Background Multiple studies have shown the clinical activity of alvocidib followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone in newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML. Alvocidib's anti-leukemic pharmacologic activity appears to be predominantly due to the inhibition of transcriptional regulator, CDK9, resulting in suppression of CDK9-regulated genes, such as the BCL-2 family member, MCL-1. Pre-treatment bone marrow samples from newly diagnosed AML patients revealed an increased sensitivity to alvocidib in those with MCL-1 dependence of ≥40% as measured by a BH3 profiling biomarker assay (J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 suppl; 7062). Thus, we hypothesized that alvocidib, followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone, may be preferentially active in those with MCL-1 dependence (≥ 40%). Here, the findings from stage 1 of the Zella 201 trial in which this biomarker assay is used to select for patients with MCL-1 dependence, are reported. Aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alvocidib, in combination with cytarabine and mitoxantrone, in MCL-1 dependent R/R AML patients. Methods The key eligibility criteria were: ages 18-65 years; refractory to 1-2 cycles of induction therapy, or in first relapse AML with complete remission (CR) duration ≤ 2 years; ≥ 40% myeloblast MCL-1 dependency determined by BH3 profiling; ECOG PS 0-2; and no major organ dysfunction. Patients who received prior allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) were eligible, if it was greater than two months after SCT and there was no active GVHD. Treatment consisted of alvocidib 30 mg/m2 as a 30-minute IV bolus followed by 60 mg/m2 over 4 hours on Days 1-3, cytarabine 667 mg/m2/day by continuous IV infusion days 6-8, and mitoxantrone 40 mg/m2 IV on day 9 starting 12 hours after completing cytarabine. Up to 3 additional cycles of the same regimen (with or without mitoxantrone) were permittedin responders. The primary endpoint was the rate of CR+CR with incomplete recovery (CRi). Stage I was determined to be positive if ≥13 CRs were seenin the first 23 evaluable patients. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival, event-freesurvival, the combinedresponse rate and safety assessed by adverse events and laboratory results. Results A total of 163 patients were screened, of which 47 (29%) were determined to be MCL-1 dependent. Of these, 25 patients were enrolledin Stage 1 (Table 1), with 21 evaluable for response. Median MCL-1 dependence score was 55% (range: 41-98%). Of the 21 evaluable patients, 11 (52%) were refractory to frontline therapy (resistant disease or CR < 90d). The overall CR/CRi rate in evaluable patients was 62% (13/21) meeting the primary endpoint of stage 1. Seven out of 11 (64%) patients with primary refractory disease achieved a CR and five of these patients proceeded to an alloSCT. Overall, 10 patients received a post-study alloSCT. The most common NCI CTCAE ≥Grade 3treatment-emergent nonhematologic AEs noted in >1 patient in the safety population (n=25) were tumor lysis syndrome (20% Grade 3, 8% Grade 4); diarrhea (24% Grade 3); increased AST (12% Grade 3, 8% Grade 4), sepsis (16% Grade 5, 4% Grade 4); and peripheral edema, (8% Grade 3). To date, overall 30- and 60-day mortality rates were 16% and 20%, respectively, due to sepsis (n=4), and mitral valve rupture (n=1). Conclusion Our findings indicate that alvocidib given beforecytarabine and mitoxantrone in MCL-1-dependent AML has clinical activity, particularly in those refractory to frontline therapy. Given these findings, stage 2 of the Zella 201 trial has been initiated,randomizing patients to alvocidib, cytarabine, and mitoxantrone versus cytarabine and mitoxantrone alone in MCL-1 dependent R/R AML. Furthermore, a Phase Ib study of alvocidib followed by 7+3 induction in newly diagnosed AML (Zella 101) is being conducted. Disclosures Zeidner: Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Fees; Takeda: Other: Travel fees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Asystbio Laboratories: Consultancy; Tolero: Honoraria, Other: Travel Fees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Lin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Wang:Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Montesinos:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Anthony:Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Bearss:Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment.
