Despite recent advancements, approximately 50% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) do not respond to induction therapy (primary induction failure, PIF) or relapse after <6 months (early relapse, ER). We have recently shown an association between an immune-infiltrated tumor microenvironment (TME) and resistance to cytarabine-based chemotherapy but responsiveness to flotetuzumab, a bispecific DART® antibody-based molecule to CD3ε and CD123. This study reports the results of a multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 study of flotetuzumab in adults with relapsed/refractory AML. Eighty-eight AML patients were enrolled, 42 in dose-finding and 46 at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 500ng/kg/day. Consistent with flotetuzumab's mode of action, the most frequent adverse events were infusion-related reactions (IRR)/cytokine release syndrome (CRS), the majority as grade 1-2. Stepwise dosing during week 1, pre-treatment dexamethasone, prompt use of tocilizumab and temporary dose reductions/interruptions successfully prevented severe IRR/CRS, resulting in acceptable tolerability. Clinical benefit accrued to PIF/ER AML patients, who showed an immune-infiltrated TME. Among 30 PIF/ER patients treated at the RP2D, the CR/CRh rate was 26.7%, with an overall response rate (CR/CRh/CRi) of 30.0%. In PIF/ER patients who achieved CR/CRh, median OS was 10.2 months (range 1.87-27.27), with 6- and 12-month survival rates of 75% (95%CI, 0.450-1.05) and 50% (95%CI, 0.154-0.846). Bone marrow transcriptomic analysis showed that a parsimonious 10-gene signature predicted complete responses to flotetuzumab (AUROC=0.904 versus 0.672 for the ELN risk classifier). Flotetuzumab represents an innovative experimental approach associated with acceptable safety and encouraging evidence of activity in PIF/ER AML patients. Trial registration number: NCT02152956.

This phase 2 study was designed to compare systemic decitabine exposure, demethylation activity, and safety in the first 2 cycles with cedazuridine 100 mg/decitabine 35 mg vs standard decitabine 20 mg/m2 IV. Adults with International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-1/2- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) were randomized 1:1 to receive oral cedazuridine/decitabine or IV decitabine in cycle 1, followed by crossover to the other treatment in cycle 2. All patients received oral cedazuridine/decitabine in subsequent cycles. Cedazuridine and decitabine were given initially as separate capsules in a dose-confirmation stage and then as a single fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet. Primary endpoints: mean decitabine systemic exposure (geometric least-squares mean [LSM]) of oral/IV 5-day area under curve from time 0 to last measurable concentration (AUClast), % long interspersed nuclear element 1 (LINE-1) DNA demethylation for oral cedazuridine/decitabine vs IV decitabine, and clinical response. Eighty patients were randomized and treated. Oral/IV ratios of geometric LSM 5-day AUClast (80% confidence interval) were 93.5% (82.1%, 106.5%) and 97.6% (80.5%, 118.3%) for the dose-confirmation and FDC stages, respectively. Differences in mean %LINE-1 demethylation between oral and IV were ≤1%. Clinical responses were observed in 48 patients (60%), including 17 (21%) with complete response. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events regardless of causality were neutropenia (46%), thrombocytopenia (38%), and febrile neutropenia (29%). Oral cedazuridine/decitabine (100/35 mg) produced similar systemic decitabine exposure, DNA demethylation, and safety vs decitabine 20 mg/m2 IV in the first 2 cycles, with similar efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02103478.

The impact of JAK1/2 inhibitor therapy prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has not been studied in a large cohort in myelofibrosis (MF). In this retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed outcomes of patients who underwent HCT for MF with prior exposure to JAK1/2 inhibitors. One hundred consecutive patients from participating centers were analyzed, and based on clinical status and response to JAK1/2 inhibitors at the time of HCT, patients were stratified into five groups: (a) clinical improvement (n=23), (b) stable disease (n=31), (c) new cytopenia/increasing blasts/intolerance (n=15), (d) progressive disease: splenomegaly (n=18), and (e) progressive disease: leukemic transformation (LT) (n=13). Overall survival (OS) at two years was 61% (95%CI, 49–71). This was 91% (95% CI, 69–98) for those who experienced clinical improvement, and 32% (95% CI, 8–59) for those who developed LT on JAK1/2 inhibitors. In multivariable analysis, response to JAK1/2 inhibitors (p=0.03), DIPSS score (p=0.003), and donor type (p=0.006) were independent predictors of survival. Among the 66 patients who remained on JAK1/2 inhibitors until stopped for HCT, two patients developed serious adverse events necessitating delaying of HCT, and another 8 patients had symptoms with lesser severity. Adverse events were more common in patients who started tapering or abruptly stopped their regular dose ≥6 days prior to conditioning therapy. We conclude that prior exposure to JAK1/2 inhibitors did not adversely affect post-transplant outcomes. Our data suggest that JAK1/2 inhibitors should be continued near to the start of conditioning therapy. The favorable outcomes of patients who experienced clinical improvement with JAK1/2 inhibitor therapy prior to HCT were particularly encouraging, and need further prospective validation.

