ALBERT

Description: Background: Standard chemotherapies for relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) are often unsuccessful. Pre-treatment ("priming") with hypomethylating agents such as decitabine has been shown to sensitize AML cells to chemotherapeutics, prompting a phase 1/2 study (NCT01729845) of MEC preceded by decitabine priming (d/MEC) in relapsed/refractory AML/MDS. Methods: Patients ≥18 years with relapsed/refractory AML or high-risk MDS (〉10% blasts) requiring first or subsequent salvage therapy were eligible if they had adequate organ function and a treatment-related mortality (TRM) score of

Description: Background: Optimal treatment for medically less fit adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains uncertain. Retrospective data suggest intensive therapy may lead to better outcomes in these patients. However, these findings must be interpreted cautiously because of the possibility of selection bias and other confounders. Ideally, the optimal treatment intensity is defined via randomized trial but whether patients and their physicians are amenable to such a study is unknown. We therefore designed a trial (NCT03012672) to 1) evaluate the feasibility of randomization between intensive and non-intensive therapy in this population and 2) examine the impact of treatment intensity on response rate and survival. We used CLAG-M as high-dose cytarabine-based intensive induction therapy. Rather than selecting different classes of drugs in the 2 treatment arms- which may have different modes of action and therefore confound the question of treatment intensity - we used reduced-dose ("mini") CLAG-M as the non-intensive comparator. Methods: Adults ≥18 years were eligible if they had untreated AML or high-grade myeloid neoplasms (≥10% blasts in blood or marrow) and were medically less fit as defined by having a "treatment related mortality" (TRM) score of ≥13.1, corresponding to a 〉10-15% 28-day mortality with intensive chemotherapy. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤45% was the only organ function exclusion. Patient-physician pairs were first asked if they were amenable to randomized treatment allocation. If so, they were randomized 1:1 to mini- vs. regular-dose CLAG-M. If not, in order to evaluate our secondary endpoints, the patient or physician could choose the treatment arm and still enroll on study. Patients and physicians then completed surveys elucidating their decision-making processes. Up to 2 induction courses were given with mini- vs. regular-dose CLAG-M: cladribine 2 or 5 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), cytarabine 100 or 2,000 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), G-CSF 300 or 480µcg/day for weight

Description: Introduction: Despite decades of research, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains difficult to treat, and clinical trials are recommended as first line therapy by the NCCN. Although many new drugs show promise in early trials, further experience often does not confirm these results. One possible explanation is that patients on trials are not broadly representative. Here, we retrospectively compared characteristics, response, and survival in patients given the same investigational regimens according to whether treatment was given on versus off study. Methods: Patients treated for AML or high-risk MDS at FHCRC/UW between 2008 and 2015 were included. Investigator-initiated protocols for newly diagnosed (ND) and relapsed / refractory (RR) disease were included if ≥15 patients were treated off study. Analyses used Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox multivariate models. Results: 165 ND patients received either escalating doses of G-CLAM or idarubicin, cytarabine, and pravastatin while 243 RR patients received G-CLAM, decitabine-primed MEC or G-CLAC. Overall, 216 were treated on study and 192 were treated off study; reasons for the latter were: protocol not open (n=64), high treatment-related mortality score (n=21), poor health / organ function (n=26), physician or patient preference (n=25), lack of insurance (n=6), and not identified (n=50). No significant differences were found in age, gender, cytogenetic risk, or primary vs. secondary leukemia, but those treated on study in dose escalation protocols were more likely to receive higher doses. RR patients treated off study had typically received more salvage regimens. The 86 ND patients treated on study had higher rates of CR/CRi (90% vs. 64%, P

Description: Introduction:"7+3" with standard doses of cytarabine and an anthracycline has remained the mainstay of induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML. Since some studies have shown improved outcomes with high-dose cytarabine, cladribine, or escalated doses of anthracyclines, we conducted a phase 1/2 study (NCT02044796) of G-CLAM using escalated doses of mitoxantrone for newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS (〉10% blasts). Methods: Patients≥18 years were eligible if they had treatment-related mortality (TRM) scores of ≤6.9 (corresponding to a predicted risk of early death with standard induction chemotherapy of ≤6.9%) and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥45%, creatinine ≤2.0 mg/dL, bilirubin ≤2.5 times upper limit of normal). Excluded were patients with uncontrolled infection or concomitant illness with expected survival 7-day delay of the subsequent treatment cycle; 2) grade ≥4 non-hematologic toxicity if recovery to grade ≤2 within 14 days, both excluding febrile neutropenia, infection or constitutional symptoms. Results: Among 33 patients (median age of 57.3 [range: 26-77], median TRM score 2.31 [0.16-5.90]) treated in phase 1, one DLT occurred at dose levels 3 and 4 (respiratory failure in both cases), establishing G-CLAM with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2/day as the MTD. Sixty-two patients, including 6 treated in phase 1, received G-CLAM at MTD. Patient characteristics were as follows: median age 58 (21-81) years, median TRM score 2.85 (0.06-6.73), with AML (n=52) or high-risk MDS (n=10). Cytogenetics were favorable in 6, intermediate in 44, and adverse in 12 (MRC criteria); 11 patients had NPM1 and 6 had FLT3 mutations. Fifty-two patients (83.9%, 95% confidence interval: 72.3-92.0%) achieved a CR (n=48 [77.4%: 65.0-87.1%]), or CRp/i (n=4 [6.5%: 1.8-15.7%]) with 1-2 cycles of therapy. Only 3 patients required 2 cycles to best response. Among the 48 CR patients, 43 (89.6%) were negative for measurable residual disease (MRDneg) by flow cytometry. Four patients had morphologic leukemia free state, 1 patient with myeloid sarcoma had a partial remission, 4 had resistant disease, and 1 died from indeterminate cause. One patient died within 28 days of treatment initiation (septic shock). Median times to an absolute neutrophil count ≥500/μL and a platelet count of ≥50,000/μL were 26 and 23 days. Besides infections and neutropenic fever, maculopapular rash, and hypoxia (fluid overload/infection-related) were the most common grade ≥3 adverse events. In addition to the phase 1/2 MTD cohort, there were 15 patients treated in an expansion cohort and 3 eligible patients treated off protocol with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2. For these 80 patients combined treated at MTD, the CR and CR/CRp/i rates were 76.3% and 81.2%. After multivariable adjustment, compared to 300 patients treated with 7+3 on the SWOG S0106 trial, G-CLAM with mitoxantrone 18mg/ m2 was associated with an increased probability of CR (odds ratio [OR]= 3.08, p=.02), CR/CRp/i (OR=2.96, p=.03), a trend towards improved MRDnegCR (OR= 3.70, p=.06), and a trend towards improved overall survival ([OS]; hazard ratio=0.34, p=.07). For the entire study cohort, the 6 and 12-month relapse-free survival were 73% (64-83%) and 62% (42-74%) and the 6 and 12-month OS were 89% (82- 96%) and 77% (67-88%). Conclusions: G-CLAM with mitoxantrone up to 18 mg/m2/day is well tolerated and has potent anti-leukemia activity. This regimen may warrant further randomized comparison with 7+3. We also plan to examine the addition of sorafenib to G-CLAM in newly diagnosed AML patients regardless of FLT3 status. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Becker:GlycoMimetics: Research Funding. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celator: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.