The Effect of Treatment of Acidosis on Calcium Balance in Patients with Chronic Azotemic Renal Disease

Small but statistically significant negative calcium balances were found in each of eight studies in seven patients with chronic azotemic renal disease when stable metabolic acidosis was present. Only small quantities of calcium were excreted in the urine, but fecal calcium excretion equaled or exceeded dietary intake. Complete and continuous correction of acidosis by NaHCO3 therapy reduced both urinary and fecal calcium excretion and produced a daily calcium balance indistinguishable from zero. Apparent acid retention was found throughout the studies during acidosis, despite no further reduction of the serum bicarbonate concentration. The negative calcium balances that accompanied acid retention support the suggestion that slow titration of alkaline bone salts provides an additional buffer reservoir in chronic metabolic acidosis. The treatment of metabolic acidosis prevented further calcium losses but did not induce net calcium retention. It is suggested that the normal homeostatic responses of the body to the alterations in ionized calcium and calcium distribution produced by raising the serum bicarbonate might paradoxically retard the repair of skeletal calcium deficits

The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of acute leukemia.

Acute leukemia is a constellation of rapidly progressing diseases that affect a wide range of patients regardless of age or gender. Traditional treatment options for patients with acute leukemia include chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation. The advent of cancer immunotherapy has had a significant impact on acute leukemia treatment. Novel immunotherapeutic agents including antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific T cell engagers, and chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies have efficacy and have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with acute leukemia. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline composed of consensus recommendations on immunotherapy for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia

Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Following the Use of Hypomethylating Agents among Patients with Relapsed or Refractory AML: Findings from an International Retrospective Study

Abstract Patients with primary refractory or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia (RR-AML) have very poor prognosis. Due to limited treatment options, some patients are treated with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) due to their tolerability. Little is known about the role of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) following HMA therapy in this setting. We retrospectively analyzed an international cohort of 655 RR-AML patients who received HMA therapy to study patterns and outcomes with HSCT. Only 37 patients (5.6%) patients underwent HSCT after HMA therapy. The conditioning regimen was myeloablative in 57% and nonmyeloablative in 43%. Patients received matched unrelated donor, matched sibling, haploidentical and mismatched unrelated HSCT in 56%, 24%, 16% and 4% of cases, respectively. Acute GvHD and chronic GvHD were observed in 40% and 17% of patients. While the median OS for the entire cohort of patients was 15.3 months (95% CI 9.5 – 21.7 months), OS reached 29.7 months (95% CI 7.01 – not-reached) for patients who achieved a complete remission (CR) to HMA and no intervening therapies between HMA therapy and HSCT. Our study suggests that HMA therapy can effectively bridge some patients with RR-AML to HSCT

The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on immunotherapy for the treatment of hematologic malignancies: multiple myeloma, lymphoma, and acute leukemia

Increasing knowledge concerning the biology of hematologic malignancies as well as the role of the immune system in the control of these diseases has led to the development and approval of immunotherapies that are resulting in impressive clinical responses. Therefore, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a hematologic malignancy Cancer Immunotherapy Guidelines panel consisting of physicians, nurses, patient advocates, and patients to develop consensus recommendations for the clinical application of immunotherapy for patients with multiple myeloma, lymphoma, and acute leukemia. These recommendations were developed following the previously established process based on the Institute of Medicine’s clinical practice guidelines. In doing so, a systematic literature search was performed for high-impact studies from 2004 to 2014 and was supplemented with further literature as identified by the panel. The consensus panel met in December of 2014 with the goal to generate consensus recommendations for the clinical use of immunotherapy in patients with hematologic malignancies. During this meeting, consensus panel voting along with discussion were used to rate and review the strength of the supporting evidence from the literature search. These consensus recommendations focus on issues related to patient selection, toxicity management, clinical endpoints, and the sequencing or combination of therapies. Overall, immunotherapy is rapidly emerging as an effective therapeutic strategy for the management of hematologic malignances. Evidence-based consensus recommendations for its clinical application are provided and will be updated as the field evolves

An Early Biomarker Algorithm Predicts Lethal Graft-Vs-Host Disease and Survival after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

n/

Entospletinib with decitabine in acute myeloid leukemia with mutant TP53 or complex karyotype: A phase 2 substudy of the Beat AML Master Trial

