotherapy and are, accordingly, the backbone of standard-of-care treatment for these conditions. Standard regimens with DNMTIs, decitabine (DEC) or azacitidine (AZA) include daily subcutaneous (s.c.) or intravenous (i.v.) administration for 5-7 consecutive days. Attempts to provide the therapy orally have been limited given rapid clearance of the agents by the enzyme cytidine deaminase (CDA), which is ubiquitous in the gut and liver as part of first-pass metabolism. Recently, cedazuridine (CDZ), an oral inhibitor of CDA, was successfully combined with DEC to approximate the pharmacokinetics of i.v. DEC in patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine if an oral dosing strategy might be feasible in the clinic with AZA, we attempted to increase the bioavailability of oral AZA through the use of CDZ, in a murine model. METHODS: Following pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment of oral AZA dosed with CDZ in murine and monkey models, we tested this regimen in vivo with a human cell line-derived xenograft transplantation experiment (CDX). Following this we combined the regimen with venetoclax (VEN) to test the efficacy of an all-oral regimen in a patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model. RESULTS: Parenteral AZA and oral AZA + CDZ exhibited similar pharmacokinetic profiles, and efficacy against human AML cells. Tumor regression was seen with AZA + CDZ in MOLM-13 CDX and PDX models. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that oral AZA when combined with CDZ achieves successful tumor regression in both CDX and PDX models. Furthermore, the combination of AZA + CDZ with VEN in a PDX model emulated responses seen with VEN + AZA in the clinic, implying a potential all-oral VEN-based therapy opportunity in myeloid diseases.

A Randomized Phase II Trial of Epigenetic Priming with Guadecitabine and Carboplatin in Platinum-resistant, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Platinum resistance in ovarian cancer is associated with epigenetic modifications. Hypomethylating agents (HMA) have been studied as carboplatin resensitizing agents in ovarian cancer. This randomized phase II trial compared guadecitabine, a second-generation HMA, and carboplatin (G+C) against second-line chemotherapy in women with measurable or detectable platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either G+C (guadecitabine 30 mg/m2 s.c. once-daily for 5 days and carboplatin) or treatment of choice (TC; topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine) in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were RECIST v1.1 and CA-125 response rate, 6-month PFS, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 100 patients treated, 51 received G+C and 49 received TC, of which 27 crossed over to G+C. The study did not meet its primary endpoint as the median PFS was not statistically different between arms (16.3 weeks vs. 9.1 weeks in the G+C and TC groups, respectively; P = 0.07). However, the 6-month PFS rate was significantly higher in the G+C group (37% vs. 11% in TC group; P = 0.003). The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicity was similar in G+C and TC groups (51% and 49%, respectively), with neutropenia and leukopenia being more frequent in the G+C group. CONCLUSIONS: Although this trial did not show superiority for PFS of G+C versus TC, the 6-month PFS increased in G+C treated patients. Further refinement of this strategy should focus on identification of predictive markers for patient selection.

Guadecitabine Plus Ipilimumab in Unresectable Melanoma: The NIBIT-M4 Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The immunomodulatory activity of DNA hypomethylating agents (DHAs) suggests they may improve the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies. The phase Ib NIBIT-M4 trial tested this hypothesis using the next-generation DHA guadecitabine combined with ipilimumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma received escalating doses of guadecitabine 30, 45, or 60 mg/m2/day subcutaneously on days 1 to 5 every 3 weeks, and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks, starting 1 week after guadecitabine, for four cycles. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and MTD of treatment; secondary were immune-related (ir) disease control rate (DCR) and objective response rate (ORR); and exploratory were changes in methylome, transcriptome, and immune contextures in sequential tumor biopsies, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were treated; 84% had grade 3/4 adverse events, and neither dose-limiting toxicities per protocol nor overlapping toxicities were observed. Ir-DCR and ir-ORR were 42% and 26%, respectively. Median CpG site methylation of tumor samples (n = 8) at week 4 (74.5%) and week 12 (75.5%) was significantly (P < 0.05) lower than at baseline (80.3%), with a median of 2,454 (week 4) and 4,131 (week 12) differentially expressed genes. Among the 136 pathways significantly (P < 0.05; Z score >2 or ←2) modulated by treatment, the most frequently activated were immune-related. Tumor immune contexture analysis (n = 11) demonstrated upregulation of HLA class I on melanoma cells, an increase in CD8+, PD-1+ T cells and in CD20+ B cells in posttreatment tumor cores. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of guadecitabine combined with ipilimumab is safe and tolerable in advanced melanoma and has promising immunomodulatory and antitumor activity.

