Azacitidine in Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Meta-Analysis of Data from Prospective Studies.

BACKGROUND: After erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) failure, lenalidomide and hypomethylating agents are the only remaining treatment options for most patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS). Optimal choice of these agents as front-line therapy in non-del(5q) LR-MDS is unclear. Because azacitidine clinical data mainly describe experience in higher-risk MDS, we performed a meta-analysis of patient-level data to evaluate azacitidine in patients with red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent LR-MDS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched English-language articles for prospective phase II and III azacitidine clinical trials and patient registries published between 2000 and 2015, and Embase abstracts from 2015 conferences. Patient-level data from identified relevant studies were provided by investigators. Meta-analyses followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Efficacy endpoints were RBC transfusion independence (TI) and Clinical Benefit (RBC-TI, erythroid response, and complete or partial remission, per International Working Group 2006 criteria for MDS). RESULTS: Data for 233 patients from 6 clinical studies and 1 registry study met criteria for inclusion in analyses. Overall, 90.3% of patients had non-del(5q) LR-MDS. Pooled estimates from random-effects models of RBC-TI and Clinical Benefit were 38.9% and 81.1%, respectively; for the ESA-refractory subgroup, they were 40.5% and 77.3%; and for patients with isolated anemia, they were 41.9% and 82.5%. In multivariate analyses, planned use of ≥6 azacitidine treatment cycles was significantly predictive of response. CONCLUSION: Azacitidine effects in these patients, most with non-del(5q) LR-MDS, were promising and generally similar to those reported for lenalidomide in similar patients. The choice of initial therapy is important because most patients eventually stop responding to front-line therapy and alternatives are limited. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) are primarily characterized by anemia. After erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) failure, lenalidomide and hypomethylating agents are the only remaining treatment options for most patients. This meta-analysis of 233 azacitidine-treated red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent patients with LR-MDS (92.3% non-del[5q]) from 7 studies showed 38.9% became RBC transfusion-independent. There is no clear guidance regarding the optimal choice of lenalidomide or hypomethylating agents for patients with non-del(5q) LR-MDS following ESA failure. Clinical presentation (e.g., number of cytopenias) and potential outcomes after hypomethylating agent failure are factors to consider when making initial treatment decisions for LR-MDS patients.

Randomized study of continuous high-dose lenalidomide, sequential azacitidine and lenalidomide, or azacitidine in persons 65 years and over with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia.

Therapy of acute myeloid leukemia in older persons is associated with poor outcomes because of intolerance to intensive therapy, resistant disease and co-morbidities. This multi-center, randomized, open-label, phase II trial compared safety and efficacy of three therapeutic strategies in patients 65 years or over with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia: 1) continuous high-dose lenalidomide (n=15); 2) sequential azacitidine and lenalidomide (n=39); and 3) azacitidine only (n=34). The efficacy end point was 1-year survival. Median age was 76 years (range 66-87 years). Thirteen subjects (15%) had prior myelodysplastic syndrome and 41 (47%) had adverse cytogenetics. One-year survival was 21% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0, 43%] with high-dose lenalidomide, 44% (95%CI: 28, 60%) with sequential azacitidine and lenalidomide, and 52% (95%CI: 35, 70%) with azacitidine only. Lenalidomide at a continuous high-dose schedule was poorly-tolerated resulting in a high rate of early therapy discontinuations. Hazard of death in the first four months was greatest in subjects receiving continuous high-dose lenalidomide; hazards of death thereafter were similar. These data do not favor use of continuous high-dose lenalidomide or sequential azacitidine and lenalidomide over the conventional dose and schedule of azacitidine only in patients aged 65 years or over with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 01358734).

