Search

BackgroundPlatelet transfusion carries risk of transfusion-transmitted infection (TTI). Pathogen reduction of platelet components (PRPC) is designed to reduce TTI. Pulmonary adverse events (AEs), including transfusion-related acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occur with platelet transfusion.Study designAn open label, sequential cohort study of transfusion-dependent hematology-oncology patients was conducted to compare pulmonary safety of PRPC with conventional PC (CPC). The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment-emergent assisted mechanical ventilation (TEAMV) by non-inferiority. Secondary outcomes included: time to TEAMV, ARDS, pulmonary AEs, peri-transfusion AE, hemorrhagic AE, transfusion reactions (TRs), PC and red blood cell (RBC) use, and mortality.ResultsBy modified intent-to-treat (mITT), 1068 patients received 5277 PRPC and 1223 patients received 5487 CPC. The cohorts had similar demographics, primary disease, and primary therapy. PRPC were non-inferior to CPC for TEAMV (treatment difference -1.7%, 95% CI: (-3.3% to -0.1%); odds ratio=0.53, 95% CI: (0.30, 0.94). The cumulative incidence of TEAMV for PRPC (2.9%) was significantly less than CPC (4.6%, p= .039). The incidence of ARDS was less, but not significantly different, for PRPC (1.0% vs. 1.8%, p= .151; odds ratio=0.57, 95% CI: (0.27, 1.18). AE, pulmonary AE, and mortality were not different between cohorts. TRs were similar for PRPC and CPC (8.3% vs. 9.7%, p= .256); and allergic TR were significantly less with PRPC (p= .006). PC and RBC use were not increased with PRPC.DiscussionPRPC demonstrated reduced TEAMV with no excess treatment-related pulmonary morbidity.

To address antigen escape and loss of T-cell functionality, we report a phase I clinical trial (NCT04007029) evaluating autologous naive and memory T (TN/MEM) cells engineered to express a bispecific anti-CD19/CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR; CART19/20) for patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), with safety as the primary endpoint. Ten patients were treated with 36 × 106 to 165 × 106 CART19/20 cells. No patient experienced neurotoxicity of any grade or over grade 1 cytokine release syndrome. One case of dose-limiting toxicity (persistent cytopenia) was observed. Nine of 10 patients achieved objective response [90% overall response rate (ORR)], with seven achieving complete remission [70% complete responses (CR) rate]. One patient relapsed after 18 months in CR but returned to CR after receiving a second dose of CART19/20 cells. Median progression-free survival was 18 months and median overall survival was not reached with a 17-month median follow-up. In conclusion, CART19/20 TN/MEM cells are safe and effective in patients with relapsed/refractory NHL, with durable responses achieved at low dosage levels.Significance:Autologous CD19/CD20 bispecific CAR-T cell therapy generated from TN/MEM cells for patients with NHL is safe (no neurotoxicity, maximum grade 1 cytokine release syndrome) and demonstrates strong efficacy (90% ORR, 70% CR rate) in a first-in-human, phase I dose-escalation trial.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 517

Representativeness of study participants

CART19/20 cell product characteristics. (A) % CD4+ among total T cells and CAR-expressing T cells. (B) Comparison of T-cell subtype frequency among CD4+ vs. CD8+ T cells in cryopreserved CART19/20 cell products. Te/exh: effector/exhausted T cells, CD45RA+/CD45RO–/CD62L–; Tem: effector-memory T cells, CD45RA–/CD45RO+/CD62L–; Tcm: central-memory T cells: CD45RA–/CD45RO+/CD62L+; naïve: CD45RA+/CD45RO–/CD62L+. (C) Phenotype of leukopak content prior to cell isolation. (D) Phenotype of cells obtained after isolation. (E) CD14 and CD25 expression patterns among CD62L+ cells in patient leukopak content prior to cell isolation.

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) need proven subsequent therapies after early-line lenalidomide treatment failure. The phase 2 MM-014 trial (NCT01946477) investigated pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab after 1 to 2 prior treatment lines (62.5%, 1 prior line) in patients with RRMM and prior lenalidomide (75.0%, lenalidomide refractory). With a median follow-up of 28.4 months, overall response rate was 77.7% (52.7% achieved very good partial response or better) and median progression-free survival was 30.8 months. For patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease, these outcomes were 76.2%, 47.6%, and 23.7 months, respectively. No new safety signals were observed; 64.3% experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia. Health-related quality of life was preserved or trended toward improvement through 12 treatment cycles. Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab given immediately after early-line lenalidomide-based treatment continues to demonstrate safety and efficacy, supporting pomalidomide-dexamethasone as a foundation of combination therapy in RRMM and providing evidence that the immunomodulatory agent class delivers benefit after lenalidomide treatment failure.

