Search

Background: All-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) combinations have produced excellent outcomes in patients with standard-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). Herein, the authors update their long-term results with the regimen of ATO-ATRA and gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) in standard-risk and high-risk APL., Methods: This was a phase 2 trial of patients with newly diagnosed APL. Induction comprised ATRA 45 mg/m 2 and ATO 0.15 mg/kg daily. GO 6-9 mg/m 2 was added for high-risk patients and for standard-risk patients who developed leukocytosis >10 × 10 9 /L. Consolidation consisted of four courses of ATO-ATRA, with GO for patients who had PML::RARA persistence., Results: One hundred forty-six patients (median age, 53.0 years; range, 19.3-83.9 years) were treated, including 106 patients (72.6%) with standard-risk APL and 40 (27.4%) with high-risk APL. GO was administered to 68 standard-risk patients (64.2%) for leukocytosis. The complete remission rate was 93.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.2%-98.5%). Negative measurable residual disease status was achieved in 97.1% of patients who attained complete remission. At a median follow-up of 61.8 months (95% CI, 4.7-128.4 months), the 5-year event-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 92.4% (95% CI, 87.9%-97.1%), 93.6% (95% CI, 89.5%-97.8%), and 93.1% (95% CI, 88.9%-97.7%), respectively. Induction mortality was 2.7%. The most common severe adverse events were elevated transaminases in 41.0% of patients and infection in 13.7%. There were no cases of veno-occlusive disease., Conclusions: The combination of ATO-ATRA and GO was curative in 94% of patients who had APL with a favorable safety profile (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01409161)., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

Significance: In recent years, there has been tremendous interest surrounding the integration of venetoclax into both non-intensive and intensive chemotherapy regimens for AML. However, with this increasing utilization of venetoclax, considerable questions surrounding key issues such as dosing strategies and the practicality of venetoclax administration have arisen. This review highlights the evolution of venetoclax-based regimens in AML and provides a commentary on notable practical considerations when utilizing this agent., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval and consent to participate The MD Anderson Institutional Review Board approved this study. All patients provided written informed consent according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Competing Interests: Competing interests DT received research funding from Sobi, Sumitomo, Cogent Biosciences and Gilead and honoraria from Sobi, Novartis, AbbVie, PharmaEssentia, Sierra Oncology, GSK and Cogent Biosciences. CDD received honoraria from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Genentech, GenMab, GSK, Immunogen, Notable Labs, Rigel, Schrodinger, and Servier and grant support from LLS Scholar in Research Award. TMK received research funding from AbbVie and Genentech and honoraria from AbbVie. FR received research funding from AbbVie and BMS and honoraria from AbbVie and BMS. AM received research funding from BMS, Incyte and Novartis. AA received research funding from Novartis, BMS, Onconova, Medimmune, Ariad, GSK, Celgene, Eisai, ALX Oncology, H3B Biomedicine/Hemavant. MK has received honoraria from Protagonist, Silence Therapeutics, Morphosys, Incyte, AbbVie and Kura. JF received research funding from Oryzon Genomics, Taiho Oncology, and Syros. RK received research funding from BMS and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, DSI, Geron, Janssen, Jazz, PharmaEssentia, Rigel, Servio, Sobi, and Sumitomo. JM received research funding from Incyte, BMS, Novartis, Abbvie, Geron, Kartos, Karyopharm, Sobi and PharmaEssentia and honoraria from Incyte, BMS, Abbvie, Kartos, Geron, GSK, Roche, Merck, Pfizer, PharmaEssentia, MorphoSys, Novartis, Galecto, Sobi, Sumitomo, and Karyopharm. EP received research funding from Incyte, BMS, and Blueprint and honoraria from BMS, GSK, Sobi, Blueprint, Taiho, PharmaEssentia. DAS received research funding from Aprea and Jazz and honoraria from AbbVie, Aprea, Agios, Celyad, Froghorn, Gilead,Incyte, Intellisphere LLC, Kite, Megenta, Novartis, AvenCell, Astellas, BlueBird Bio, BMS, Dark Blue Therapeutics, Intellia, Jasper Therapeutics, Kite, Magenta Therapeutics, NKARTA, Novartis, Orbital Therapeutics, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Shattuck Labs, Servier, Syndax, and Syros. MMP received research funding from Stemline, Kura Oncology, Solu Therapeutics, Epigenetix and Polaris Pharmaceuticals. GMB received research funding from IFM Therapeutics, Takeda Oncology, Solu Theraputics. The remaining of the authors have no potential competing interests to disclose. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study received approval by the Institutional Review Boards from all participating institutions and research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Given the retrospective nature of this analysis, informed consent was not required by local regulatory authorities.