Rigosertib versus best supportive care for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes after failure of hypomethylating drugs (ONTIME): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypomethylating drugs are the standard treatment for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Survival is poor after failure of these drugs; there is no approved second-line therapy. We compared the overall survival of patients receiving rigosertib and best supportive care with that of patients receiving best supportive care only in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes with excess blasts after failure of azacitidine or decitabine treatment. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 74 hospitals and university medical centres in the USA and Europe. We enrolled patients with diagnosis of refractory anaemia with excess blasts (RAEB)-1, RAEB-2, RAEB-t, or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia based on local site assessment, and treatment failure with a hypomethylating drug in the past 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive rigosertib 1800 mg per 24 h via 72-h continuous intravenous infusion administered every other week or best supportive care with or without low-dose cytarabine. Randomisation was stratified by pretreatment bone marrow blast percentage. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01241500. FINDINGS: From Dec 13, 2010, to Aug 15, 2013, we enrolled 299 patients: 199 assigned to rigosertib, 100 assigned to best supportive care. Median follow-up was 19·5 months (IQR 11·9-27·3). As of Feb 1, 2014, median overall survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·1-10·1) in the rigosertib group and 5·9 months (4·1-9·3) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·67-1·14; p=0·33). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (34 [18%] of 184 patients in the rigosertib group vs seven [8%] of 91 patients in the best supportive care group), thrombocytopenia (35 [19%] vs six [7%]), neutropenia (31 [17%] vs seven [8%]), febrile neutropenia (22 [12%] vs ten [11%]), and pneumonia (22 [12%] vs ten [11%]). 41 (22%) of 184 patients in the rigosertib group and 30 (33%) of 91 patients in the best supportive care group died due to adverse events and three deaths were attributed to rigosertib treatment. INTERPRETATION: Rigosertib did not significantly improve overall survival compared with best supportive care. A randomised phase 3 trial of rigosertib (NCT 02562443) is underway in specific subgroups of patients deemed to be at high risk, including patients with very high risk per the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System criteria. FUNDING: Onconova Therapeutics, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

MPD-RC 101 prospective study of reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with myelofibrosis.

From 2007 to 2011, 66 patients with primary myelofibrosis or myelofibrosis (MF) preceded by essential thrombocythemia or polycythemia vera were enrolled into a prospective phase 2 clinical trial of reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT), Myeloproliferative Disorder Research Consortium 101 trial. The study included patients with sibling donors (n = 32) receiving fludarabine/melphalan (FluMel) as a preparative regimen and patients with unrelated donors (n = 34) receiving conditioning with FluMel plus anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG). Patient characteristics in the 2 cohorts were similar. Engraftment occurred in 97% of siblings and 76% of unrelated transplants, whereas secondary graft failure occurred in 3% and 12%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 25 months for patients alive, the overall survival (OS) was 75% in the sibling group (median not reached) and 32% in the unrelated group (median OS: 6 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3, 25) (hazard ratio 3.9, 95% CI: 1.8,8.9) (P < .001). Nonrelapse mortality was 22% in sibling and 59% in unrelated AHSCT. Survival correlated with type of donor, but not with the degree of histocompatibility match, age, or JAK2(V617F) status. In patients with MF with sibling donors, AHSCT is an effective therapy, whereas AHSCT from unrelated donors with FluMel/ATG conditioning led to a high rate of graft failure and limited survival. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00572897.

Clinical activity and safety of the dual pathway inhibitor rigosertib for higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes following DNA methyltransferase inhibitor therapy.

Rigosertib (ON 01910.Na) is an inhibitor of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase and polo-like kinase pathways that induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis in neoplastic cells, while sparing normal cells. Our purpose is to summarize the clinical activity and safety of intravenous (IV) rigosertib delivered by an external ambulatory infusion pump in patients with refractory anemia with excess blasts-1, -2, or, -t myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) following prior treatment with DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) inhibitors. A total of 39 patients with MDS who fulfilled these criteria were enrolled in four phase 1-2 clinical trials of IV rigosertib. Thirty five (88%) had higher risk disease according to the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System. Median overall survival for this group of 39 patients was 35 weeks. Of 30 evaluable patients with follow-up bone marrow biopsies, 12 (40%) achieved complete (n = 5) or partial (n = 7) bone marrow blast responses. In addition, 15 patients achieved stabilization of bone marrow blasts. One patient with a complete bone marrow response also achieved a complete cytogenetic response. A second patient with stable bone marrow blasts achieved a partial cytogenetic response. Two of the responding patients and three patients with stable disease had hematological improvements. Rigosertib-induced bone marrow blast decreases and stability appeared to be predictive of prolonged survival. IV rigosertib had a favorable safety profile without significant myelosuppression. Most common drug-related toxicities included fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, dysuria, and hematuria. In summary, IV rigosertib is well tolerated and has clinical activity in patients with higher risk MDS following DNMT inhibitor treatment. A multinational pivotal phase 3 randomized clinical trial of rigosertib versus best supportive care for patients with MDS with excess blasts following prior treatment with DNMT inhibitors (ONTIME: ON 01910.Na Trial In Myelodysplastic SyndromE) has recently completed enrollment.

