First-in-human study of JNJ-63709178, a CD123/CD3 targeting antibody, in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia

Targeting antibody; Acute myeloid leukemiaAnticòs dirigit; Leucèmia mieloide agudaAnticuerpo dirigido; Leucemia mieloide agudaThis study aimed to identify a recommended phase II dose and evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and preliminary clinical activity of JNJ-63709178, a CD123/CD3 dual-targeting antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Intravenous (i.v.) and subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of JNJ-63709178 were evaluated. The i.v. infusions were administered once every 2 weeks (cohorts 1–5 [n = 17]) or twice weekly (cohorts 6–11 [n = 36]). A twice-weekly s.c. dosing regimen with step-up dosing was also studied (s.c. cohorts 1–2 [n = 9]). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) greater than or equal to grade 3 were observed in 11 (65%) patients in cohorts 1–5 and 33 (92%) patients in cohorts 6–11. At the highest i.v. dose (4.8 μg/kg), 5 (71%) patients discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. For s.c. administration (n = 9), eight (89%) patients experienced TEAEs greater than or equal to grade 3 and injection site reactions (≤ grade 3) emerged in all patients. At 4.8 μg/kg (i.v. and s.c.), the mean maximum serum concentrations were 30.3 and 3.59 ng/ml, respectively. Increases in multiple cytokines were observed following i.v. and s.c. administrations, and step-up dosing strategies did not mitigate cytokine production or improve the safety profile and led to limited duration of treatment. Minimal clinical activity was observed across all cohorts. The i.v. and s.c. dosing of JNJ-63709178 was associated with suboptimal drug exposure, unfavorable safety profiles, limited clinical activity, and inability to identify a recommended phase II dose.This work was supported by Janssen Research and Development, LLC

Adjunctive Volasertib in Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia not Eligible for Standard Induction Therapy: A Randomized, Phase 3 Trial

Terapia de inducción estándar; Volasertib adyuvante; Leucemia mieloide agudaStandard Induction Therapy; Adjunctive Volasertib; Acute Myeloid LeukemiaTeràpia d'inducció estàndard; Volasertib adjuvant; Leucèmia mieloide agudaIn this phase 3 trial, older patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive the polo-like kinase inhibitor, volasertib (V; 350 mg intravenous on days 1 and 15 in 4-wk cycles), combined with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC; 20 mg subcutaneous, twice daily, days 1–10; n = 444), or LDAC plus placebo (P; n = 222). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); key secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Primary ORR analysis at recruitment completion included patients randomized ≥5 months beforehand; ORR was 25.2% for V+LDAC and 16.8% for P+LDAC (n = 371; odds ratio 1.66 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95–2.89]; P = 0.071). At final analysis (≥574 OS events), median OS was 5.6 months for V+LDAC and 6.5 months for P+LDAC (n = 666; hazard ratio 0.97 [95% CI, 0.8–1.2]; P = 0.757). The most common adverse events (AEs) were infections/infestations (grouped term; V+LDAC, 81.3%; P+LDAC, 63.5%) and febrile neutropenia (V+LDAC, 60.4%; P+LDAC, 29.3%). Fatal AEs occurred in 31.2% with V+LDAC versus 18.0% with P+LDAC, most commonly infections/infestations (V+LDAC, 17.1%; P+LDAC, 6.3%). Lack of OS benefit with V+LDAC versus P+LDAC may reflect increased early mortality with V+LDAC from myelosuppression and infections.This study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim

European LeukemiaNet 2017 risk stratification for acute myeloid leukemia: validation in a risk-adapted protocol