Detailed list of variants identified by targeted-NGS

Supplementary Tables and Figure

Purpose:The Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) is a master regulator of mitosis and overexpressed in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We conducted a phase Ib study of the PLK1 inhibitor, onvansertib, in combination with either low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) or decitabine in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML.Patients and Methods:Onvansertib was administered orally, in escalating doses, on days 1–5 in combination with either LDAC (20 mg/m2; days 1–10) or decitabine (20 mg/m2; days 1–5) in a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was to evaluate first-cycle dose-limiting toxicities and the MTD. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics, antileukemic activity, and response biomarkers.Results:Forty patients were treated with onvansertib (12–90 mg/m2) in combination with LDAC (n = 17) or decitabine (n = 23). Onvansertib was well tolerated with most grades 3 and 4 adverse events related to myelosuppression. In the decitabine arm, the MTD was established at 60 mg/m2, and 5 (24%) of the 21 evaluable patients achieved complete remission with or without hematologic count recovery. Decrease in mutant circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) during the first cycle of therapy was associated with clinical response. Engagement of the PLK1 target, TCTP, was measured in circulating blasts and was associated with greater decrease in bone marrow blasts.Conclusions:The onvansertib and decitabine combination was well tolerated and had antileukemic activity particularly in patients with target engagement and decreased mutant ctDNA following treatment. This combination will be further investigated in the ongoing phase II trial.

PURPOSE Standard cytotoxic induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) results in prolonged neutropenia and risk of infection. Romyelocel-L is a universal, allogeneic myeloid progenitor cell product being studied to reduce infection during induction chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred sixty-three patients with de novo AML (age ≥ 55 years) receiving induction chemotherapy were randomly assigned on day 0 (d0), of whom 120 were evaluable. Subjects received either romyelocel-L infusion on d9 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) starting daily d14 (treatment group) or G-CSF daily alone on d14 (control) until absolute neutrophil count recovery to 500/µL. End points included days in febrile episode, microbiologically defined infections, clinically diagnosed infection, and days in hospital. RESULTS Mean days in febrile episode was shorter in the treatment arm from d15 through d28 (2.36 v 3.90; P = .02). Similarly, a trend toward decreased microbiologically defined infections and clinically diagnosed infection in the treatment arm was observed from d9 to d28 (35.6% v 47.5%; P = .09), reaching a statistically significant difference from d15 to d28 (6.8% v 27.9%; P = .002). Because of this, antibacterial or antifungal use for treatment of an infection was significantly less in the treatment group (d9-d28: 44.1% v 63.9%; P = .01). Significantly fewer patients in the treatment arm received empiric antifungals from d9 tod28 (42.4% v 63.9%; P = .02) and d15-d28 (42.4% v 62.3%; P = .02). Patients in the treatment arm also had 3.2 fewer hospital days compared with control (25.5 v 28.7; P = .001). Remission rates and days to absolute neutrophil count recovery were similar in the two groups. No patients in the romyelocel-L plus G-CSF group died because of infection compared with two patients in the control arm. No graft-versus-host disease was observed. CONCLUSION Subjects receiving romyelocel-L showed a decreased incidence of infections, antimicrobial use, and hospitalization, suggesting that romyelocel-L may provide a new option to reduce infections in patients with AML undergoing induction therapy.

