Cox proportional hazards deep neural network identifies peripheral blood complete remission to be at least equivalent to morphologic complete remission in predicting outcomes of patients treated with azacitidine-A prospective cohort study by the AGMT.

The current gold standard of response assessment in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is morphologic complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi), both of which require an invasive BM evaluation. Outside of clinical trials, BM evaluations are only performed in ~50% of patients during follow-up, pinpointing a clinical need for response endpoints that do not necessitate BM assessments. We define and validate a new response type termed "peripheral blood complete remission" (PB-CR) that can be determined from the differential blood count and clinical parameters without necessitating a BM assessment. We compared the predictive value of PB-CR with morphologic CR/CRi in 1441 non-selected, consecutive patients diagnosed with MDS (n = 522; 36.2%), CMML (n = 132; 9.2%), or AML (n = 787; 54.6%), included within the Austrian Myeloid Registry (aMYELOIDr; NCT04438889). Time-to-event analyses were adjusted for 17 covariates remaining in the final Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. DeepSurv, a CPH neural network model, and permutation-based feature importance were used to validate results. 1441 patients were included. Adjusted median overall survival for patients achieving PB-CR was 22.8 months (95%CI 18.9-26.2) versus 10.4 months (95%CI 9.7-11.2) for those who did not; HR = 0.366 (95%CI 0.303-0.441; p < .0001). Among patients achieving CR, those additionally achieving PB-CR had a median adjusted OS of 32.6 months (95%CI 26.2-49.2) versus 21.7 months (95%CI 16.9-27.7; HR = 0.400 [95%CI 0.190-0.844; p = .0161]) for those who did not. Our deep neural network analysis-based findings from a large, prospective cohort study indicate that BM evaluations solely for the purpose of identifying CR/CRi can be omitted.

LM02 trial Perioperative treatment with panitumumab and FOLFIRI in patients with wild-type RAS, potentially resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases-a phase II study.

Background: Twenty percent of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CLMs) are initially resectable with a 5-year survival rate of 25%-40%. Perioperative folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) increases progression-free survival (PFS). In advanced disease, the addition of targeting therapies results in an overall survival (OS) advantage. The aim of this study was to evaluate panitumumab and FOLFIRI as perioperative therapy in resectable CLM. Methods: Patients with previously untreated, wild-type Rat sarcoma virus (RAS), and resectable CLM were included. Preoperative four and postoperative eight cycles of panitumumab and folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) were administered. Primary objectives were efficacy and safety. Secondary endpoints included PFS and OS. Results: We enrolled 36 patients in seven centers in Austria (intention-to-treat analyses, 35 patients). There were 28 men and seven women, and the median age was 66 years. About 91.4% completed preoperative therapy and 82.9% underwent liver resection. The R0 resection rate was 82.7%. Twenty patients started and 12 patients completed postoperative chemotherapy. The objective radiological response rate after preoperative therapy was 65.7%. About 20% and 5.7% of patients had stable disease and progressive disease, respectively. The most common grade 3 adverse events were diarrhea, rash, and leukopenia during preoperative therapy. One patient died because of sepsis, and one had a pulmonary embolism grade 4. After surgery, two patients died because of hepatic failure. Most common grade 3 adverse events during postoperative therapy were skin toxicities/rash and leukopenia/neutropenia, and the two grade 4 adverse events were stroke and intestinal obstruction. Median PFS was 13.2 months. The OS rate at 12 and 24 months were 85.6% and 73.3%, respectively. Conclusions: Panitumumab and FOLFIRI as perioperative therapy for resectable CLM result in a radiological objective response rate in 65.7% of patients with a manageable grade 3 diarrhea rate of 14.3%. Median PFS was 13.2 months, and the 24-month OS rate was 73.3%. These data are insufficient to widen the indication of panitumumab from the unresectable setting to the setting of resectable CLM.

Persistence of ctDNA in Patients with Breast Cancer During Neoadjuvant Treatment Is a Significant Predictor of Poor Tumor Response.