Background: Advanced phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive myeloid disease-consisting of chronic myeloid leukaemia in the myeloid blast phase and in the accelerated phase, and Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute myeloid leukaemia-is associated with poor outcomes. Although previous studies have suggested the benefit of chemotherapy and BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations, the optimal regimen is uncertain and prospective studies for this rare group of diseases are scant. Preclinical and retrospective clinical data suggest possible synergy between the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax and BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We therefore aimed to design a study to evaluate the safety and activity of a novel combination of decitabine, venetoclax, and the third-generation BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor ponatinib in advanced phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive myeloid diseases., Methods: For this phase 2 study, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated or relapsed or refractory myeloid chronic myeloid leukaemia-blast phase, chronic myeloid leukaemia-accelerated phase, or advanced phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute myeloid leukaemia, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-3 were eligible. Patients were eligible regardless of the number of previous lines of therapy received or previous receipt of ponatinib. Cycle 1 (induction) consisted of a 7-day lead-in of ponatinib 45 mg orally daily (days 1-7), followed by combination therapy with decitabine 20 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 8-12, venetoclax orally daily with ramp-up to a maximum dose of 400 mg on days 8-28, and ponatinib 45 mg orally daily on days 8-28. Cycles 2-24 consisted of decitabine 20 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1-5, venetoclax orally 400 mg on days 1-21, and ponatinib orally daily on days 1-28. Response-based dosing of ponatinib was implemented in consolidation cycles, with reduction to 30 mg daily in patients who reached complete remission or complete remission with an incomplete haematological recovery and a reduction to 15 mg daily in patients with undetectable BCR::ABL1 transcripts. The primary endpoint was the composite rate of complete remission or complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04188405) and is still ongoing., Results: Between July 12, 2020, and July 8, 2023, 20 patients were treated (14 with chronic myeloid leukaemia-blast phase, four with chronic myeloid leukaemia-accelerated phase, and two with advanced phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute myeloid leukaemia). The median age was 43 years (IQR 32-58); 13 (65%) patients were male and seven (35%) were female; and 12 (60%) were White, three (15%) were Hispanic, four (20%) were Black, and one (5%) was Asian. 12 (60%) patients had received 2 or more previous BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and 14 (70%) patients had at least one high-risk additional chromosomal abnormality or complex karyotype. The median duration of follow-up was 21·2 months (IQR 14·1-24·2). The complete remission or complete remission with an incomplete haematological recovery rate was 50% (10 of 20 patients); complete remission in one [5%] patient and complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery in nine [45%]). An additional six (30%) patients had a morphologic leukaemia-free state. The most common grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse events were febrile neutropenia in eight (40%) patients, infection in six (30%), and alanine or aspartate transaminase elevation in five (25%). Eight (40%) patients had at least one cardiovascular event of any grade. There were three on-study deaths, none of which was considered related to the study treatment and all from infections in the setting of refractory leukaemia., Interpretation: The combination of decitabine, venetoclax, and ponatinib is safe and shows promising activity in patients with advanced phase chronic myeloid leukaemia, including those with multiple previous therapies or high-risk disease features. Further studies evaluating chemotherapy and venetoclax-based combination strategies using newer-generation BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors are warranted., Funding: Takeda Oncology, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NJS has received consulting fees from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, NKARTA, Autolus, and Sanofi; research funding from Takeda Oncology, Astellas Pharma, Xencor, Stemline Therapeutics, and NextCure; and honoraria from Adaptive Biotechnologies, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda Oncology, Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, and BeiGene. EJ has received consulting fees and research funding from AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Ascentage, ASTX Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Autolus, BMS, Genenenctech, Hikma, Kite, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda Oncology, and Jazz. HA has received consulting fees from Molecular Partners; research funding from Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and EBD-300; and honoraria from Illumina. MK has received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Auxenion, Bakx, Boehringer, Dark Blue Therapeutics, F Hoffman-La Roche, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Legend, MEI Pharma, Redona, Sanofi, Sellas, Stemline, and Vincerx; research funding from AbbVie, Allogene, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, ImmunoGen, MEI Pharma, Precision, Rafael, Sanofi, and Stemline; honoraria from AbbVie, Baxk Therapeutics, Genentech, and Stemline Therapeutics; stock options in Reata Pharamceuticals; and holds patents with Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Reata Pharmaceutical. HK has received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Immunogen, and Novartis and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, KAHR Medical, Novartis, Pfizer, Shenzhen Target Rx, Stemline, and Takeda Oncology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: FLT3-ITD AML is associated with an increased risk of relapse, leading many patients to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) after induction. Unfortunately, relapse rate after alloHCT remains high and strategies are needed to improve outcomes., Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients with FLT3-ITD AML who received alloHCT from 6/1/2016 to 12/31/2020 and received gilteritinib (GILT) or sorafenib (SORA)as post-transplant maintenance, outside of a clinical trial., Results: A total of 55 patients were treated with either GILT (n = 27) or SORA (n = 29) for post-HCT maintenance. One patient was treated with SORA after first alloHCT and GILT after second alloHCT. Patient characteristics were comparable between groups. FLT3 inhibitors were utilized in pre-alloHCT therapy in all but 1 patient. The median duration of time that patients remained on GILT was 385 days (range, 10-804) and on SORA 315 days (range, 3-1777). 1-year PFS and relapse incidence were similar between GILT and SORA; PFS was 66% versus 76% (P = .4) and relapse incidence was 19% versus 24% (P = .6), respectively.Both groups had high incidence of Grade 3-4 hematological toxicity, including neutropenia (45% GILT and 34% SORA) and thrombocytopenia (30% GILT and 52% SORA). Only 44% and 14% patients who received GILT and SORA did not discontinue maintenance, respectively., Conclusion: Our results revealed comparable PFS and a similar toxicity profile when SORA and GILT are used as post- HCT maintenance therapy., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Patients with relapsed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) experience dismal outcomes. We performed a comprehensive analysis of patients with relapsed AML to determine the genetic dynamics and factors predicting survival. We analyzed 875 patients with newly diagnosed AML who received intensive treatment or low-intensity treatment. Of these patients, 197 subsequently relapsed. Data were available for 164 of these patients, with a median time from complete remission/complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery to relapse of 6.5 months. Thirty-five of the 164 patients (21%) experienced relapse after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. At relapse, mutations in genes involved in pathway signaling tended to disappear, whereas clonal hematopoiesis-related mutations or TP53 tended to persist. Patients with normal karyotypes tended to acquire cytogenetic abnormalities at relapse. Patients treated intensively had a higher rate of emergence of TP53 mutations (16%), compared to patients given low-intensity treatment (1%, P=0.009). The overall response rates were 38% and 35% for patients treated with salvage intensive treatment or low-intensity treatment, respectively. Seventeen patients (10%) underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation after salvage therapy. The median overall survival duration after relapse was 5.3 months, with a 1-year overall survival rate of 17.6%. Complex karyotype (hazard ratio [HR]=2.14, P<0.001), a KMT2A rearrangement (HR=3.52, P=0.011), time in remission <12 months (HR=1.71, P=0.011), and an elevated white blood cell count at relapse (HR=2.38, P=0.005) were independent risk factors for overall survival duration. More effective frontline and maintenance therapies are warranted to prevent relapsed AML.