Background: Incidence of AML is highest among the elderly and the general outcome is poor as compared to young patients, even those who tolerate intensive induction chemotherapy and achieve morphological CR. However, the role of MRD in redefining CR in elderly AML remains poorly investigated due to the reluctance to treat them with intensive chemotherapy, the renewed interest in low-intensity therapy such as hypomethylating agents (HMA), and the lack of molecular MRD markers in most patients. Aim: To help defining the role of MRD assessment by multidimensional flow cytometry (MFC) and therapeutic decision making in older AML patients treated with semi-intensive chemotherapy vs HMA. Methods: A total of 285 AML patients (excluding APL) with a median age of 75 were included in the phase III PETHEMA-FLUGAZA clinical trial and were randomized to receive 3 induction cycles with fludarabine and cytarabine (FLUGA) followed by 6 consolidation cycles with reduced intensity FLUGA, vs 3 induction cycles with 5-azacitidine (AZA) followed by 6 consolidation cycles with AZA. After consolidation, patients continued with the same treatment if MRD ≥0.01% or stopped if MRD <0.01%. MRD was prospectively assessed after induction and consolidation among patients in CR with or without incomplete blood count recovery, in a central laboratory blinded for clinical outcomes. At diagnosis, the EuroFlow panel for MDS/AML (first-five 8-color combinations) was used to identify leukemia-associated immunophenotypes (LAIP). Patients without a LAIP (6%) were excluded from this analysis. At CR, bone marrow samples were immunophenotyped with ≥2 8-color combinations based on previously identified maturation arrest, lineage commitment and LAIPs, maintaining markers' position from diagnosis to MRD to provide a digital fingerprint of leukemic blasts at diagnosis during MRD assessment. Over 1 million events per tube were measured for assessing MRD with an estimated sensitivity of 0.01%. The cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was calculated from the date of CR to the date of relapse, considering death without relapse as a competing event. Results: On intention-to-treat, 38/141 (27%) patients achieved CR after 3 cycles of FLUGA, and 31/144 (21.5%) after 3 cycles of AZA (P =.33). Among patients in CR with previously identified LAIP, 14/69 (20%) achieved a negative MRD status whereas the remaining 55 (80%) had persisting MRD: 56% with ≥0.1% MRD and 24% with 0.01%-0.09% MRD. Of note, negative MRD rates were particularly lower among AML patients with myelodysplasia-related changes as compared to other subtypes (11% vs 27%, respectively; P=.09). Regarding the effect of semi-intensive chemotherapy vs HMA on depth of response, we observed a non-significant trend toward higher MRD-negative rates among patients in CR after FLUGA vs those treated with AZA (26% vs 15%, respectively; P=.28). The 2-year CIR rates for MRD-positive and MRD-negative patients were 88% and 47%, respectively (HR, 3.3; P =.001). Of note, the CIR of patients in CR but with persistent MRD were similarly poor as compared to those in partial remission (HR, 0.82; P =.48). Furthermore, MRD-positive patients with adverse cytogenetics displayed the poorest outcome with significantly higher 2-year CIR rates than MRD-positive cases with intermediate/favorable cytogenetics (HR, 2.1; P =.008). Interestingly, among patients in CR and persistent MRD, 2-year CIR rates showed a non-significant trend towards slightly more frequent relapses in those treated with FLUGA vs AZA (91% vs 77%, respectively; HR, 1.7; P =.09). On multivariable analysis for CIR including MFC-MRD and cytogenetics, MFC-MRD (HR, 3.6; P =.001) and cytogenetics (HR, 2.0; P =.007) retained significant prognostic value. The median overall survival (OS) for MRD-positive and MRD-negative patients was 17 and 29 months, respectively (P =.04). On multivariable analyses for OS including age, WBC count, cytogenetic grouping and secondary disease, persistent MRD showed a trend for independent prognostic value (HR, 2.4; P =.07). Conclusions: This study reveals that sensitive MFC-MRD assessment supersedes CR and is an independent prognostic factor in older patients with AML, treated with semi-intensive chemotherapy or HMA. Nevertheless, the risk of relapse among the few patients with no MRD (5%) remains high after stopping treatment, and warrants innovative approaches aimed at maintaining an MRD-negative CR status. Disclosures San-Miguel: Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Montesinos:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chemosensitization using plerixafor combined with FLAG-IDA (PLERIFLAG regimen) showed promising results (48% CR/CRi) in a phase 2 trial for primary refractory and early relapsed (duration of first CR <12 months) Adult AML patients. We aim to compare retrospectively results of the PLERIFLAG cohort versus historical cohorts of patients salvaged with