PURPOSE: Accurate response assessment during neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) poses a clinical challenge. Therefore, a minimally invasive assessment of tumor response based on cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may be beneficial to guide treatment decisions. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We profiled 93 genes in tissue from 193 patients with early breast cancer. Patient-specific assays were designed for 145 patients to track ctDNA during NST in plasma. ctDNA presence and levels were correlated with complete pathological response (pCR) and residual cancer burden (RCB) as well as clinicopathologic characteristics of the tumor to identify potential proxies for ctDNA release. RESULTS: At baseline, ctDNA could be detected in 63/145 (43.4%) patients and persisted in 25/63 (39.7%) patients at mid-therapy (MT) and 15/63 (23.8%) patients at the end of treatment. ctDNA detection at MT was significantly associated with higher RCB (OR = 0.062; 95% CI, 0.01-0.48; P = 0.0077). Of 31 patients with detectable ctDNA at MT, 30 patients (96.8%) were nonresponders (RCB II, n = 8; RCB III, n = 22) and only one patient responded to the treatment (RCB I). Considering all 145 patients with baseline (BL) plasma, none of the patients with RCB 0 and only 6.7% of patients with RCB I had ctDNA detectable at MT, whereas 30.6% and 29.6% of patients with RCB II/III, respectively, had a positive ctDNA result. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results demonstrate that the detection and persistence of ctDNA at MT may have the potential to negatively predict response to neoadjuvant treatment and identify patients who will not achieve pCR or be classified with RCB II/III.

Conventional versus reverse sequence of neoadjuvant epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel: sequencing results from ABCSG-34.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemotherapy containing anthracyclines and taxanes is well established in early-stage breast cancer. Previous studies have suggested that the chemotherapy sequence may matter but definitive evidence is missing. ABCSG trial 34 evaluated the activity of the MUC1 vaccine tecemotide when added to neoadjuvant treatment; the study provided the opportunity for the second randomisation to compare two different anthracycline/taxane sequences. METHODS: HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer patients were recruited to this randomised multicentre Phase 2 study. Patients in the chemotherapy cohort (n = 311) were additionally randomised to a conventional or reversed sequence of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel. Residual cancer burden (RCB) with/without tecemotide was defined as primary study endpoint; RCB in the two chemotherapy groups was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: No significant differences in terms of RCB 0/I (40.1% vs. 37.2%; P = 0.61) or pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (24.3% vs. 25%, P = 0.89) were observed between conventional or reverse chemotherapy sequence. No new safety signals were reported, and upfront docetaxel did not result in decreased rates of treatment delay or discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Upfront docetaxel did not improve chemotherapy activity or tolerability; these results suggest that upfront neoadjuvant treatment with anthracyclines remains a valid option.

The EndoPredict score predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoendocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer patients from the ABCSG-34 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NaCT) and neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) can reduce pre-operative tumour burden in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early-stage breast cancer. This prospective translational study assessed the ability of a 12-gene molecular score (MS; EndoPredict®) to predict response to NaCT or NET within the ABCSG-34 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative samples from patients in the ABCSG-34 randomized phase II trial were selected and EndoPredict testing was performed to generate a 12-gene MS. ABCSG-34 patients were assigned to receive either NaCT or NET based on menopausal status, HR expression, grade and Ki67. Response was measured by residual cancer burden (RCB). RESULTS: Patients selected for NaCT generally had high-risk disease by 12-gene MS (125/134), while slightly more patients treated with NET had low-risk disease (44/83). Low-risk NaCT-treated and high-risk NET-treated tumours responded poorly (NPV 100% [95% CI 66.4%-100%] and NPV 92.3% [95% CI 79.1%-98.4%], respectively]. The 12-gene MS significantly predicted treatment response for NaCT (AUC 0.736 [95% CI 0.63-0.84]) and NET (AUC 0.726 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: The 12-gene MS predicted RCB after treatment with neoadjuvant therapies for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer. Tumours with low MS were unlikely to benefit from NaCT, whereas a high MS predicted resistance to NET. This additional biologic information can aid personalized treatment selection in daily practice and builds a strong rationale to use EndoPredict in biomarker-driven studies in the neoadjuvant setting.

