Favorable outcomes of acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage treated with hyperCVAD: a multi-center retrospective study.

Acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage (ALAL) are rare hematologic malignancies with poor outcomes. Retrospective studies have suggested that acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) regimens are more effective than acute myeloid leukemia (AML) regimens. We retrospectively examined the effectiveness of the widely-used adult ALL regimen hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (hyperCVAD) as initial therapy in patients with ALAL at five academic institutions. Twenty-five patients were identified, including 23 with mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) and two with acute undifferentiated leukemia. Five of 8 tested (63%) had FLT3-ITD and 3 of 25 (12%) were Philadelphia chromosome-positive. The complete remission (CR) rate was 76%, with CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) in an additional 8%, for an overall response rate of 84%. Median number of cycles to CR/CRi was 1. There were no deaths in the first 30 days. Of the 21 patients achieving CR or CRi, 14 (66%) proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. With a median follow-up time of 31.6 months, median overall survival for the entire cohort was not reached, and the estimated 2-year survival was 63%. HyperCVAD can be considered an effective and tolerable front-line regimen for patients with ALAL, and warrants further prospective study.

Identification of a Cryptic t(8;20;21)(q22;p13;q22) Resulting in RUNX1T1/RUNX1 Fusion in a Patient with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

The detection of recurrent genetic abnormalities in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), including RUNX1T1/RUNX1 gene fusion, is critical for optimal medical management. Herein, we report a 45 year old woman with newly diagnosed AML and conventional chromosome studies that revealed an apparently balanced t(8;20)(q22;p13) in all 20 metaphases analyzed. A RUNX1T1/RUNX1 dual-color dual-fusion fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) probe set was subsequently performed and revealed a RUNX1T1/RUNX1 gene fusion. Metaphase FISH studies performed on abnormal metaphases revealed a cryptic, complex translocation resulting in RUNX1T1/RUNX1 fusion, t(8;20;21)(q22;p13;q22). This case study shows the importance of performing FISH studies or other high-resolution genetic testing concurrently with conventional chromosome studies for the detection of cryptic recurrent gene fusions in AML, particularly a focused genetic evaluation such as RUNX1T1/RUNX1 gene fusion, when specific abnormalities involving 8q22 are identified.

MDM2 antagonists as a novel treatment option for acute myeloid leukemia: perspectives on the therapeutic potential of idasanutlin (RG7388).

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a clonal heterogenous malignancy of the myeloid cells with a poor prognosis lending itself to novel treatment strategies. TP53 is a critical tumor suppressor and plays an essential role in leukemogenesis. Although TP53 is relatively unusual in de novo AML, inactivation of wild-type p53 (WT-p53) is a common event. Murine double minute 2 (MDM2) is a key negative regulator of p53 and its expression; inhibition of MDM2 is postulated to reactivate WT-p53 and its tumor suppressor functions. Nutlins were the first small molecule inhibitors that bind to MDM2 and target its interaction with p53. RG7388 (idasanutlin), a second-generation nutlin, was developed to improve upon the potency and toxicity profile of earlier nutlins. Preliminary data from early phase trials and ongoing studies suggest clinical response with RG7388 (idasanutlin) both in monotherapy and combination strategies in AML. We herein briefly discuss currently approved therapies in AML and review the clinical data for RG7388 (idasanutlin) and MDM2 inhibition as novel treatment strategies in AML. We further describe efficacy and toxicity profile data from completed and ongoing trials of RG7388 (idasanutlin) and other MDM2-p53 inhibitors in development. Many targeted therapies have been approved recently in AML, with a focus on the older and unfit population for intensive induction therapy and in relapsed/refractory disease. The "nutlins", including RG7388 (idasanutlin), merit continued investigation in such settings.

Phase I Study of Sorafenib and Vorinostat in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Preclinical data suggest histone deacetylase inhibitors improve the therapeutic index of sorafenib. A phase I study was initiated to establish the recommended phase 2 dose of sorafenib combined with vorinostat in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received vorinostat (200 to 400 mg by mouth once daily, 5 of 7 d) and sorafenib at standard or reduced doses (400 mg [cohort A] or 200 mg [cohort B] by mouth twice daily). Patients who received 14 days of vorinostat in cycle 1 were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). RESULTS: Sixteen patients were treated. Thirteen patients were evaluable for response. Three patients experienced DLTs, 2 in cohort A (grade [gr] 3 hypokalemia; gr 3 maculopapular rash) and 1 in cohort B (gr 3 hepatic failure; gr 3 hypophosphatemia; gr 4 thrombocytopenia). Eleven patients required dose reductions or omissions for non-DLTtoxicity. Ten patients (77%) had stable disease (SD). The median treatment duration was 4.7 months for response-evaluable patients. One patient with SD was on treatment for 29.9 months, and another patient, also with SD, was on treatment for 18.7 months. Another patient electively stopped therapy after 15 months and remains without evidence of progression 3 years later. CONCLUSIONS: Although some patients had durable disease control, the addition of vorinostat to sorafenib led to toxicities in most patients, requiring dose modifications that prevented determination of the recommended phase 2 dose. The combination is not recommended for further exploration with this vorinostat schedule in this patient population.

Phase I study of pemetrexed with sorafenib in advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine if combination treatment with pemetrexed and sorafenib is safe and tolerable in patients with advanced solid tumors. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled and 36 patients were treated (24 in cohort A; 12 in cohort B). The cohort A dose schedule resulted in problematic cumulative toxicity, while the cohort B dose schedule was found to be more tolerable. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was pemetrexed 750 mg/m2 every 14 days with oral sorafenib 400 mg given twice daily on days 1-5. Because dosing delays and modifications were associated with the MTD, the recommended phase II dose was declared to be pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 every 14 days with oral sorafenib 400 mg given twice daily on days 1-5. Thirty-three patients were evaluated for antitumor activity. One complete response and 4 partial responses were observed (15% overall response rate). Stable disease was seen in 15 patients (45%). Four patients had a continued response at 6 months, including 2 of 5 patients with triple-negative breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A phase I trial employing a standard 3 + 3 design was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cohort A involved a novel dose escalation schema exploring doses of pemetrexed every 14 days with continuous sorafenib. Cohort B involved a modified schedule of sorafenib dosing on days 1-5 of each 14-day pemetrexed cycle. Radiographic assessments were conducted every 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed and intermittent sorafenib therapy is a safe and tolerable combination for patients, with promising activity seen in patients with breast cancer.