To address antigen escape and loss of T-cell functionality, we report a phase I clinical trial (NCT04007029) evaluating autologous naive and memory T (TN/MEM) cells engineered to express a bispecific anti-CD19/CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR; CART19/20) for patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), with safety as the primary endpoint. Ten patients were treated with 36 × 106 to 165 × 106 CART19/20 cells. No patient experienced neurotoxicity of any grade or over grade 1 cytokine release syndrome. One case of dose-limiting toxicity (persistent cytopenia) was observed. Nine of 10 patients achieved objective response [90% overall response rate (ORR)], with seven achieving complete remission [70% complete responses (CR) rate]. One patient relapsed after 18 months in CR but returned to CR after receiving a second dose of CART19/20 cells. Median progression-free survival was 18 months and median overall survival was not reached with a 17-month median follow-up. In conclusion, CART19/20 TN/MEM cells are safe and effective in patients with relapsed/refractory NHL, with durable responses achieved at low dosage levels.Significance:Autologous CD19/CD20 bispecific CAR-T cell therapy generated from TN/MEM cells for patients with NHL is safe (no neurotoxicity, maximum grade 1 cytokine release syndrome) and demonstrates strong efficacy (90% ORR, 70% CR rate) in a first-in-human, phase I dose-escalation trial.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 517

International audience; BACKGROUND: Despite treatment with novel therapies and allogeneic stem-cell transplant (allo-SCT) consolidation, outcomes in adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia remain poor, underlining the need for more effective therapies. METHODS: We report the pivotal phase 2 results of ZUMA-3, an international, multicentre, single-arm, open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy KTE-X19 in adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Patients were enrolled at 25 sites in the USA, Canada, and Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and morphological disease in the bone marrow (>5% blasts). After leukapheresis and conditioning chemotherapy, patients received a single KTE-X19 infusion (1 × 10(6) CAR T cells per kg bodyweight). The primary endpoint was the rate of overall complete remission or complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery by central assessment. Duration of remission and relapse-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate, and allo-SCT rate were assessed as secondary endpoints. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the treated population (all patients who received a dose of KTE-X19). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02614066. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2018, and Oct 9, 2019, 71 patients were enrolled and underwent leukapheresis. KTE-X19 was successfully manufactured for 65 (92%) patients and administered to 55 (77%). The median age of treated patients was 40 years (IQR 28-52). At the median follow-up of 16·4 months (13·8-19·6), 39 patients (71%; 95% CI 57-82, p

Summary Background Daunorubicin and cytarabine are used as standard induction chemotherapy for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. CPX-351 is a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio. Primary analysis of the phase 3 trial in adults aged 60–75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia provided support for approval of CPX-351 by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. We describe the prospectively planned final 5-year follow-up results. Methods This randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done across 39 academic and regional cancer centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 60–75 years and had a pathological diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia according to WHO 2008 criteria, no previous induction therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by age and acute myeloid leukaemia subtype) to receive up to two induction cycles of CPX-351 (100 units/m2 administered as a 90-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 3, and 5; on days 1 and 3 for the second induction) or standard chemotherapy (cytarabine 100 mg/m2 per day continuous intravenous infusion for 7 days plus intravenous daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, and 3 [7+3]; cytarabine for 5 days and daunorubicin on days 1 and 2 for the second induction [5+2]). Patients with complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery could receive up to tw cycles of consolidation therapy with CPX-351 (65 units/m2 90-min infusion on days 1 and 3) or chemotherapy (5+2, same dosage as in the second induction cycle). The primary outcome was overall survival analysed in all randomly assigned patients. No additional adverse events were collected with long-term follow-up, except data for deaths. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01696084 , and is complete. Findings Between Dec 20, 2012, and Nov 11, 2014, 309 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive CPX-351 (153 patients) or 7+3 (156 patients). At a median follow-up of 60·91 months (IQR 60·06–62·98) in the CPX-351 group and 59·93 months (59·73–60·50) in the 7+3 group, median overall survival was 9·33 months (95% CI 6·37–11·86) with CPX-351 and 5·95 months (4·99–7·75) with 7+3 (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55–0·91). 5-year overall survival was 18% (95% CI 12–25%) in the CPX-351 group and 8% (4–13%) in the 7+3 group. The most common cause of death in both groups was progressive leukaemia (70 [56%] of 124 deaths in the CPX-351 group and 74 [53%] of 140 deaths in the 7+3 group). Six (5%) of 124 deaths in the CPX-351 group and seven (5%) of 140 deaths in the 7+3 group were considered related to study treatment. Interpretation After 5 years of follow-up, the improved overall survival with CPX-351 versus 7+3 was maintained, which supports the previous evidence that CPX-351 can contribute to long-term remission and improved overall survival in patients aged 60–75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia. Funding Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