Background: Nelarabine is a purine analog with demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of T-cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia and Lymphoma (T-ALL/LBL). Despite its efficacy and excellent blood-brain barrier penetration, it has a significant side effect profile which is namely concerning for neurotoxicity. Reported neurotoxicity has varied from mild peripheral neuropathy to debilitating grade 4 neurologic complications including Guillain-Barre like syndrome and myelopathy., Patients and Methods: We conducted a single centered, retrospective case series to study patients who developed severe neurotoxicity after receiving nelarabine as part of T-ALL treatment. One hundred thirty-five patients were identified. Thirteen patients were reviewed for severe neurotoxicity (defined as ≥grade 3), and of those five patients were deemed to have neurotoxicity secondary to nelarabine exposure., Results: Five patients (4%) developed severe neurotoxicity as manifested by Guillain-Barre like syndrome or myelopathy within a timeframe of eight to fifty-eight days from last nelarabine dose. Upon diagnosis, patients received formal neurologic evaluation by our neuro-oncology specialists including imaging, cerebrospinal fluid testing, and electromyography. Patients were treated with IVIG, and steroids upon diagnosis, but the majority of neuro-deficits were irreversible., Conclusion: Our study shows that nelarabine is generally well-tolerated, and the incidence of severe neurotoxicity is rare. Given the potential risk of severe neurotoxicity, we propose capped dose of nelarabine 1000 mg/day, neurological assessment before subsequent dosing, and avoidance of simultaneous IT therapy during nelarabine administration., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cytogenomic characterization is crucial for the classification and risk stratification of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), thereby facilitating therapeutic decision-making. We examined the clinical utility of optical genome mapping (OGM) in 159 AML patients (103 newly diagnosed and 56 refractory/relapsed), all of whom also underwent chromosomal banding analysis (CBA), fluorescence in situ hybridization, and targeted next-generation sequencing. OGM detected nearly all clinically relevant cytogenetic abnormalities that SCG identified with >99% sensitivity, provided the clonal burden was above 20%. OGM identified additional cytogenomic aberrations and/or provided information on fusion genes in 77 (48%) patients, including eight patients with normal karyotypes and four with failed karyotyping. The most common additional alterations identified by OGM included chromoanagenesis (n = 23), KMT2A partial tandem duplication (n = 11), rearrangements involving MECOM (n = 7), NUP98 (n = 2), KMT2A (n = 2), JAK2 (n = 2), and other gene fusions in 17 patients, with 10 showing novel fusion gene partners. OGM also pinpointed fusion genes in 17 (11%) patients where chromosomal rearrangements were concurrently detected by OGM and CBA. Overall, 24 (15%) aberrations were identified exclusively by OGM and had the potential to alter AML classification, risk stratification, and/or clinical trial eligibility. OGM emerges as a powerful tool for identifying fusion genes and detecting subtle or cryptic cytogenomic aberrations that may otherwise remain undetectable by CBA., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr C.D.D. declares research support (to institution): Abbvie, Astex, Beigene, Calithera, BMS, Cleave, ImmuneOnc, and Loxo; consultant/advisory boards: Abbvie, Astellas, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, GenMab, GSK, Immunogen, Notable Labs, Servier, and Stemline. Dr. T.K. reports grant or research support from BMS, Celgene, Pfizer, Amgen, Jazz, AstraZeneca, and Genetech; consultant fees from Agios, Jazz, Genetech, and Novartis. Dr. F.R. reports research funding from BMS, Amgen, Xencor, Macrogenics, Orsenix, Abbvie, Prelude, Astex; consultancy and honoraria from Celgene, BMS, Amgen, Astellas, Xencor, Agios, AstraZeneca, and Orsenix. Dr N.P reports research contributions from Affymetrix, Stemline Therapeutics, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Plexxikon, Cellectis, Novartis, Samus Therapeutics; grant support from Affymetrix, SagerStrong; and honoraria from Stemline Therapeutics, LFB Biotechnologies, MustangBio, Incyte Corporation, Celgene, DAVA Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. The other authors have no conflict of interest.