Background: Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represent a vulnerable population in whom disease-based and clinical risk factors, patient goals, prognosis, and practitioner- and patient-perceived treatment risks and benefits influence treatment recommendations. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of AML in older adults. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included specialists in myeloid leukemia, geriatric oncology, patient-reported outcomes and decision-making, frailty, epidemiology, and methodology, as well as patients. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 24 May 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to patients, as judged by the panel. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE’s Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 6 critical questions in managing older adults with AML, mirroring real-time practitioner-patient conversations: the decision to pursue antileukemic treatment vs best supportive management, the intensity of therapy, the role and duration of postremission therapy, combination vs monotherapy for induction and beyond, duration of less-intensive therapy, and the role of transfusion support for patients no longer receiving antileukemic therapy. Conclusions: Treatment is recommended over best supportive management. More-intensive therapy is recommended over less-intensive therapy when deemed tolerable. However, these recommendations are guided by the principle that throughout a patient’s disease course, optimal care involves ongoing discussions between clinicians and patients, continuously addressing goals of care and the relative risk-benefit balance of treatment.

The unprecedented pace of therapeutic development in oncology has created a climate in which the traditional methods of evaluating agent activity might no longer be adequate. How is the field transitioning to new endpoints in early drug development and what are the difficulties in this transition? Here, we will explore the historical context for the current criteria for tumour response evaluation and some of the pitfalls in using these standards when testing newer anticancer agents for activity. We will argue that the current drug development environment dictates different outcome measurements and therefore more imaginative and rigorous early-phase trial designs.

No abstract

Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) as initial therapy of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) improves survival. However, data to support this approach for relapsed/progressive disease after initial AHCT (AHCT1) are limited. Using Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research data, we report the outcomes of 187 patients who underwent a second AHCT (AHCT2) for the treatment of relapsed/progressive MM. Planned tandem AHCT was excluded. Median age at AHCT2 was 59 years (range, 28 to 72), and median patient follow-up was 47 months (range, 3 to 97). Nonrelapse mortality after AHCT2 was 2% at 1 year and 4% at 3 years. Median interval from AHCT1 to relapse/progression was 18 months, and median interval between transplantations was 32 months. After AHCT2, the incidence of relapse/progression at 1 and 3 years was 51% and 82%, respectively. At 3 years after AHCT2, progression-free survival was 13%, and overall survival was 46%. In multivariate analyses, those relapsing ≥36 months after AHCT1 had superior progression-free (P = .045) and overall survival (P = .019). Patients who underwent AHCT2 after 2004 had superior survival (P = .026). AHCT2 is safe and feasible for disease progression after AHCT1. In this retrospective study, individuals relapsing ≥36 months from AHCT1 derived greater benefit from AHCT2 compared with those with a shorter disease-free interval. Storage of an adequate graft before AHCT1 will ensure that the option of a second autologous transplantation is retained for patients with relapsed/progressive MM.

Thrombotic and cardiovascular events are among the leading causes of death for patients with polycythemia vera (PV), and thrombosis history is a key criterion for patient risk stratification and treatment strategy. Little is known, however, about mechanisms of thrombogenesis in patients with PV. This report provides an overview of thrombogenesis pathophysiology in patients with PV and elucidates the roles of conventional and nonconventional thrombosis risk factors. In addition to several conventional risk factors for thrombosis, clinical data have implicated increased hematocrit and red blood cell adhesiveness, activated platelets, leukocytosis, and elevated JAK2V617F allele burden in patients with PV. Furthermore, PV-related inflammation may exacerbate thrombogenesis through varied mechanisms, including endothelial damage, inhibition of natural anticoagulant pathways, and secretion of procoagulant factors. These findings suggest a direct link between myeloproliferation and thrombogenesis in PV, which is likely to provide new opportunities for targeted antithrombotic interventions aimed at decreasing PV-related morbidity and mortality.