CPX-351, a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin/cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio, is approved for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed, therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC). In a pivotal phase 3 study, patients aged 60 to 75 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML were randomized to receive CPX-351 or conventional 7+3 chemotherapy. In the primary endpoint analysis, CPX-351 demonstrated significantly prolonged median overall survival (OS) vs 7+3. These exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses evaluated the impact of achieving complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery (CRi) with CPX-351 (73/153 [48%]) vs conventional 7+3 (52/56 [33%]) on outcomes. CPX-351 improved median OS vs 7+3 in patients who achieved CR or CRi (25.43 vs 10.41 months; hazard ratio = 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.31, 0.77). Improved median OS was seen across AML subtypes (t-AML, AML-MRC), age subgroups (60 to 69 vs 70 to 75 years), patients with prior hypomethylating agent exposure, and patients who did not undergo transplantation. Patients who achieved CR or CRi with CPX-351 also had a higher rate of transplantation, a longer median OS landmarked from the date of transplantation (not reached vs 11.65 months; hazard ratio = 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.21, 0.89), and a safety profile that was consistent with the known safety profile of 7+3. These results suggest deeper remissions may be achieved with CPX-351, leading to improved OS. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01696084.

Purpose: The Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) is a master regulator of mitosis and overexpressed in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We conducted a phase Ib study of the PLK1 inhibitor, onvansertib, in combination with either low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) or decitabine in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML. Patients and Methods: Onvansertib was administered orally, in escalating doses, on days 1–5 in combination with either LDAC (20 mg/m2; days 1–10) or decitabine (20 mg/m2; days 1–5) in a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was to evaluate first-cycle dose-limiting toxicities and the MTD. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics, antileukemic activity, and response biomarkers. Results: Forty patients were treated with onvansertib (12–90 mg/m2) in combination with LDAC (n = 17) or decitabine (n = 23). Onvansertib was well tolerated with most grades 3 and 4 adverse events related to myelosuppression. In the decitabine arm, the MTD was established at 60 mg/m2, and 5 (24%) of the 21 evaluable patients achieved complete remission with or without hematologic count recovery. Decrease in mutant circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) during the first cycle of therapy was associated with clinical response. Engagement of the PLK1 target, TCTP, was measured in circulating blasts and was associated with greater decrease in bone marrow blasts. Conclusions: The onvansertib and decitabine combination was well tolerated and had antileukemic activity particularly in patients with target engagement and decreased mutant ctDNA following treatment. This combination will be further investigated in the ongoing phase II trial.

We assessed the safety, efficacy, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of selinexor, a first in class oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (100 mg once weekly [QW] or 60 mg twice weekly), in combination with daratumumab (16 mg/kg per label) and dexamethasone (40 mg QW) (SDd) in patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Thirty-four patients (median prior therapies, 3 [range, 2-10]) were enrolled; MM was refractory to proteasome inhibitor (PI) in 85%, immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) in 76%, both in 74%, and daratumumab in 6% of patients. Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported in the selinexor 60 mg twice-weekly cohort with no DLTs in the 100 mg QW cohort, making 100 mg QW the MTD and RP2D. Common treatment-related adverse events included thrombocytopenia (70.6%), nausea (70.6%), fatigue (61.8%), anemia (61.8%), and neutropenia (50.0%). Overall response rate was 73% and median progression-free survival 12.5 months in daratumumab-naïve patients. SDd was well tolerated and its promising efficacy suggests that further study of this PI- and IMiD-free regimen in RRMM patients who had at least one prior line of therapy including a PI and an IMiD but whose disease is naïve to daratumumab is warranted.