BackgroundPatients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have tumor protein p53 (TP53) mutations or a complex karyotype have a poor prognosis, and hypomethylating agents are often used. The authors evaluated the efficacy of entospletinib, an oral inhibitor of spleen tyrosine kinase, combined with decitabine in this patient population.MethodsThis was a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 substudy of the Beat AML Master Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03013998) using a Simon two-stage design. Eligible patients aged 60 years or older who had newly diagnosed AML with mutations in TP53 with or without a complex karyotype (cohort A; n = 45) or had a complex karyotype without TP53 mutation (cohort B; n = 13) received entospletinib 400 mg twice daily with decitabine 20 mg/m2 on days 1-10 every 28 days for up to three induction cycles, followed by up to 11 consolidation cycles, in which decitabine was reduced to days 1-5. Entospletinib maintenance was given for up to 2 years. The primary end point was complete remission (CR) and CR with hematologic improvement by up to six cycles of therapy.ResultsThe composite CR rates for cohorts A and B were 13.3% (95% confidence interval, 5.1%-26.8%) and 30.8% (95% confidence interval, 9.1%-61.4%), respectively. The median duration of response was 7.6 and 8.2 months, respectively, and the median overall survival was 6.5 and 11.5 months, respectively. The study was stopped because the futility boundary was crossed in both cohorts.ConclusionsThe combination of entospletinib and decitabine demonstrated activity and was acceptably tolerated in this patient population; however, the CR rates were low, and overall survival was short. Novel treatment strategies for older patients with TP53 mutations and complex karyotype remain an urgent need

Biomarkers Predict Graft-Vs-Host Disease Outcomes Better Than Clinical Response after One Week of Treatment

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the primary cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, does not always respond to treatment with high dose systemic corticosteroids. We have recently shown that a combination of three biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) measured at onset of GVHD can predict day 28 response to treatment and 6-month NRM (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to determine if the same biomarker-based Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm can alsopredict treatment response andmortality whenapplied after one week of systemic corticosteroid treatment. The study population consisted of 378 patients (pts) with acute GVHD from 11 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. All pts were treated with systemic steroids and provided a plasma or serum sample obtained after one week of treatment (±3 days). The median starting dose of systemic steroids for Grade II-IV GVHD was 2.0 mg/kg/day and for Grade I was 1.0 mg/kg/day, after which treatment varied. Patients were divided into test (n=236) and validation (n=142) cohorts. We applied the Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm to concentrations of TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α measured after one week of treatment to generate a predicted probability of 6-month NRM, which we term the treatment score (TS). We employed unsupervised k-medoidclustering to partition TS values from the test cohort into two groups (high and low). This unbiased approach identified a high score group made up of 25% of pts (n=58) in the test cohort. We observed that the day 28 response rate (complete, CR + partial, PR) was significantly lower in pts with high scores compared to low scores in the test cohort (24% vs 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1A). Analysis of the validation cohort using the same TS definitions showed similar differences in response rates (22% vs 61%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1B). Further, nearly four times as many pts with high scores in both cohorts died within 6 months from non-relapse causes compared to pts with low scores (test: 57% vs 17%, p<0.0001; validation: 57% vs 14%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1C/D). As expected, the majority of non-relapse deaths in pts treated for GVHD were directly attributable to GVHD (test: 95%; validation: 89%). Relapse rates for high and low score pts were similar (data not shown), and thus pts with a high TS experienced significantly worse overall survival in both cohorts (test: 37% vs 72%, p<0.0001; validation: 38% vs 79%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1E/F). Approximately half of the pts in each cohort (test: 48%; validation: 44%) responded (CR+PR) to the first week of steroids and these ptshad significantly lower 6-month NRM than non-responders (NR) (test: 17% vs 36%, p=0.0002; validation: 13% vs 36%, p=0.0014). Yet the TS continued to stratify mortality risk independently of clinical response. In the test cohort, pts with a high score comprised 16% of all early responders and experienced more than twice the NRM of early responders with a low score (33% vs 13%, p=0.022) (Fig 2A). Conversely, test cohort pts who did not respond by day 7, but had a low score, fared much better than non-responders with a high score (NRM 21% vs 68%, p<0.0001) (Fig 2B). Two thirds of early non-responders comprised this more favorable group. These highly significant results reproduced in the independent validation cohort in similar proportions (CR+PR: 45% vs 6%, p=0.0003; NR: 61% vs 22%, p=0.0001) (Fig 2C/D). Finally, a subset analysis revealed that pts classified as NR after one week of steroids due to isolated, yet persistent, grade I skin GVHD (24/378, 6%) overwhelmingly had low treatment scores (22/24, 92%) and experienced rates of NRM (9%) comparable to responders with low scores, thus forming a distinct, albeit small, subset of pts with non-responsive GVHD that fares particularly well (Fig 3). In conclusion, a treatment score based on three GVHD biomarkers measured after one week of steroids stratifies pts into two groups with distinct risks for treatment failure and 6-month NRM. It is particularly noteworthy that the TS identifies two subsets of pts with steroid refractory (SR) GVHD who have highly different outcomes (Fig 2B/D). The much larger group, approximately two thirds of all SR pts, may not need the same degree of treatment escalation as is traditional for clinical non-response, and thus overtreatment might be avoided. Because the TSis measured at a common decision making time point, it may prove useful to guide risk-adapted therapy. Disclosures Mielke: Novartis: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel grants; JAZZ Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent

Long-term survival can be achieved in a significant fraction of older patients with core binding factor acute myeloid leukemia treated with intensive chemotherapy

Acute Myeloid Leukemia is mainly a disease of the elderly: however, the knowledge on the outcomes of treatment in core binding factor AML (CBFAML) in older population, is limited. We retrospectively collected data on 229 patients with CBF- AML followed long-term in the last two decades. A 5-year overall survival (OS) of 44.2% (95%CI, 39.9-47.5) and a 5-year event - free survival (EFS) of 32.9% (95%CI, 25.5-40.1) was observed. In a subgroup of &gt;70-year patients who completed intensive therapy (induction + &gt;3 courses of consolidation including autologous stem cell transplant: 10 patients) the median EFS was 11.8 months (95%CI, 9.4 - 15.2) and OS was 40.0% (95%CI, 36.4 - 44.1) at 5yr. In univariate analysis, age &gt;70 (hazard ratio (HR) 1.78, [95%CI, 1.15 - 2.54], p=.008), failure to achieve remission following induction (HR, 8.96 [95%CI, 5.5 - 13.8], p=&lt;.0001), no consolidation therapy (HR, 0.75 [95%CI, 0.47 - 1.84], p=.04) and less than 3 cycles of consolidation (HR, 1.48 [95%CI, 0.75 - 3.2], p=.0004), predicted poorer EFS. Our study shows that intensive therapy, in selected older CBF-AML patients, leads to longer survival. Achieving a CR seems to be the most important first step and at least 3 cycles of consolidation, an important second one. The analysis suggests that these patients should not be excluded from studies with intensive therapies

A Study to Assess the Efficacy of Enasidenib and Risk-Adapted Addition of Azacitidine in Newly Diagnosed IDH2-Mutant AML

Enasidenib (ENA) is an inhibitor of isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) approved for the treatment of patients with IDH2-mutant relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this phase 2/1b Beat AML substudy, we applied a risk-adapted approach to assess the efficacy of ENA monotherapy for patients aged ≥60 years with newly diagnosed IDH2-mutant AML in whom genomic profiling demonstrated that mutant IDH2 was in the dominant leukemic clone. Patients for whom ENA monotherapy did not induce a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) enrolled in a phase 1b cohort with the addition of azacitidine. The phase 2 portion assessing the overall response to ENA alone demonstrated efficacy, with a composite complete response (cCR) rate (CR/CRi) of 46% in 60 evaluable patients. Seventeen patients subsequently transitioned to phase 1b combination therapy, with a cCR rate of 41% and 1 dose-limiting toxicity. Correlative studies highlight mechanisms of clonal elimination with differentiation therapy as well as therapeutic resistance. This study demonstrates both efficacy of ENA monotherapy in the upfront setting and feasibility and applicability of a risk-adapted approach to the upfront treatment of IDH2-mutant AML. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03013998

Comparative analysis of calcineurin-inhibitor-based methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil-containing regimens for prevention of Graft-versus-Host Disease after reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation

The combination of a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) such as tacrolimus (TAC) or cyclosporine (CYSP) with methotrexate (MTX) or with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been commonly used for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), but there are limited data comparing efficacy of the 2 regimens. We evaluated 1564 adult patients who underwent RIC alloHCT for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) from 2000 to 2013 using HLA-identical sibling (matched related donor [MRD]) or unrelated donor (URD) peripheral blood graft and received CYSP or TAC with MTX or MMF for GVHD prophylaxis. Primary outcomes of the study were acute and chronic GVHD and overall survival (OS). The study divided the patient population into 4 cohorts based on regimen: MMF-TAC, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC, and MTX-CYSP. In the URD group, MMF-CYSP was associated with increased risk of grade II to IV acute GVHD (relative risk [RR], 1.78; P < .001) and grade III to IV acute GVHD (RR, 1.93; P = .006) compared with MTX-TAC. In the URD group, use of MMF-TAC (versus MTX-TAC) lead to higher nonrelapse mortality. (hazard ratio, 1.48; P = .008). In either group, no there was no difference in chronic GVHD, disease-free survival, and OS among the GVHD prophylaxis regimens. For RIC alloHCT using MRD, there are no differences in outcomes based on GVHD prophylaxis. However, with URD RIC alloHCT, MMF-CYSP was inferior to MTX-based regimens for acute GVHD prevention, but all the regimens were equivalent in terms of chronic GVHD and OS. Prospective studies, targeting URD recipients are needed to confirm these results