Aberrant expression of HOX and MEIS1 family genes, as seen in KMT2A-rearranged, NUP98-rearranged, or NPM1-mutated leukemias leads to arrested differentiation and leukemia development. HOX family genes are essential gatekeepers of physiologic hematopoiesis, and their expression is regulated by the interaction between KMT2A and menin. Menin inhibitors block this interaction, downregulate the abnormal expression of MEIS1 and other transcription factors and thereby release the differentiation block. Menin inhibitors show significant clinical efficacy against KMT2A-rearranged and NPM1-mutated acute leukemias, with promising potential to address unmet needs in various pediatric leukemia subtypes. In this collaborative initiative, pediatric and adult hematologists/oncologists, and stem cell transplant physicians have united their expertise to explore the potential of menin inhibitors in pediatric leukemia treatment internationally. Our efforts aim to provide a comprehensive clinical overview of menin inhibitors, integrating preclinical evidence and insights from ongoing global clinical trials. Additionally, we propose future international, inclusive, and efficient clinical trial designs, integrating pediatric populations in adult trials, to ensure broad access to this promising therapy for all children and adolescents with menin-dependent leukemias., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) remains the best consolidative modality in most patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Along with factors directly pertaining to SCT, pretransplantation disease control, performance status, and prior treatment-related complications are important factors that affect posttransplantation survival outcomes., Methods: The authors compared the survival outcomes of patients ≥60 years of age treated on the phase 2 clinical trial of venetoclax (Ven) added to cladribine (CLAD) and low dose cytarabine (LDAC) alternating with azacitidine (CLAD/LDAC/Ven arm) (NCT03586609) who underwent allogeneic SCT in first remission to a retrospective cohort of patients ≥60 years of age who underwent SCT after intensive chemotherapy. Intensive chemotherapy was defined as the use of cytarabine >1 g/m 2 and anthracyclines during induction/consolidation., Results: Thirty-five patients at median age of 68 years in the CLAD/LDAC/Ven arm were compared to 42 patients at a median age of 62 years in the intensive therapy arm. The 2-year relapse-free survival was superior with CLAD/LDAC/Ven versus intensive chemotherapy (88% vs. 65%; p = .03) whereas the 2-year overall survival (OS) was comparable (84% vs. 70%; p = .14). On a competing event analysis, the 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was significantly lower with CLAD/LDAC/Ven versus intensive chemotherapy (2.9% vs. 17.2%, Gray's p = .049) whereas nonrelapse mortality was comparable (16.2% vs. 17.1%; p = .486)., Conclusion: In conclusion, treatment with CLAD/LDAC/Ven was associated with favorable outcomes in older patients who underwent subsequent allogeneic SCT. The OS was comparable to that with intensive chemotherapy followed by allogeneic SCT, but the CIR rate was significantly lower., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

Introduction: The historical standard of care for Ph+ ALL is chemotherapy plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Recently chemotherapy-free regimens have shown promising efficacy. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy-free regimens for Ph+ ALL., Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for chemotherapy-free regimens for Ph+ ALL published between January 2000 and October 2023. Of the 5,348 articles screened, 9 nonrandomized clinical trials enrolling 413 patients were included. Two trials (N = 117) included treatment with 3 agents (blinatumomab, TKI, and steroid) and 7 trials (N = 248) included treatment with 2 agents (TKI and steroids). R software was used to conduct the meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023482439)., Results: The pooled complete molecular response (CMR) rate of patients receiving a TKI, blinatumomab, and steroids was 81% (95%CI, 69%-89%). TKIs plus blinatumomab were nearly 6 times as likely to have CMR (odds ratio [OR], 5.98; 95%CI, 2.99-11.96) and more than 5 times as likely