Genomic and epigenomic predictors of response to guadecitabine in relapsed/refractory acute myelogenous leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Guadecitabine is a novel DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) inhibitor with improved pharmacokinetics and clinical activity in a subset of patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (r/r AML), but identification of this subset remains difficult. METHODS: To search for biomarkers of response, we measured genome-wide DNA methylation, mutations of 54 genes, and expression of a panel of 7 genes in pre-treatment samples from 128 patients treated at therapeutic doses in a phase I/II study. RESULTS: Response rate to guadecitabine was 17% (2 complete remission (CR), 3 CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi), or CR with incomplete platelets recovery (CRp)) in the phase I component and 23% (14 CR, 9 CRi/CRp) in phase II. There were no strong mutation or methylation predictors of response. Gene expression clustering defined a subset of patients (~ 20%) that had (i) high DNMT3B and low CDKN2B, CTCF, and CDA expression; (ii) enrichment for KRAS/NRAS mutations; (iii) frequent CpG island hypermethylation; (iv) low long interspersed nuclear element 1 (LINE-1) hypomethylation after treatment; and (v) resistance to guadecitabine in both phase I (response rate 0% vs. 33%, p = 0.07) and phase II components of the study (response rate 5% vs. 30%, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified peripheral blood (PB) blasts and hemoglobin as predictors of response and cytogenetics, gene expression, RAS mutations, and hemoglobin as predictors of survival. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of patients (~ 20%) with r/r AML is unlikely to benefit from guadecitabine as a single agent. In the remaining 80%, guadecitabine is a viable option with a median survival of 8 months and a 2-year survival rate of 21%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01261312 .

Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with intermediate or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: phase 2 results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Guadecitabine is a next-generation hypomethylating agent whose active metabolite decitabine has a longer in-vivo exposure time than intravenous decitabine. More effective hypomethylating agents are needed for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes. In the present study, we aimed to compare the activity and safety of two doses of guadecitabine in hypomethylating agent treatment-naive or relapsed or refractory patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. METHODS: This phase 2 part of the phase 1/2, randomised, open-label study enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 14 North American medical centres with International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-1-risk, intermediate-2-risk, or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. They were either hypomethylating agent treatment-naive or had relapsed or refractory disease after previous hypomethylating agent treatment as determined by the investigators' judgment. Eligible patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer algorithm for dynamic randomisation to subcutaneous guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of a 28-day treatment cycle. Treatment was stratified by previous treatment with hypomethylating agents and neither patients nor investigators were masked. The primary endpoint was overall response (a composite of complete response, partial response, marrow complete response, and haematological improvement) assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01261312. FINDINGS: Between July 9, 2012, and April 7, 2014, 105 patients were enrolled: 55 (52%) were allocated to guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 (28 patients were treatment-naive and 27 had relapsed or refractory disease after previous hypomethylating agent treatment) and 50 (48%) patients to 90 mg/m2 (23 patients were treatment-naive and 27 had relapsed or refractory disease). Three (3%) patients of 105 did not receive study treatment and were excluded from analyses. Median follow-up was 3·2 years (IQR 2·8-3·5). The proportion of patients achieving an overall response did not significantly differ between dose groups (21 of 53 [40%, 95% CI 27-54] with 60 mg/m2 and 27 of 49 [55%, 95% CI 40-69] with 90 mg/m2; p=0·16). 25 of 49 (51%, 95% CI 36-66) patients who were treatment-naive and 23 of 53 (43%, 30-58) patients with relapsed or refractory disease achieved an overall response. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups, regardless of relationship to treatment, were thrombocytopenia (22 [41%] of 53 patients in the 60 mg/m2 group and 28 [57%] of 49 in the 90 mg/m2 group), neutropaenia (21 [40%] and 25 [51%]), anaemia (25 [47%] and 24 [49%]), febrile neutropaenia (17 [32%] and 21 [43%]), and pneumonia (13 [25%] and 15 [31%]). Seven (7%) of 102 patients died due to adverse events (three with 90 mg/m2 and four with 60 mg/m2), and all except one were in the relapsed or refractory cohort. Two deaths were deemed treatment related (septic shock with 60 mg/m2; pneumonia with 90 mg/m2). INTERPRETATION: Guadecitabine was clinically active with acceptable tolerability in patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Responses and overall survival in the relapsed or refractory cohort offer the potential of a new therapeutic option for patients for whom currently available hypomethylating agents are not successful. We therefore recommend guadecitabine at a dose of 60 mg/m2 on a 5-day schedule for these patients. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals and Stand Up To Cancer.