Risk stratification; Acute myeloid leukemiaEstratificació del risc; Leucèmia mieloide agudaEstratificación de riesgo; Leucemia mieloide agudaThe 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN 2017) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have become fundamental guidelines to assess the prognosis and postremission therapy of patients. However, they have been retrospectively validated in few studies with patients included in different treatment protocols. We analyzed 861 patients included in the Cooperativo Para el Estudio y Tratamiento de las Leucemias Agudas y Mielodisplasias-12 risk-adapted protocol, which indicates cytarabine-based consolidation for patients allocated to the ELN 2017 favorable-risk group, whereas it recommends allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) as a postremission strategy for the ELN 2017 intermediate- and adverse-risk groups. We retrospectively classified patients according to the ELN 2017, with 327 (48%), 109 (16%), and 245 (36%) patients allocated to the favorable-, intermediate-, and adverse-risk group, respectively. The 2- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 77% and 70% for favorable-risk patients, 52% and 46% for intermediate-risk patients, and 33% and 23% for adverse-risk patients, respectively. Furthermore, we identified a subgroup of patients within the adverse group (inv(3)/t(3;3), complex karyotype, and/or TP53 mutation/17p abnormality) with a particularly poor outcome, with a 2-year OS of 15%. Our study validates the ELN 2017 risk stratification in a large cohort of patients treated with an ELN-2017 risk-adapted protocol based on alloSCT after remission for nonfavorable ELN subgroups and identifies a genetic subset with a very poor outcome that warrants investigation of novel strategies.This study was supported (in part) by Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias/Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) grants PI16/01027, PI19/1476, and PI20/01621; Health Research and Innovation Strategic Plan (PERIS) grant SLT002/16/00433 and research group support SGR 1395 and SGR 1655 from Generalitat de Catalunya; resident award “Emili Letang” 2019 (Hospital Clínic de Barcelona); and “Beca de Investigación FEHH 2019” (Fundación Española de Hematologia y Hemoterapia)

Prognostic impact of DNMT3A mutation in acute myeloid leukemia with mutated NPM1

Prognostic impact; Mutation; Acute myeloid leukemiaImpacte pronòstic; Mutació; Leucèmia mieloide agudaImpacto pronóstico; Mutación; Leucemia mieloide agudaThe negative prognostic impact of internal tandem duplication of FLT3 (FLT3-ITD) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia with mutated NPM1 (AML-NPM1) is restricted to those with a higher FLT3-ITD allelic ratio (FLT3high; ≥0.5) and considered negligible in those with a wild-type (FLT3WT)/low ITD ratio (FLT3low). Because the comutation of DNMT3A (DNMT3Amut) has been suggested to negatively influence prognosis in AML-NPM1, we analyzed the impact of DNMT3Amut in FLT3-ITD subsets (absent, low, and high ratios). A total of 164 patients diagnosed with AML-NPM1 included in 2 consecutive CETLAM protocols and with DNMT3A and FLT3 status available were studied. Overall, DNMT3Amut status did not have a prognostic impact, with comparable overall survival (P = .2). Prognostic stratification established by FLT3-ITD (FLT3WT = FLT3low > FLT3high) was independent of DNMT3Amut status. Measurable residual disease (MRD) based on NPM1 quantitative polymerase chain reaction was available for 94 patients. DNMT3Amut was associated with a higher number of mutated NPM1 transcripts after induction (P = .012) and first consolidation (C1; P < .001). All DNMT3Amut patients were MRD+ after C1 (P < .001) and exhibited significant MRD persistence after C2 and C3 (MRD+ vs MRD−; P = .027 and P = .001, respectively). Finally, DNMT3Amut patients exhibited a trend toward greater risk of molecular relapse (P = .054). In conclusion, DNMT3Amut did not modify the overall prognosis exerted by FLT3-ITD in AML-NPM1 despite delayed MRD clearance, possibly because of MRD-driven preemptive intervention.This work was supported in part by the Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant-Pau) and the José Carreras Leukemia Research Institute as well as grants from the Catalan Government (PERIS SLT002/16/0043 and AGAUR 2017 SGR 139) and the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain (PI17/01246, PI20/01621 and CM20/00061)

Enasidenib vs conventional care in older patients with late-stage mutant-IDH2 relapsed/refractory AML: a randomized phase 3 trial