to be alive at 1-year (OR, 5.1; 95%CI, 1.74-14.9) as compared to TKIs alone. Patients receiving ponatinib were about twice as likely as those receiving dasatinib to achieve CMR (OR, 2.51; 95%CI, 0.72-8.72)., Conclusion: Adding blinatumomab to TKIs and steroids significantly improved Ph+ ALL patients' response and survival rates. Regimens with ponatinib elicited higher molecular response rates than those with other TKIs. The high response and survival rates achieved with blinatumomab plus TKIs and steroids suggest that further studies are required to assess the need for intensive treatments such as chemotherapy or stem cell transplant in these patients., Competing Interests: Disclosures H.K.: research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Immunogen, Jazz, Novartis; and honoraria/advisory board/consultancy from AbbVie, Amgen, Amphista, Ascentage, Astellas, Biologix, Curis, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, KAHR Medical, Labcorp, Novartis, Pfizer, Shenzhen Target Rx, Stemline, Takeda and Taiho Pharmaceutical Canada. E.J. received research grants from Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Pfizer, and Takeda; and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda. F.R.: research funding from Amgen, Astex, Pharmaceuticals/Taiho Oncology, BMS/Celgene, Syos, AbbVie, Prelude, Xencor, Astellas Pharma, and Biomea Fusion as well as honoraria from Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Syos, AbbVie, and Astellas Pharma; has been a board of directors or advisory committee member for Astex Pharmaceuticals/Taiho Oncology; and has been a consultant for BMS/Celgene, Syos, Novartis, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Astellas Pharma. N.J.: served as a consultant/advisory role with Pharmacyclics, Novartis, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, Servier, Novimmune, and Adaptive Biotechnologies. He has received institutional research funding from Pharmacyclics, Genentech, Abbvie, Pfizer, Incyte, BMS, Infinity, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Celgene, and Servier. N.J.S.: has been a consultant for Takeda Oncology, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, and Pfizer; received research funding from Takeda Oncology, Astellas, and Stemline Therapeutics; and received honoraria from Amgen K.S.: received research funding from Novartis, honoraria from Otsuka, and consultation fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, and Pfizer. M.A.A. and W.A. declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Optimal frontline use of active agents in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (T-ALL/LBL) is prudent to improve outcomes. We report the long-term follow-up of the phase 2 trial of HyperCVAD with nelarabine and pegylated asparaginase (Original cohort). In the latest protocol iteration venetoclax was added to the induction/consolidation regimen (Venetoclax cohort). Eligible patients were adults with untreated T-ALL/LBL or after minimal therapy and with adequate organ function. Primary endpoint of this analysis was improvement in 2-year progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with venetoclax. From Aug 2007 to Dec 2024, 145 patients, at a median age of 35.4 years, were treated; 46 (33.8%) were in the venetoclax cohort. At median follow-up (mFU) of 62.4 months, 5-year PFS, duration of response (DOR), and OS were 63.7%, 72.0% and 66.2% respectively. In the venetoclax cohort (mFU 24.4 months) 2-year PFS (87.9% versus 64.1%, p = 0.03) and 2-year DOR (93.6% versus 69.2%, p = 0.005) were superior to the original cohort (mFU 89.4 months) and 2-year OS appeared better (87.8% versus 73.9%, p = 0.16). Febrile neutropenia was the most common serious adverse event, seen in 60% patients. The addition of venetoclax to HyperCVAD-nelarabine-pegylated asparaginase was tolerable and led to improvement in DOR and PFS., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