Background: ENA is an oral, selective inhibitor of IDH2 approved for the treatment (Tx) of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory IDH2 mutated (IDH2m) AML. Here we report the results of a Phase 2 expansion and Phase 1b of the Beat AML Master Trial Phase 2/1b sub-study to assess the efficacy of Tx of newly diagnosed (ND) IDH2m AML pts ≥ 60 years of age with ENA monotherapy (ENAm) and subsequent response-driven addition of AZA Tx. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03013998). Methods: The study initiated with a 3-outcome, 2-stage Phase 2 design, which enrolled patients on ENAm for up to 5 cycles. Pts without CR/CRi after 5 cycles of ENAm, or progression/intolerance prior to this time, were transferred to Phase 1b to receive ENA + AZA (Figure 1). Key eligibility included ND IDH2m AML pts with age ≥ 60 years and ECOG performance status 0-2. Pts received ENAm 100 mg/day in continuous 28-day cycles and ENA + AZA (75 mg/m2 days 1-7 every 28 days) for Phase 1b. Response was assessed using 2017 ELN AML criteria. The primary endpoint was CR/CRi rate. The 2-stage design required 24 pts and tested the null hypothesis (H0) that CR/CRi rate equaled 20% vs 50% and then expanded to test a revised H0 of 30% vs 50% in 60 pts (conditional alpha=0.025, power=77%). Expansion also allowed further assessment of safety of this treatment regimen. Results: At data cut off (06/18/2020), 60 pts enrolled, received ENAm, and were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median age was 75 years and 52% were female (Table 1). Median time on ENAm was 4.7 months (mos). At data cut off, 12 pts were still on ENAm Tx. Most common reasons for discontinuing ENAm were Tx failure (defined as no response to treatment) (23 or 38%), disease progression (loss of response to treatment) (7 or 12%) and adverse events (AEs; 6 or 10%). Five pts (8%) went to transplant. CR/CRi was achieved in 28 pts (47%; adjusted 95% CI 28-59, unadjusted exact 95% CI 34-60) (Table 2). Responses were higher (p=0.04) among the 44 pts with IDH2 R140 (55%) as compared to the 16 with IDH2 R172 mutation (25%) further supporting distinct biology between these subsets. After a median follow up of 14.6 mos, the median overall survival (mOS) was 24.4 mos (95% CI 10.6-not reached). The median duration of response was not reached with 12 mos estimation of 57% (95% CI 34-75). Overall, 20 ENA-related serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 15 pts, the most common was differentiation syndrome (12 or 20%) and 1 had ENA-related SAE of tumor lysis syndrome (1.7%). One pt had ENA-related Grade 5 AE (renal failure/death). Most common AEs of any grade (in ≥20%) were nausea, anemia, and low potassium (Table 3). The 7-day/30-day/60-day deaths observed with ENAm were 2%/5%/11%, respectively. Phase 1b: Seventeen pts had inadequate response to ENAm and transferred to Phase 1b to receive ENA + AZA. Median time on Tx (including ENAm) was 6.2 mos and median time on Tx after pts started ENA + AZA was 2.1 mos (Table 2). Most common reasons for discontinuing ENA + AZA included Tx failure (5 or 29%), disease progression (2 or 12%), transplant, death and AEs (each 2 or 12%). CR/CRi was 41% (exact 95% CI 18-67). After a median follow up of 12.7 mos, the mOS from start of ENA + AZA combination Tx was 8.9 mos. Four ENA-related SAEs occurred in 3 pts on ENA + AZA Tx and the most common was differentiation syndrome (2 or 12.5%). One dose-limiting toxicity (Grade 3 nausea) related to both Txs was observed. Most common AEs (≥20%) of any grade were anemia, low albumin and vomiting (Table 3). One death occurred at day 13 of ENA + AZA. Conclusions: In newly diagnosed pts ≥60 years old with IDH2m AML, ENA had a low early death rate, high CR/CRi rate (47%, adjusted 95% CI 28-59), and yielded durable remissions. The most common unique toxicity with ENA was differentiation syndrome that occurred in 20% of patients. In pts who did not achieve CR/CRi with ENAm, a subset of patients achieved CR/CRi with addition of AZA. This combined approach of serial therapy with ENA monotherapy followed by AZA addition in pts with sub-optimal response resulted in a mOS exceeding 2 years for pts enrolled on study. Further focus on improving response among patients with IDH2 R172 mutations, identifying subsets of pts not responding to ENA monotherapy, and integrating new targeted agents into this treatment regimen are warranted. Figure 1 Disclosures Stein: Syndax: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Biotheryx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy. Borate:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-funded clinical trials; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Baer:Takeda: Other: Institutional research funding; AbbVie: Other: Institutional research funding; Astellas: Other: Institutional research funding; Forma: Other: Institutional research funding; Kite: Other: Institutional research funding; Oscotec: Other: Institutional research funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding. Kovacsovics:Agios: Honoraria; Astella: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria. Schiller:Astellas Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Stemline: Speakers Bureau; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Deciphera: Research Funding; DeltaFly: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Gamida: Research Funding; Genentech-Roche: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Mateon: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Kaiser Permanente: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Olin:Astellas: Other: Site PI; Genentech: Other: Site PI; Pfizer: Other: Site PI; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Site PI; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Foran:Trillium: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin:Trovagene: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Prescient Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bio-Path Holdings: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Aptevo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Mateon Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Genetech-Roche: Research Funding; Celyad: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy; France Foundation: Honoraria. Foster:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Druker:Leukemia & Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Henry Stewart Talks: Patents & Royalties; Iterion Therapeutics (formerly Beta Cat Pharmaceuticals): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vivid Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GRAIL: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Patient True Talks: Consultancy; The RUNX1 Research Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Third Coast Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; VB Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millipore (formerly Upstate Biotechnology): Patents & Royalties; MolecularMD (acquired by ICON): Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; McGraw Hill: Patents & Royalties; Merck & Co: Patents & Royalties; Cepheid: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute: Patents & Royalties; EnLiven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Therapeutics Inc. (formerly Lorus): Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ARIAD: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALLCRON: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Aileron Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oregon Health & Science University: Patents & Royalties. Byrd:Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Vincera: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Novartis, Gilead, TG Therapeutics: Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Gilead, TG Therapeutics, Novartis, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Gilead, TG Therapeutics, BeiGene: Research Funding. Levine:Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria. Mims:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other: Senior Medical Director for Beat AML Study; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Enasidenib is not approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML.