Enasidenib; Conventional careEnasidenib; Atenció convencionalEnasidenib; Atención convencionalThis open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 (isocitrate dehydrogenase 2) inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCRs) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care) and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg per day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n = 158) or CCR (n = 161). The median age was 71 years, median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3 to 1270), and CCR was 36 days (1 to 1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. The median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio], 0.86; P = .23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median, 4.9 vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR, 0.68; P = .008), TTF (median, 4.9 vs 1.9 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001), ORR (40.5% vs 9.9%; P <.001), HI (42.4% vs 11.2%), and red blood cell (RBC)-TI (31.7% vs 9.3%). Enasidenib safety was consistent with prior reports. The primary study endpoint was not met, but OS was confounded by early dropout and subsequent AML-directed therapies. Enasidenib provided meaningful benefits in EFS, TTF, ORR, HI, and RBC-TI in this heavily pretreated older mutant-IDH2 R/R AML population.This work was supported by Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

First-in-Human Phase I Study of Iadademstat (ORY-1001): A First-in-Class Lysine-Specific Histone Demethylase 1A Inhibitor, in Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia

PURPOSE Iadademstat is a novel, highly potent, and selective inhibitor of LSD1 (KDM1A), with preclinical in vitro and in vivo antileukemic activity. This study aimed to determine safety and tolerability of iadademstat as monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML). METHODS This phase I, nonrandomized, open-label, dose-escalation (DE), and extension-cohort (EC) trial included patients with R/R AML and evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and preliminary antileukemic activity of this orally bioavailable first-in-class lysine-specific demethylase 1 inhibitor. RESULTS Twenty-seven patients were treated with iadademstat on days 1 to 5 (5-220 µg/m2/d) of each week in 28-day cycles in a DE phase that resulted in a recommended dose of 140 µg/m2/d of iadademstat as a single agent. This dose was chosen to treat all patients (n = 14) in an EC enriched with patients with MLL/KMT2A-rearranged AML. Most adverse events (AEs) were as expected in R/R AML and included myelosuppression and nonhematologic AEs, such as infections, asthenia, mucositis, and diarrhea. PK data demonstrated a dose-dependent increase in plasma exposure, and PD data confirmed a potent time- and exposure-dependent induction of differentiation biomarkers. Reductions in blood and bone marrow blast percentages were observed, together with induction of blast cell differentiation, in particular, in patients with MLL translocations. One complete remission with incomplete count recovery was observed in the DE arm. CONCLUSION Iadademstat exhibits a good safety profile together with signs of clinical and biologic activity as a single agent in patients with R/R AML. A phase II trial of iadademstat in combination with azacitidine is ongoing

The Mutational Landscape of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia Predicts Responses and Outcomes in Elderly Patients from the PETHEMA-FLUGAZA Phase 3 Clinical Trial

Neoplàsia mieloide; Adults majors; Factors pronòsticsNeoplasia mieloide; Adultos mayores; Factores pronósticosMyeloid neoplasia; Older adults; Prognostic factorsWe sought to predict treatment responses and outcomes in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) from our FLUGAZA phase III clinical trial (PETHEMA group) based on mutational status, comparing azacytidine (AZA) with fludarabine plus low-dose cytarabine (FLUGA). Mutational profiling using a custom 43-gene next-generation sequencing panel revealed differences in profiles between older and younger patients, and several prognostic markers that were useful in young patients were ineffective in older patients. We examined the associations between variables and overall responses at the end of the third cycle. Patients with mutated DNMT3A or EZH2 were shown to benefit from azacytidine in the treatment-adjusted subgroup analysis. An analysis of the associations with tumor burden using variant allele frequency (VAF) quantification showed that a higher overall response was associated with an increase in TET2 VAF (odds ratio (OR), 1.014; p = 0.030) and lower TP53 VAF (OR, 0.981; p = 0.003). In the treatment-adjusted multivariate survival analyses, only the NRAS (hazard ratio (HR), 1.9, p = 0.005) and TP53 (HR, 2.6, p = 9.8 × 10−7) variants were associated with shorter overall survival (OS), whereas only mutated BCOR (HR, 3.6, p = 0.0003) was associated with a shorter relapse-free survival (RFS). Subgroup analyses of OS according to biological and genomic characteristics showed that patients with low–intermediate cytogenetic risk (HR, 1.51, p = 0.045) and mutated NRAS (HR, 3.66, p = 0.047) benefited from azacytidine therapy. In the subgroup analyses, patients with mutated TP53 (HR, 4.71, p = 0.009) showed a better RFS in the azacytidine arm. In conclusion, differential mutational profiling might anticipate the outcomes of first-line treatment choices (AZA or FLUGA) in older patients with AML. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02319135.This study was supported by the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red—Área de Oncología–del Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBERONC; CB16/12/00369) and the Subdirección General de Investigación Sanitaria (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain) grants PI16/01530, PI16/01661, PI19/01518, and PI19/00730, the CRIS against Cancer foundation, grant 2018/001, and by the Instituto de Investigación Hospital 12 de Octubre (IMAS12) (co-financed by FEDER funds). The study was supported internationally by Cancer Research UK, FCAECC and AIRC under the Accelerator Award Program