Single agent bevacizumab for myelofibrosis: results of the Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium Trial.

The myeloproliferative neoplasm, myelofibrosis, is a morbid and frequently fatal illness encompassing primary myelofibrosis, and end-stage essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia. Bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenous (i.v.) every 21 days) was tested in a phase II international trial conducted by the Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium. Thirteen patients were enrolled in the first stage of this 2-stage trial. Among the 11 patients who received therapy, only 3 received more than 4 cycles of therapy; none of the patients achieved an objective response. Furthermore, significant toxicity, not directly related to the vascular or gastrointestinal events typically associated with the anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody preparation in other disease states, was observed. Lack of objective responses coupled with toxicity led to the decision to terminate the study early. If future studies incorporate bevacizumab in combination therapy for myelofibrosis, more modest doses should be considered. (clinicaltrials.gov Identifier 00667277).

A multivariate analysis of the relationship between response and survival among patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes treated within azacitidine or conventional care regimens in the randomized AZA-001 trial.

The phase III AZA-001 study established that azacitidine significantly improves overall survival compared with conventional care regimens (hazard ratio 0.58 [95% confidence interval 0.43-0.77], P<0.001). This analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between treatment response and overall survival. AZA-001 data were analyzed in a multivariate Cox regression analysis with response as a time-varying covariate. Response categories were "Overall Response" (defined as complete remission, partial remission, or any hematologic improvement) and "Stable Disease" (no complete or partial remission, hematologic improvement, or progression) or "Other" (e.g. disease progression). Achieving an Overall Response with azacitidine reduced risk of death by 95% compared with achieving an Overall Response with the conventional care regimens (hazard ratio 0.05 [95%CI: 0.01-0.43], P=0.006). Sensitivity analyses indicated that significantly improved overall survival remained manifest for patients with a hematologic improvement who had never achieved complete or partial remission (hazard ratio 0.19 [95%CI: 0.08-0.46], P<0.001). Stable Disease in both azacitidine-treated and conventional care-treated patients was also associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (hazard ratio 0.09, [95%CI: 0.06-0.15]; P<0.001). These results demonstrate azacitidine benefit on overall survival compared with conventional care regimens in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who achieve hematologic response but never attain complete or partial remission, in addition to the survival advantage conferred by achievement of complete or partial remission.

Ascertaining QUAZARs: slow-motion and light-speed development of oral azacitidine and decitabine.

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are devastating diseases that frequently rely on the use of parenteral hypomethylating agents (HMAs), either as monotherapy or in combination, as first-line treatment for many patients. Two new oral HMAs, decitabine/cedazuridine (DC) for use in place of azacitidine or decitabine in MDS, and azacitidine (CC-486) for use as maintenance treatment in AML, were recently approved by the FDA. We will discuss the development of these oral HMAs, including the advantages/disadvantages in transitioning to oral HMAs and an in depth look at the pivotal phase III trials that led to their FDA approval - ASCERTAIN for DC and QUAZAR-AML-001 for CC-486. We also review how these agents have been and are being studied in other malignancies, and examine the future role that these exciting novel agents will play in both MDS and AML.