Patients with multiple myeloma who have relapsed after or become refractory to lenalidomide in early treatment lines represent a clinically important population in need of effective therapies. The safety and efficacy of pomalidomide, low-dose dexamethasone, and daratumumab was evaluated in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after one to two prior treatment lines in the phase 2 MM-014 study. Patients received pomalidomide 4 mg daily from days 1–21 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly (28-day cycles). Daratumumab 16 mg/kg was administered per label. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Per protocol, all patients (N = 112) had received lenalidomide in their most recent prior regimen (75.0% lenalidomide refractory). ORR was 77.7% (76.2% in lenalidomide-refractory patients); median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median PFS was not reached (1-year PFS rate 75.1%). The most common hematologic grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (62.5%). Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 31.3% of patients, including 13.4% with grade 3/4 pneumonia. These results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide-based therapy as early as second line in patients with RRMM, even immediately after lenalidomide failure, indicating that switching from the immunomodulatory agent class is not necessary.

Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a primary cause of nonrelapse mortality and a major barrier to successful transplant outcomes. Itacitinib is a Janus kinase (JAK)1–selective inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in preclinical models of aGVHD. We report results from the first registered study of a JAK inhibitor in patients with aGVHD. This was an open-label phase 1 study enrolling patients aged ≥18 years with first HCT from any source who developed grade IIB to IVD aGVHD. Patients with steroid-naive or steroid-refractory aGVHD were randomized 1:1 to itacitinib 200 mg or 300 mg once daily plus corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability; day 28 overall response rate (ORR) was the main secondary endpoint. Twenty-nine patients (200 mg, n = 14; 300 mg, n = 15) received ≥1 dose of itacitinib and were included in safety and efficacy assessments. One dose-limiting toxicity was reported (grade 3 thrombocytopenia attributed to GVHD progression in a patient receiving 300 mg itacitinib with preexisting thrombocytopenia). The most common nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhea (48.3%, n = 14); anemia occurred in 11 patients (38%). ORR on day 28 for all patients in the 200-mg and 300-mg groups was 78.6% and 66.7%, respectively. Day 28 ORR was 75.0% for patients with treatment-naive aGVHD and 70.6% in those with steroid-refractory aGVHD. All patients receiving itacitinib decreased corticosteroid use over time. In summary, itacitinib was well tolerated and demonstrated encouraging efficacy in patients with steroid-naive or steroid-refractory aGVHD, warranting continued clinical investigations. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02614612.