The understanding of the molecular pathobiology of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has spurred the identification of therapeutic targets and the development of corresponding novel targeted therapies. Since 2017, twelve agents have been approved for the treatment of AML subsets: the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax; the CD33 antibody drug conjugate gemtuzumab ozogamicin; three FLT3 inhibitors (midostaurin, gilteritinib, quizartinib); three IDH inhibitors (ivosidenib and olutasidenib targeting IDH1 mutations; enasidenib targeting IDH2 mutations); two oral hypomethylating agents (oral poorly absorbable azacitidine; fully absorbable decitabine-cedazuridine [latter approved as an alternative to parenteral hypomethylating agents in myelodysplastic syndrome and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia but commonly used in AML]); and CPX-351 (encapsulated liposomal 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin), and glasdegib (hedgehog inhibitor). Other targeted therapies (menin inhibitors, CD123 antibody-drug conjugates) are showing promising results. To achieve optimal results in such a rare and heterogeneous entity as AML requires expertise, familiarity with this rare cancer, and the access to, and delivery of disparate therapies under rigorous supportive care conditions. In this review, we update the standard-of-care and investigational therapies and outline promising current and future research directions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The presence of BRAF mutation in hematological malignancies, excluding Hairy cell leukemia, and its significance as a driver mutation in myeloid neoplasms (MNs) remains largely understudied. This research aims to evaluate patient characteristics and outcomes of BRAF -mutated MNs. Among a cohort of 6667 patients, 48 (0.7%) had BRAF -mutated MNs. Notably, three patients exhibited sole BRAF mutation, providing evidence supporting the hypothesis of BRAF 's role as a driver mutation in MNs. In acute myeloid leukemia, the majority of patients had secondary acute myeloid leukemia, accompanied by poor-risk cytogenic and RAS pathway mutations. Although the acquisition of BRAF mutation during disease progression did not correlate with unfavorable outcomes, its clearance through chemotherapy or stem cell transplant exhibited favorable outcomes (median overall survival of 34.8 months versus 10.4 months, p  = 0.047). Furthermore, G469A was the most frequently observed BRAF mutation, differing from solid tumors and hairy cell leukemia, where V600E mutations were predominant.

We report on the long-term efficacy and safety of a phase 2 trial of sequential cladribine and rituximab in hairy cell leukemia (HCL). One-hundred and thirty-nine patients were enrolled: 111 in the frontline setting, 18 in first relapse, and 10 with variant HCL (HCLv). A complete response (CR) was achieved in 133 of 137 evaluable participants (97%) with measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity in 102 (77%). MRD status was not associated with significant differences in event-free survival (EFS) or overall survival (OS). With a median follow-up of 7.8 years (range: 0.40-18.8), eight patients have experienced disease relapse (5.8%), 4/111 with newly diagnosed HCL (3·6%) and 4/10 with HCLv (40%) ( p  = 0.002). The 10-year EFS and OS rates were 86.7% and 91.1%, respectively. Grade 3 adverse events were observed in 28 participants (20·1%), mostly due to infections. Treatment of HCL with sequential cladribine followed by rituximab is associated with excellent efficacy and safety results both in the frontline and relapsed settings.

AMG 330, a bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE®) that binds CD33 and CD3 on T cells facilitates T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity against CD33+ cells. This first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of AMG 330 in adults with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML). Amongst 77 patients treated with AMG 330 (0.5 µg/day-1.6 mg/day) on 14-day or 28-day cycles, maximum tolerated dose was not reached; median duration of treatment was 29 days. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 78%) and rash (30%); 10% of patients experienced grade 3/4 CRS. CRS was mitigated with stepwise dosing of AMG 330, prophylactic dexamethasone, and early treatment with tocilizumab. Among 60 evaluable patients, eight achieved complete remission or morphologic leukemia-free state; of the 52 non-responders, 37% had ≥50% reduction in AML bone marrow blasts. AMG 330 is a promising CD33-targeted therapeutic strategy for R/R AML.