Effect of Baseline Characteristics on Cabazitaxel Treatment Duration in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Compassionate Use/Expanded Access Programs and CAPRISTANA Registry.

We examined factors that may impact cabazitaxel treatment duration in a real-life setting in a compassionate use program, expanded access program, and prospective observational study in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel (N = 1,621) received cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity or physician/patient decision. The median number of cabazitaxel cycles was six (range, 1-49); 708 patients (43.7%) received >6 cycles. Patients receiving >6 cycles tended to have a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (p = 0.0017 for ≤6 vs. >6 cycles). Overall, 348 patients (21.5%) were ≥75 years of age; 139 (39.9%) received >6 cycles. The main reason for discontinuation was disease progression; however, in patients receiving 1-2 cycles, the main reason for discontinuation was adverse events. Only 52 patients (3.2%) progressed during cycles 1-2. Cabazitaxel was well tolerated in these studies, which included some elderly and frail patients, offering clinicians an important treatment option in the management of mCRPC. Proactive management of adverse events may allow patients to receive a higher number of cabazitaxel cycles and derive greater benefit.

Efficacy and safety of the therapeutic cancer vaccine tecemotide (L-BLP25) in early breast cancer: Results from a prospective, randomised, neoadjuvant phase II study (ABCSG 34).

BACKGROUND: Immune-based strategies represent a promising approach in breast cancer (BC) treatment. The glycoprotein mucin-1 (MUC-1) is overexpressed in more than 90% of BC patients, and is targeted by the cancer vaccine tecemotide. We have investigated the efficacy and safety of tecemotide when added to neoadjuvant standard-of-care (SoC) treatment in early BC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 400 patients with HER2-early BC were recruited into this prospective, multicentre, randomised 2-arm academic phase II trial. Patients received preoperative SoC treatment (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) with or without tecemotide. Postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor (ER)+++, or ER++ and Ki67 < 14%, and G1,2 tumours ('luminal A' tumours) received 6 months of letrozole. Postmenopausal patients with triple-negative, ER-/+/++ and Ki67 ≥ 14%, and with G3 tumours, as well as premenopausal patients, received four cycles of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide plus four cycles of docetaxel. Primary end-point was residual cancer burden (RCB; 0/I versus II/III) at surgery. Secondary end-points included pathological complete response (pCR), safety, and quality of life. FINDINGS: We observed no significant difference in RCB 0/I rates between patients with (36.4%) and without (31.9%) tecemotide in the overall study population (p = 0.40) nor in endocrine and chemotherapy-treated subgroups (25.0% versus 13.3%, p = 0.17; 39.6% versus 37.8%, p = 0.75, respectively). The addition of tecemotide did not affect overall pCR rates (22.5% versus 17.4%, p = 0.23), MUC-1 expression, or tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes content. Tecemotide did not increase toxicity when compared to SoC therapy alone. INTERPRETATION: Neoadjuvant tecemotide is safe, but does not improve RCB or pCR rates in patients receiving standard neoadjuvant therapy.

An observational, multicentre study of cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel (CAPRISTANA).

OBJECTIVES: To obtain routine clinical practice data on cabazitaxel usage patterns for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and to describe physician-assessed cabazitaxel effectiveness, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CAPRISTANA was an international, observational cohort study examining cabazitaxel use for the treatment of patients with mCRPC. Effectiveness was assessed by overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and disease control rate. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate questionnaire (FACT-P) and the three-level European Quality of Life questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) reporting. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were treated across 54 centres between April 2012 and June 2016. At baseline, 58.7% had ≥1 comorbidity, 93.7% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, and 60.1% had a Gleason score at diagnosis of ≥8. Patients received a median of 6 cabazitaxel cycles; 84.7% received cabazitaxel as second-line therapy. The median OS, PFS and TTF were 13.2, 5.6 and 4.4 months, respectively. Cabazitaxel led to disease control in 52.9% of patients. HRQoL was maintained (40.3%) or improved (32.2%) in 72.5% of patients based on total FACT-P scores. Interestingly, 53.6% of patients reported pain improvement and a further 21.2% maintained pain control based on FACT-P prostate cancer-specific pain scores. The most common treatment-related grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (7.9%) and anaemia (2.1%). CONCLUSION: Patients in CAPRISTANA treated with cabazitaxel had similar disease outcomes and safety profiles compared with large phase III clinical trials. Most patients had maintained or improved HRQoL scores; >70% of patients had maintained or improved pain control.