Olutasidenib (FT-2102) is a potent, selective, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1). The aims for phase 1 of this phase 1/2 study were to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of olutasidenib, as monotherapy or in combination with azacitidine, in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome, harbouring mutant IDH1.In this phase 1/2, multicentre, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia or intermediate, high, or very high risk myelodysplastic syndrome harbouring mutant IDH1 at 18 study sites in the USA, Australia, France, and Spain. Other key eligibility criteria included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 with adequate liver and renal function. The primary outcomes were dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose, maximum evaluated dose, and the recommended phase 2 dose of olutasidenib. Olutasidenib was administered orally in doses of 150 mg once daily, 150 mg twice per day, and 300 mg once daily. Azacitidine (75 mg/mPatients were enrolled between Aug 8, 2016, and Nov 14, 2018. 78 patients received olutasidenib as monotherapy (n=32) or in combination with azacitidine (n=46). The median follow-up was 8·3 months (IQR 3·1-13·3) for monotherapy and 10·1 months (4·2-15·3) for combination therapy. 16 (50%) of 32 patients in the monotherapy group and 24 (52%) of 46 patients in the combination therapy group were women. Most patients were White (26 [81%] for monotherapy and 31 [67%] for combination therapy). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the dose-escalation cohorts and 150 mg twice per day was declared the recommended phase 2 dose on the basis of safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. The most common (≥20%) grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events with monotherapy were thrombocytopenia (nine [28%] of 32 patients), febrile neutropenia (seven [22%] of 32), and anaemia (seven [22%] of 32); and with combination therapy were thrombocytopenia (19 [41%] of 46), febrile neutropenia (13 [28%] of 46), neutropenia (13 [28%] of 46), and anaemia (nine [20%] of 46). 11 (34%) of 32 patients in the monotherapy group and nine (20%) of 46 patients in the combination therapy group died (most commonly from disease progression [three (9%) of 32 and four (9%) of 46]). No deaths were considered study-drug related. For patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, 41% (95% CI 21-64; nine of 22) receiving monotherapy and 46% (27-67; 12 of 26) receiving combination therapy had an overall response. For treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, 25% (1-81; one of four) receiving monotherapy and 77% (46-95; ten of 13) receiving combination therapy had an overall response.Olutasidenib, with or without azacitidine, was well tolerated and showed meaningful clinical activity in patients with IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukaemia. The results of this phase 1 study provide rationale for the continued evaluation of olutasidenib in multiple patient populations with myeloid malignancies.Forma Therapeutics.

The fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitor gilteritinib improved the survival of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) FLT3-mutated acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial. In this study, we assessed survival and relapse rates of patients in the ADMIRAL trial who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), as well as safety outcomes in patients who received post-transplantation gilteritinib maintenance therapy. ADMIRAL was a global phase 3 randomized controlled trial that enrolled adult patients with FLT3-mutated R/R AML. Patients with R/R AML who harbored FLT3 internal tandem duplication mutations in the juxtamembrane domain or D835/I836 point mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain were randomized (2:1) to gilteritinib (120 mg/day) or to preselected high- or low-intensity salvage chemotherapy (1 or 2 cycles). Patients in the gilteritinib arm who proceeded to HSCT could receive post-transplantation gilteritinib maintenance therapy if they were within 30 to 90 days post-transplantation and had achieved composite complete remission (CRc) with successful engraftment and no post-transplantation complications. Adverse events (AEs) during HSCT were recorded in the gilteritinib arm only. Survival outcomes and the cumulative incidence of relapse were assessed in patients who underwent HSCT during the trial. Treatment-emergent AEs were evaluated in patients who restarted gilteritinib as post-transplantation maintenance therapy. Patients in the gilteritinib arm underwent HSCT more frequently than those in the chemotherapy arm (26% [n = 64] versus 15% [n = 19]). For all transplantation recipients, 12- and 24-month overall survival (OS) rates were 68% and 47%, respectively. Despite a trend toward longer OS after pretransplantation CRc, post-transplantation survival was comparable in the 2 arms. Patients who resumed gilteritinib after HSCT had a low relapse rate after pretransplantation CRc (20%) or CR (0%). The most common AEs observed with post-transplantation gilteritinib therapy were increased alanine aminotransferase level (40%), pyrexia (43%), and diarrhea (40%); grade ≥3 AEs were related primarily to myelosuppression. The incidences of grade ≥III acute graft-versus-host disease and related mortality were low. Post-transplantation survival was similar across the 2 study arms in the ADMIRAL trial, but higher remission rates with gilteritinib facilitated receipt of HSCT. Gilteritinib as post-transplantation maintenance therapy had a stable safety and tolerability profile and was associated with low relapse rates. Taken together, these data support a preference for bridging therapy with gilteritinib over chemotherapy in transplantation-eligible patients.