A phase I study of pevonedistat, azacitidine, and venetoclax in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia

Azacitidine/venetoclax is an active regimen in patients with newly diagnosed AML. However, primary or secondary resistance to azacitidine/venetoclax is an area of unmet need and overexpression of MCL-1 is suggested to be a potential resistance mechanism. Pevonedistat inhibits MCL-1 through activation of NOXA, and pevonedistat/azacitidine has previously shown activity in AML. To assess the tolerability and efficacy of adding pevonedistat to azacitidine/venetoclax in relapsed/refractory AML, we conducted a phase I multicenter openlabel study in 16 adults with relapsed/refractory AML. Patients were treated with azacitidine, venetoclax along with pevonedistat intravenously on days 1, 3 and 5 of each 28-day cycle at 10, 15 or 20 mg/m2 in successive cohorts in the dose escalation phase. The impact of treatment on protein neddylation as well as expression of pro-apoptotic BCL2 family members was assessed. The recommended phase II dose of pevonedistat was 20 mg/m2. Grade 3 or higher adverse events included neutropenia (31%), thrombocytopenia (13%), febrile neutropenia (19%), anemia (19%), hypertension (19%) and sepsis (19%). The overall response rate was 46.7% for the whole cohort including complete remission (CR) in 5 of 7 (71.4%) patients who were naïve to the hypomethylating agent/venetoclax. No measurable residual disease (MRD) was detected in 80.0% of the patients who achieved CR. The median time to best response was 50 (range: 23 – 77) days. Four patients were bridged to allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The combination of azacitidine, venetoclax and pevonedistat is safe and shows encouraging preliminary activity in patients with relapsed/refractory AML. (NCT04172844)

Transplant Physicians’ Attitudes on Candidacy for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) in Older Patients: The Need for a Standardized Geriatric Assessment (GA) Tool

Background Despite improvements in conditioning regimens and supportive care having expanded the curative potential of HCT, underutilization of HCT in older adults persists (Bhatt VR et al, BMT 2017). Therefore, we conducted a survey of transplant physicians (TP) to determine their perceptions of the impact of older age (≥60 years) on HCT candidacy and utilization of tools to gauge candidacy. Methods We conducted a 23-item, online cross-sectional survey of adult physicians recruited from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research between May and July 2019. Results 175/770 (22.7%) TP completed the survey; majority of respondents were 41-60 years old, male, and practicing in a teaching hospital. Over 75% were at centers performing ≥50 HCT per year. When considering regimen intensity, most (96%, n=168) had an upper age limit (UAL) for using a myeloablative regimen (MAC), with only 29 physicians (17%) stating they would consider MAC for patients ≥70 years. In contrast, when considering a reduced intensity/non-myeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA), 8%, (n=13), 54% (n=93), and 20% (n=35) stated that age 70, 75, and 80 years respectively would be the UAL to use this approach, with 18% (n=31) reporting no UAL. TP agreed that Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) could exclude older pts for HCT, with 39.1% (n=66), 42.6% (n=72), and 11.4% (n=20) requiring KPS of ≥70, 80, and 90, respectively. The majority (n=92, 52.5%) indicated an HCT-comorbidity index threshold for exclusion, mostly ranging from ≥3 to ≥ 5. Almost all (89.7%) endorsed the need for a better health assessment of pre-HCT vulnerabilities to guide candidacy for pts ≥60 with varied assessments being utilized beyond KPS (Figure 1). However, the majority of centers rarely (33.1%) or never (45.7%) utilize a dedicated geriatrician/geriatric-oncologist to assess alloHCT candidates ≥60 yrs. The largest barriers to performing GA included uncertainty about which tools to use, lack of knowledge and training, and lack of appropriate clinical support staff (Figure 2). Approximately half (n=78, 45%) endorsed GA now routinely influences candidacy. Conclusions The vast majority of TP will consider RIC/NMA alloHCT for patients ≥70 years. However, there is heterogeneity in assessing candidacy. Incorporation of GA into a standardized and easily applied health assessment tool for risk stratification is an unmet need. The recently opened BMT CTN 1704 may aid in addressing this gap