A randomized phase 2 trial of azacitidine with or without durvalumab as first-line therapy for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

Azacitidine-mediated hypomethylation promotes tumor cell immune recognition but may increase the expression of inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules. We conducted the first randomized phase 2 study of azacitidine plus the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab vs azacitidine monotherapy as first-line treatment for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). In all, 84 patients received 75 mg/m2 subcutaneous azacitidine (days 1-7 every 4 weeks) combined with 1500 mg intravenous durvalumab on day 1 every 4 weeks (Arm A) for at least 6 cycles or 75 mg/m² subcutaneous azacitidine alone (days 1-7 every 4 weeks) for at least 6 cycles (Arm B). After a median follow-up of 15.25 months, 8 patients in Arm A and 6 in Arm B remained on treatment. Patients in Arm A received a median of 7.9 treatment cycles and those in Arm B received a median of 7.0 treatment cycles with 73.7% and 65.9%, respectively, completing ≥4 cycles. The overall response rate (primary end point) was 61.9% in Arm A (26 of 42) and 47.6% in Arm B (20 of 42; P = .18), and median overall survival was 11.6 months (95% confidence interval, 9.5 months to not evaluable) vs 16.7 months (95% confidence interval, 9.8-23.5 months; P = .74). Durvalumab-related adverse events (AEs) were reported by 71.1% of patients; azacitidine-related AEs were reported by 82% (Arm A) and 81% (Arm B). Grade 3 or 4 hematologic AEs were reported in 89.5% (Arm A) vs 68.3% (Arm B) of patients. Patients with TP53 mutations tended to have a worse response than patients without these mutations. Azacitidine increased programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1 [CD274]) surface expression on bone marrow granulocytes and monocytes, but not blasts, in both arms. In summary, combining azacitidine with durvalumab in patients with HR-MDS was feasible but with more toxicities and without significant improvement in clinical outcomes over azacitidine alone. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02775903.

A randomized phase 2 trial of azacitidine with or without durvalumab as first-line therapy for older patients with AML.

Evidence suggests that combining immunotherapy with hypomethylating agents may enhance antitumor activity. This phase 2 study investigated the activity and safety of durvalumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, combined with azacitidine for patients aged ≥65 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), including analyses to identify biomarkers of treatment response. Patients were randomized to first-line therapy with azacitidine 75 mg/m2 on days 1 through 7 with (Arm A, n = 64) or without (Arm B, n = 65) durvalumab 1500 mg on day 1 every 4 weeks. Overall response rate (complete response [CR] + CR with incomplete blood recovery) was similar in both arms (Arm A, 31.3%; Arm B, 35.4%), as were overall survival (Arm A, 13.0 months; Arm B, 14.4 months) and duration of response (Arm A, 24.6 weeks; Arm B, 51.7 weeks; P = .0765). No new safety signals emerged with combination treatment. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were constipation (Arm A, 57.8%; Arm B, 53.2%) and thrombocytopenia (Arm A, 42.2%; Arm B, 45.2%). DNA methylation, mutational status, and PD-L1 expression were not associated with response to treatment. In this study, first-line combination therapy with durvalumab and azacitidine in older patients with AML was feasible but did not improve clinical efficacy compared with azacitidine alone. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02775903.

Continued azacitidine therapy beyond time of first response improves quality of response in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: In the AZA-001 trial, azacitidine (75 mg/m(2) /d subcutaneously for Days 1-7 of every 28-day cycle) demonstrated improved survival compared with conventional care regimens in patients with International Prognostic Scoring System-defined intermediate-2- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and World Health Organization-defined acute myeloid leukemia with 20% to 30% bone marrow blasts. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the AZA-001 phase 3 study evaluated the time to first response and the potential benefit of continued azacitidine treatment beyond first response in responders. RESULTS: Overall, 91 of 179 patients achieved a response to azacitidine; responding patients received a median of 14 treatment cycles (range, 2-30). Median time to first response was 2 cycles (range, 1-16). Although 91% of first responses occurred by 6 cycles, continued azacitidine improved response category in 48% of patients. Best response was achieved by 92% of responders by 12 cycles. Median time from first response to best response was 3.5 cycles (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-6.0) in 30 patients who ultimately achieved a complete response, and 3.0 cycles (95% CI, 1.0-3.0) in 21 patients who achieved a partial response. CONCLUSIONS: Continued azacitidine therapy in responders was associated with a quantitative increase in response to a higher response category in 48% of patients, and therefore may enhance clinical benefit in patients with higher-risk MDS.