Establishment and validation of a novel risk model for estimating time to first treatment in 120 patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia.

Chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia is a rare disease and data on the treatment are often extrapolated from myelodysplastic syndrome studies. Although several scores exist for the prognosis of overall survival in chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia, so far there is no designated score for the prediction of the time to first treatment. We tested clinical parameters and cytogenetic information for their ability to predict the time to first treatment in our single center cohort of 55 unselected consecutive chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia patients. In multivariate analysis we identified elevated lactate dehydrogenase (≥223 U/l), higher bone marrow blast percentage (≥7.5%) and thrombocytopenia (<55 G/l) at initial diagnosis as the most relevant parameters for the time to first treatment. Using these three parameters we developed a risk score that efficiently estimates the time to treatment initiation with azacitidine or hydroxyurea (p < 0.001; log-rank). In the high-risk group (≥2 risk factors) 85% of patients required treatment within 1 year, whereas this was the case in 48% in the intermediate-risk (1 risk factor) and in 0% in the low-risk group (0 risk factors). Our risk model was validated in an external test cohort of 65 patients and may serve as a simplified and easily applicable tool for identifying patients who may not require early treatment initiation.

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.

Azacitidine front-line in 339 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukaemia: comparison of French-American-British and World Health Organization classifications.

BACKGROUND: The MDS-IWG and NCCN currently endorse both FAB and WHO classifications of MDS and AML, thus allowing patients with 20-30 % bone marrow blasts (AML20-30, formerly MDS-RAEB-t) to be categorised and treated as either MDS or AML. In addition, an artificial distinction between AML20-30 and AML30+ was made by regulatory agencies by initially restricting approval of azacitidine to AML20-30. Thus, uncertainty prevails regarding the diagnosis, prognosis and optimal treatment timing and strategy for patients with AML20-30. Here, we aim to provide clarification for patients treated with azacitidine front-line. METHODS: The Austrian Azacitidine Registry is a multicentre database (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01595295). For this analysis, we selected 339 patients treated with azacitidine front-line. According to the WHO classification 53, 96 and 190 patients had MDS-RAEB-I, MDS-RAEB-II and AML (AML20-30: n = 79; AML30+: n = 111), respectively. According to the FAB classification, 131, 101 and 111 patients had MDS-RAEB, MDS-RAEB-t and AML, respectively. RESULTS: The median ages of patients with MDS and AML were 72 (range 37-87) and 77 (range 23-93) years, respectively. Overall, 80 % of classifiable patients (≤30 % bone marrow blasts) had intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS scores. Most other baseline, treatment and response characteristics were similar between patients diagnosed with MDS or AML. WHO-classified patients with AML20-30 had significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB-II (13.1 vs 18.9 months; p = 0.010), but similar OS to patients with AML30+ (10.9 vs 13.1 months; p = 0.238). AML patients that showed MDS-related features did not have worse outcomes compared with patients who did not (13.2 vs 8.9 months; p = 0.104). FAB-classified patients with MDS-RAEB-t had similar survival to patients with AML30+ (12.8 vs 10.9 months; p = 0.376), but significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB (10.9 vs 24.4 months; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate the validity of the WHO classification of MDS and AML, and its superiority over the former FAB classification, for patients treated with azacitidine front-line. Neither bone marrow blast count nor presence of MDS-related features had an adverse prognostic impact on survival. Patients with AML20-30 should therefore be regarded as having 'true AML' and in our opinion treatment should be initiated without delay.