FLAG-IDA (Fludarabine, Idarubicine, Cytarabine, G-CSF as priming agent), or FLAGO-IDA (Gemtuzumab plus FLAG-IDA) registered in the PETHEMA epidemiologic AML registry (NCT02006004). To match different cohorts, we used two risk-score classifications: EPI/HOVON (De Breems, JCO 2005) and SALFLAGE (Bergua, BJH 2016). The purpose is to analyse the complete remission (CR+CRi) rate, the rate of patients who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were adjusted using established risk factors (time to relapse (TTR), karyotype, FLT3-ITD, previous stem cell transplant (SCT)) using propensity score analysis. Patients: Of the 540 patients in the data base we analysed 300 patients relapsed or resistant to induction therapy, which had all data available. 241 patients were treated with FLAG-IDA, 41 with FLAGO-Ida, and 42 with PLERIFLAG. Differences between treatment cohorts were tested using Fisher exact test. Treatment cohorts (PLERIFLAG vs FLAG-IDA vs FLAGO-IDA) were similar in Age (p=0.5), Sex (p=0.5), FLT3-ITD mutated (p=0.5), EPI/HOVON cytogenetics score (p=0.5) and previous myelodisplasia (p=0.2). The three cohorts differed in time to relapse (p=0.001), previous stem cell transplantation (0.001), HOVON score (p=0.03) and SALFLAGE score (0.001). RESULTS There were no differences in terms of CR+CRi between the three types of treatment adjusted by Hovon risk score (Pleriflag: 48%, FLAG-IDA: 50% or FLAGO-IDA: 58%; Chrochan Maentel-Haenszel test, p=0.466) or SALFLAGE score (Chrochan-Maentel-Haenszel test, p=0.23). More patients were allografted in the PLERIFLAG (61%) group even not achieving CR/Cri, as compared to FLAG-IDA (38%) or FLAGO-Ida (61% vs 38% vs. 18%, p=0.0001). To compare PLERIFLAG against the other two types of salvage treatment we performed a Propensity Score in a proportion 1:3. We adjust variables like age, previous allogeneic transplant, time to relapse (refractory, <12 months and >12 months), karyotype using MRC, and FLT3-ITD status. Karyotype risk was considered by HOVON criteria (inv16, t(8;21) vs others), and SALFLAGE (inv 16, intermediate risk, and unfavourable risk by MRC risk plus t(8;21)). The propensity score analyses showed that Compared to FLAG-IDA, PLERIFLAG was associated to increased survival (median OS 10.56 months vs. 5.6, p=0.03), but not improved EFS (2.83 months vs 1.41 months, p=0.8). The benefit in OS but not in EFS could be explained in part by frequent use of Allo SCT in patients who had not achieve CR/CRi in the PLERIFLAG cohort. In conclusion, our historical control study show that PLERIFLAG regimen is an acceptable therapeutic option for first relapsed/refractory adult AML patients. Disclosures Esteve: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Salamero:Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Daichii Sankyo: Honoraria. Perez Encinas:CELGENE: Consultancy; JANSSEN: Consultancy; GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Montesinos:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.
Introduction: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease. In young patients, autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) remains a cornerstone treatment after induction therapy. Induction therapy has varied during time, from alkylating polychemotherapy (VBAD,VCMP) or VAD chemotherapy (AVAD) to Velcade-Dexametasone based regimens (VD). We present results of follow-up of a large cohort of patients treated with ABMT. We described overall survival (OS; from transplant to death by any cause) and progression free survival (PFS; from transplant to death by any case or progressive disease defined by reappearance by inmunofixation, or duplication of monoclonal peak after ABMT) , and the impact of induction therapy regiments. Patients: 183 patients transplanted from 2002 to 2017. The median age of the patients was 59 years (33-72). Before 2008 all the patients were treated in alkylating based chemotherapy (42 patients). After 2008 patients were treated with VD based regimens (141patients). Only 12 patients received maintenance therapy based in PETHEMA trials 2005 and 2012. No one patient received a planed second transplant; only 32 patients received a second transplant after relapse as consolidation therapy. Results: Median follow-up of patients still alive is 3.65 years (0.15-14.77). Median OS of all patients was 9.12 years (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.28-NR); Median PFS was 3.02 years(95% CI: 2.46-3.76). At 13 years only 2% of patients remains progression free (CI: 0.00-17%). There were significant differences between patients treated before and after VD regimens. The median OS of patients treated with APVAD was significantly shorter compared to VD (6.22 years, CI[3.39-12] vs. NR, CI[6.28-NR], p=0.025) (HR=0.49, p=0.01). Conclusions: VD schemes of induction before ABMT have improved remarkably OS inpatients with Myeloma; nonetheless, plateau is not observed in EFS. Further analysis must address if EFS could represent a strong indicator of OS, mainly due to novel effective salvage therapies after relapse/refractoriness could be a confounding factor. Figure. Figure. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Cytogenetic analysis is still an important and mandatory component of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) diagnosis and prognosis. Pretreatment cytogenetic and molecular genetic findings are one of the major independent prognostic markers in AML, and they determine chemotherapy response and outcome. However, cytogenetic does not provide alternative treatments when a patient have a high cytogenetic risk, and requires relatively long time until obtaining the results despite the treatment of these patients should begin as soon as possible. The aim of this study is providing data about the utility of a new AML Precision Medicine (PM) Test as a complementary tool to conventional cytogenetic to overcome the main obstacles this later has. For this purpose, AML bone marrow from 111 patients were received at the laboratory 24h from extraction and incubated for 48h in 96-well plates containing single drugs or combinations, representing up to 31 different treatments that are currently given in the clinical practice. The analyses were performed in the automated flow cytometry PharmaFlow platform and the test results can be sent to the hematologists 72h after the extraction of the sample. Pharmacological responses were calculated using pharmacokinetic population models. Induction response was assessed according to the Cheson criteria (2003). Patients attaining a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) were classified as responders and the remaining as resistant, excluding early deaths. The probability of being resistant or non-responder was modeled using binary logistic generalized additive models (GAM) with Cytarabine (CYT) and Idarubicin (IDA) area under the curve (AUC) data and over the cytogenetic risk (favorable/intermediate/adverse). The empirical ROC curves were calculated for the probabilities of being non-responder from each GAM. Final scores and treatments ranking are based on a therapeutic algorithm that integrates ex vivo activity of single drugs, quantified by the AUC and synergism, referred as α parameter, using a surface interaction model. Clinical and cytogenetic risk data of the patients were monitored and collected. A simple logistic model of the probability of being non-responder over the cytogenetic risk (favorable/intermediate/adverse) explained less variability (29.4%) than the GAM over the AUC values (40.8%) in the subset of 111 patients in whom the cytogenetic risk was informed. Figure 1 shows the results of the clinical correlation of cytogenetics vs PM Test in the cohort of 111 patients analyzed. In both approaches prediction of sensitive patients (Negative Prediction Value, NPV) is better than resistant patients (Positive Predictive Value, PPV), being the PM Test slightly better in predicting the sensitive patients (NPV=93% vs 88%), while the cytogenetics shows a 20% improvement in the prediction of resistant patients (PPV= 76% vs 56% with PM Test). The correlation achieved by the PharmaFlow PM test was 80% that is almost similar than the correlation obtained with the cytogenetic data using the same cut off point (86%). Figure 1 (right) also shows an example of the classification of AML treatments with the PharmaFlow PM Test in a patient sample according to a color scale from higher (green) to lower (red) ex vivo activity. In summary, despite the PharmaFlow PM Test and cytogenetics provide similar information, results from cytogenetic risk are available typically in 10-14 days, and thus after patient treatment, while results from this novel PM Test are available in 48-72h, prior to treatment. Hence, this novel approach provides information to hematologist with higher predictive value than risk factor (deviance explained 40.8% vs 29.4%) and ahead of treatment, and thus represent a valuable in-time prior to treatment decision making. In addition, the PM Test can provide alternative treatments to AML patient in a basis of their ex vivo activity. Disclosures Ballesteros: Vivia Biotech: Employment. Martinez Lopez:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hernandez:Vivia Biotech: Employment. Primo:Vivia Biotech: Employment. Gorrochategui:Vivia Biotech: Employment. Rojas:Vivia Biotech: Employment. Montesinos:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.