Early epigenetic changes and DNA damage do not predict clinical response in an overlapping schedule of 5-azacytidine and entinostat in patients with myeloid malignancies.

Sequential administration of DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) inhibitors and histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with hematologic malignancies. However, the mechanism behind their clinical efficacy remains controversial. In this study, the methylation dynamics of 4 TSGs (p15(INK4B), CDH-1, DAPK-1, and SOCS-1) were studied in sequential bone marrow samples from 30 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who completed a minimum of 4 cycles of therapy with 5-azacytidine and entinostat. Reversal of promoter methylation after therapy was observed in both clinical responders and nonresponders across all genes. There was no association between clinical response and either baseline methylation or methylation reversal in the bone marrow or purified CD34(+) population, nor was there an association with change in gene expression. Transient global hypomethylation was observed in samples after treatment but was not associated with clinical response. Induction of histone H3/H4 acetylation and the DNA damage-associated variant histone gamma-H2AX was observed in peripheral blood samples across all dose cohorts. In conclusion, methylation reversal of candidate TSGs during cycle 1 of therapy was not predictive of clinical response to combination "epigenetic" therapy. This trial is registered with http://www.clinicaltrials.gov under NCT00101179.

Forsaken Pharmaceutical: Glasdegib in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myeloid Diseases.

Advancements in the understanding of the pathogenesis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have led to the introduction and approval of a number of novel drugs in AML. Glasdegib, an oral hedgehog pathway inhibitor, was approved in 2018 in combination with low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy. In this review, we discuss the preclinical rationale for glasdegib, important clinical trials that led to glasdegib's approval, and future trials of glasdegib in AML and other myeloid diseases. Notably, 2 large randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (AML BRIGHT 1019) are currently recruiting patients with newly diagnosed AML to evaluate glasdegib in combination with intensive chemotherapy or azacitidine, depending on the patient's ability to tolerate induction chemotherapy. While glasdegib and low-dose cytarabine have been eclipsed by venetoclax and hypomethylating agent combinations for newly diagnosed AML in the United States, we discuss other areas where glasdegib may still have an opportunity to improve outcomes in this devastating disease.

Safety and Efficacy: Clinical Experience of Venetoclax in Combination With Hypomethylating Agents in Both Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed/Refractory Advanced Myeloid Malignancies.

Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax have been widely adopted as the standard of care for patients who cannot tolerate induction chemotherapy and for patients who have relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This study retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of all patients with AML (n = 65) or myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 7) who received the combination of HMA and venetoclax at our institution. Outcomes measured included complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rates, duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). Patient mutational profiles and transfusion requirements were also assessed. Of 26 newly diagnosed AML patients, the CR/CRi rate was 53.8%. The median DOR and OS were 6.9 months and not reached, respectively. Of 39 R/R AML patients, the CR/CRi rate was 38.5%. The median DOR and OS were both 8.1 months. Responders to HMA and venetoclax were enriched for TET2, IDH1, and IDH2 mutations, while nonresponders were associated with FLT3 and RAS mutations. Adaptive resistance was observed through various mechanisms including acquired RAS pathway mutations. Of transfusion-dependent patients, 12.2% and 15.2% achieved red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusion independence, respectively, while 44.8% and 35.1% of RBC and platelet transfusion independent patients, respectively, became transfusion dependent. In total 59.1% of patients developed a ≥grade 3 infection and 46.5% neutropenic fever. HMA + venetoclax can lead to impressive response rates with moderately durable remissions and survival. However, the benefits of this combination are diminished by the significant toxicities from infection, persistent cytopenias, and transfusion requirements.

Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of CC-486 (Oral Azacitidine) in Patients With Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

PURPOSE: Treatment options are limited for patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS). This phase III, placebo-controlled trial evaluated CC-486 (oral azacitidine), a hypomethylating agent, in patients with International Prognostic Scoring System LR-MDS and RBC transfusion-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to CC-486 300-mg or placebo for 21 days/28-day cycle. The primary end point was RBC transfusion independence (TI). RESULTS: Two hundred sixteen patients received CC-486 (n = 107) or placebo (n = 109). The median age was 74 years, median platelet count was 25 × 109/L, and absolute neutrophil count was 1.3 × 109/L. In the CC-486 and placebo arms, 31% and 11% of patients, respectively, achieved RBC-TI (P = .0002), with median durations of 11.1 and 5.0 months. Reductions of ≥ 4 RBC units were attained by 42.1% and 30.6% of patients, respectively, with median durations of 10.0 and 2.3 months, and more CC-486 patients had ≥ 1.5 g/dL hemoglobin increases from baseline (23.4% v 4.6%). Platelet hematologic improvement rate was higher with CC-486 (24.3% v 6.5%). Underpowered interim overall survival analysis showed no difference between CC-486 and placebo (median, 17.3 v 16.2 months; P = .96). Low-grade GI events were the most common adverse events in both arms. In the CC-486 and placebo arms, 90% and 73% of patients experienced a grade 3-4 adverse event. Overall death rate was similar between arms, but there was an imbalance in deaths during the first 56 days (CC-486, n = 16; placebo, n = 6), most related to infections; the median pretreatment absolute neutrophil count for the 16 CC-486 patients was 0.57 × 109/L. CONCLUSION: CC-486 significantly improved RBC-TI rate and induced durable bilineage improvements in patients with LR-MDS and high-risk disease features. More early deaths occurred in the CC-486 arm, most related to infections in patients with significant pretreatment neutropenia. Further evaluation of CC-486 in MDS is needed.

Discontinuous drug binding to proteins: binding of an antineoplastic benzyl styryl sulfone to albumin and enzymes in vitro and in phase I clinical trials.

Sodium (E)-{N-[2-methyloxy-5-(2',4',6'-trimethoxy-styrylsulfonyl) methylenephenyl]amino}acetate (C(21)H(24)NNaO(8)S, ON 01910.Na) is a novel, synthetic benzyl styryl sulfone, currently in phase I clinical trials in cancer patients. Our objective was to use electrospray mass spectrometry to determine, in intact complexes, the number of drug molecules bound to albumin and selected enzymes. Native and recombinant albumin incubated with the drug, at various molar ratios, revealed simultaneous and discontinuous progression of drug binding, yielding intact albumin-drug complexes containing up to 22 drug molecules. Comparable complex protein-drug patterns were obtained for several enzymes, e.g., carbonic anhydrase. Intact albumin-ON 01910 complexes were also found in all patient samples. The drug-binding profiles were comparable, but not identical, for increasing sampling times and different doses (400-1700 mg/m(2)). We concluded that the techniques developed are capable of detecting the simultaneous formation of intact protein-drug complexes and of determining the number of drug molecules bound to proteins. The results enhance our hypothesis that drug binding may lead to conformational changes in proteins that, in turn, account for the exclusion of specific binding complexes and may influence protein behavior and activity. Application of these techniques reveals new insights about the nature of the antineoplastic drug ON 01910 in patient plasma, and the information obtained may have significance in understanding drug delivery to tumors.

Management and supportive care measures for adverse events in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes treated with azacitidine*.

OBJECTIVE: Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) treatment can initially worsen patients' clinical condition and they may discontinue therapy before achieving benefit. We present previously unpublished data from two large phase III trials describing common adverse events (AEs) associated with azacitidine and methods to manage them. METHODS: In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 9221 study, patients with any French-American-British (FAB) subtype of MDS were randomized to azacitidine or best supportive care (BSC). After 56 d, patients randomized to BSC with disease progression could cross over to receive azacitidine. In the AZA-001 study, patients with higher-risk MDS (FAB-defined refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), RAEB in transformation, or chronic myelomonocitic leukaemia and IPSS int-2 or high) were randomized to azacitidine or to conventional care regimens (CCR), which included low-dose ara-C, BSC, or intensive chemotherapy. In both studies, azacitidine dose was 75 mg/m(2)/d SC for 7 d every 28 d. AEs were graded per National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0 (AZA-001) or CALGB Expanded CTC (CALGB 9221). RESULTS: In safety-evaluable patients in AZA-001 (N = 175) or CALGB 9221 (N = 150), the most common AEs with azacitidine included hematologic (eg, cytopenias) and non-hematologic administration-related events (eg, injection-site reactions and gastrointestinal disorders). Most AEs were transient and resolved during ongoing therapy (> 83%). Hematologic AEs, most frequently observed during early treatment cycles, decreased during subsequent cycles and were usually managed with dosing delays (23-29%). Gastrointestinal symptoms were primarily managed with anti-emetics and laxatives. CONCLUSION: Hematologic and non-hematologic AEs with azacitidine decreased in frequency as treatment continued. Awareness of the onset, duration and management of AEs can facilitate treatment, permitting patients to continue therapy for maximum benefit.

Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomised, open-label, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Drug treatments for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes provide no survival advantage. In this trial, we aimed to assess the effect of azacitidine on overall survival compared with the three commonest conventional care regimens. METHODS: In a phase III, international, multicentre, controlled, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes were randomly assigned one-to-one to receive azacitidine (75 mg/m(2) per day for 7 days every 28 days) or conventional care (best supportive care, low-dose cytarabine, or intensive chemotherapy as selected by investigators before randomisation). Patients were stratified by French-American-British and international prognostic scoring system classifications; randomisation was done with a block size of four. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat for all patients assigned to receive treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00071799. FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2004, and Aug 7, 2006, 358 patients were randomly assigned to receive azacitidine (n=179) or conventional care regimens (n=179). Four patients in the azacitidine and 14 in the conventional care groups received no study drugs but were included in the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis. After a median follow-up of 21.1 months (IQR 15.1-26.9), median overall survival was 24.5 months (9.9-not reached) for the azacitidine group versus 15.0 months (5.6-24.1) for the conventional care group (hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.43-0.77; stratified log-rank p=0.0001). At last follow-up, 82 patients in the azacitidine group had died compared with 113 in the conventional care group. At 2 years, on the basis of Kaplan-Meier estimates, 50.8% (95% CI 42.1-58.8) of patients in the azacitidine group were alive compared with 26.2% (18.7-34.3) in the conventional care group (p<0.0001). Peripheral cytopenias were the most common grade 3-4 adverse events for all treatments. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with azacitidine increases overall survival in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes relative to conventional care.

Myelo-deception: Luspatercept & TGF-Beta ligand traps in myeloid diseases & anemia.

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) encompass a clinically heterogenous group of diseases defined by a clonal bone marrow failure state. Patients with lower-risk MDS primarily suffer from the consequences of anemia, with a subset having increased risks of bleeding and infection. There are few good therapeutic options for this patient population, as patients are dependent on cytokine support to improve hematopoiesis. Our review will discuss luspatercept, a transforming growth factor (TGF)-Beta ligand trap, the first new Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment in MDS in over a decade. We will explore the different TGF-Beta ligand traps that have been developed for a number of diseases, with a focus on myeloid malignancies.

Rigosertib in combination with azacitidine in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes or acute myeloid leukemia: Results of a phase 1 study.

Phase 1 results from a Phase 1/2 study comprise 18 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS; n = 9), acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 8), and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML; n = 1) who were either hypomethylating agent naïve (n = 10) or relapsed/refractory following prior hypomethylating agent therapy (n = 8) (NCT01926587). Patients received oral rigosertib, an inhibitor of Ras-effector pathways, in 3 successive cohorts (140 mg twice daily, 280 mg twice daily, or 840 mg/day [560 mg morning/280 mg evening]) for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. Patients received parenteral azacitidine (75 mg/m2/day × 7 days) during the second week; the cycle repeated every 4 weeks. The combination was well tolerated for a median of 4 (range 1-41) cycles, with 72% of patients experiencing ≥1 serious adverse events. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Thus, no maximum tolerated dose was reached. The most frequently reported adverse events were diarrhea (50%), constipation, fatigue, and nausea (each 44%), and pneumonia and back pain (each 33%). Sequential administration demonstrated an overall response rate of 56% in evaluable patients, with responses observed in 7/9 MDS/CMML patients (78%) and 2/7 AML patients (29%). Further clinical studies are warranted to investigate this doublet therapy in patients with myeloid malignancies.