Clinical outcomes after CPX-351 in patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia: A comparison with a matched cohort from the Spanish PETHEMA registry

Acute myeloid leukemia; Clinical observations; Intensive chemotherapyLeucemia mieloide aguda; Observaciones clínicas; Quimioterapia intensivaLeucèmia mieloide aguda; Observacions clíniques; Quimioteràpia intensivaBackground CPX-351 is approved for the treatment of therapy related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) and AML with myelodysplastic related changes (MRC-AML). The benefits of this treatment over standard chemotherapy has not been addressed in well matched cohorts of real-life patients. Methods Retrospective analysis of AML patients treated with CPX-351 as per routine practice. A propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare their main outcomes with those observed in a matched cohort among 765 historical patients receiving intensive chemotherapy (IC), all of them reported to the PETHEMA epidemiologic registry. Results Median age of 79 patients treated with CPX-351 was 67 years old (interquartile range 62–71), 53 were MRC-AML. The complete remission (CR) rate or CR without recovery (CRi) after 1 or 2 cycles of CPX-351 was 52%, 60-days mortality 18%, measurable residual disease <0.1% in 54% (12 out of 22) of them. Stem cell transplant (SCT) was performed in 27 patients (34%), median OS was 10.3 months, and 3-year relapse incidence was 50%. Using PSM, we obtained two comparable cohorts treated with CPX-351 (n = 52) or IC (n = 99), without significant differences in CR/CRi (60% vs. 54%) and median OS (10.3 months vs. 9.1 months), although more patients were bridged to SCT in the CPX-351 group (35% vs. 12%). The results were confirmed when only 3 + 7 patients were included in the historical cohort. In multivariable analyses, SCT was associated with better OS (HR 0.33 95% CI: 0.18–0.59), p < 0.001. Conclusion Larger post-authorization studies may provide evidence of the clinical benefits of CPX-351 for AML in the real-life setting.This study was funded in part by a research grant from the Jazz Pharmaceuticals

Assessing Face Validity of the HexCom Model for Capturing Complexity in Clinical Practice : a Delphi study

Funding: This research was funded by INSTITUT CATALÀ DE LA SALUT, grant number 7Z19/008.Capturing complexity is both a conceptual and a practical challenge in palliative care. The HexCom model has proved to be an instrument with strong reliability and to be valid for describing the needs and strengths of patients in home care. In order to explore whether it is also perceived to be helpful in enhancing coordinated and patient-centred care at a practical level, a methodological study was carried out to assess the face validity of the model. In particular, a Delphi method involving a group of 14 experts representing the full spectrum of healthcare professionals involved in palliative care was carried out. The results show that there is a high level of agreement, with a content validity index-item greater than 0.92 both with regard to the complexity model and the HexCom-Red, HexCom-Basic, and the HexCom-Clin instruments, and higher than 0.85 regarding the HexCom-Figure and the HexCom-Patient instruments. This consensus confirms that the HexCom model and the different instruments that are derived from it are valued as useful tools for a broad range of healthcare professional in coordinately capturing complexity in healthcare practice