An oral fixed-dose combination of decitabine and cedazuridine in myelodysplastic syndromes: a multicentre, open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Decitabine, a DNA methyltransferase 1 inhibitor or DNA hypomethylating compound, is not readily orally bioavailable because of rapid clearance by cytidine deaminase (CDA) in the gut and liver. This dose-escalation study, guided by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic observations, evaluated whether simultaneous oral administration with the novel CDA inhibitor cedazuridine increases decitabine bioavailability for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes. METHODS: In this phase 1 study, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. Eligible patients were assigned to cohorts to receive escalating oral doses of decitabine and cedazuridine. The starting dose was decitabine 20 mg and cedazuridine 40 mg. Treatment cycles lasted 28 days, with 5 days of drug administration. In cycle 1, each patient received a cohort-defined dose of oral decitabine on day -3, a 1-h intravenous infusion of decitabine 20 mg/m2 on day 1, and cohort-defined doses of oral decitabine plus cedazuridine on days 2-5. In cycles 2 and beyond, the oral decitabine and cedazuridine were given on days 1-5. The dose of cedazuridine was escalated first and decitabine was escalated once CDA inhibition by cedazuridine approached the maximum effect. The drug dose was escalated if mean decitabine area under the curve (AUC) of the oral drug was less than 90% of that for intravenous decitabine in the cohort and if no dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as a grade 3 or greater non-haematologic toxicity or grade 4 haematologic toxicity lasting more than 14 days and unrelated to the underlying disease. Once the decitabine AUC target range set as the primary endpoint, and established with intravenous decitabine, was reached at a dose deemed to be safe, the cohort that most closely approximated intravenous decitabine exposure was expanded to 18 evaluable patients. The primary objectives were to assess the safety of decitabine plus cedazuridine, and to determine the dose of each drug needed to achieve a mean AUC for decitabine exposure similar to that for intravenous decitabine exposure. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02103478. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2014, and Nov 13, 2015, we enrolled 44 eligible patients (of 75 screened) with previously treated or newly diagnosed myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia; 43 of the enrolled patients were evaluable. Participants were treated in five cohorts: cohorts 1-4 included six evaluable patients each; cohort 5 included 19 patients in a 13-patient expansion. Dose-dependent increases in decitabine AUC and peak plasma concentration occurred with each cohort dose escalation. There was no evident increase in toxicity compared with that reported for intravenous decitabine. Decitabine 30 mg and 40 mg plus cedazuridine 100 mg produced mean day-5 decitabine AUCs (146 ng × h/mL for decitabine 30 mg, and 221 ng × h/mL for decitabine 40 mg) closest to the mean intravenous-decitabine AUC (164 ng × h/mL). The most common grade 3 or more adverse events were thrombocytopenia (18 [41%] of 44 patients), neutropenia (13 [30%]), anaemia (11 [25%]), leukopenia (seven [16%]), febrile neutropenia (seven [16%]), and pneumonia (seven [16%]). Four (9%) patients died because of adverse events, none of which was considered drug related, and three (7%) patients died more than 30 days after discontinuing treatment because of progressive disease (two [5%]) and respiratory failure (one [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Oral decitabine plus cedazuridine emulated the pharmacokinetics of intravenous decitabine, with a similar safety profile and dose-dependent demethylation. Clinical responses were similar to intravenous decitabine treatment for 5 days. Further study of decitabine plus cedazuridine as an alternative to parenteral therapy or in combination with other new oral agents for myeloid disorders is warranted. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Design, Synthesis, and Molecular Docking Study of Novel Heterocycles Incorporating 1,3,4-Thiadiazole Moiety as Potential Antimicrobial and Anticancer Agents.

A new series of 5-(3,5-dinitrophenyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazole derivatives were prepared and evaluated for their in vitro antimicrobial, antitumor, and DHFR inhibition activity. Compounds 9, 10, 13, and 16 showed strong and broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity comparable to Amoxicillin and Fluconazole as positive antibiotic and antifungal controls, respectively. Compounds 6, 14, and 15 exhibited antitumor activity against four human cancer cell lines, CCRF-CEM leukemia, HCT-15 colon, PC-3 prostate, and UACC-257 melanoma cell lines using Doxorubicin as a reference drug. Compounds 10, 13, 14, and 15 proved to be the most active DHFR inhibitors with an IC50 range of 0.04 ± 0.82⁻1.00 ± 0.85 µM, in comparison with Methotrexate (IC50 = 0.14 ± 1.38 µM). The highly potent DHFR inhibitors shared a similar molecular docking mode and made a critical hydrogen bond and arene‒arene interactions via Ser59 and Phe31 amino acid residues, respectively.