Search

Pevonedistat (TAK-924/MLN4924) is a novel inhibitor of NEDD8-activating enzyme (NAE) with single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We performed a phase 1b study of pevonedistat (PEV) with azacitidine (AZA) based on synergistic activity seen preclinically. Primary objectives included safety and tolerability, and secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics (PK) and disease response. Patients ≥60 years with treatment-naive AML (unfit for standard induction therapy) received PEV 20 or 30 mg/m 2 IV on days 1, 3, and 5 combined with fixed-dose AZA (75 mg/m 2 IV/subcutaneously) on days 1 to 5, 8, and 9, every 28 days. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were constipation (48%), nausea (42%), fatigue (42%), and anemia (39%). In total, 11 deaths were observed and considered unrelated to study therapy by the investigators. Transient elevations in aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were dose limiting. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PEV in this combination is 20 mg/m 2 PEV PK was not altered by the addition of AZA. Overall response rate (ORR) based on an intent-to-treat analysis was 50% (20 complete remissions [CRs], 5 complete remission with incomplete peripheral count recovery, 7 partial remissions [PRs]), with an 8.3-month median duration of remission. In patients receiving ≥6 cycles of therapy (n = 23, 44%), ORR was 83%. In patients with TP53 mutations, the composite CR/PR rate was 80% (4/5). Two of these patients stayed on study for >10 cycles. Baseline bone marrow blast percentage or cytogenetic/molecular risk did not influence ORR. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01814826., (© 2018 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Purpose Azacitidine is standard, first-line therapy in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Whether azacitidine-based combinations with lenalidomide or vorinostat produce superior overall response rates (ORRs) to azacitidine is not known. Patients and Methods North American Intergroup Study S1117 is a phase II/III trial that randomly assigned patients with higher-risk MDS and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) 1:1:1 to azacitidine (75 mg/m 2 /day on days 1 to 7 of a 28-day cycle); azacitidine plus lenalidomide (10 mg/day on days 1 to 21); or azacitidine plus vorinostat (300 mg twice daily on days 3 to 9). The primary phase II end point was improved ORR. Results Of 277 patients from 90 centers, 92 received azacitidine, 93 received azacitidine plus lenalidomide, and 92 received azacitidine plus vorinostat. Median age was 70 years (range, 28 to 93 years), 85 patients (31%) were female, and 53 patients (19%) had CMML. Serious adverse events were similar across arms, although combination-arm patients were more likely to undergo nonprotocol-defined dose modifications ( P < .001).With a median follow-up of 23 months (range, 1 to 43 months), the ORR was 38% for patients receiving azacitidine, 49% for azacitidine plus lenalidomide ( P = .14 v azacitidine), and 27% for azacitidine plus vorinostat ( P = .16 v azacitidine). For patients with CMML, ORR was higher for azacitidine plus lenalidomide versus azacitidine (68% v 28%, P = .02) but similar for all arms across cytogenetic subgroups, as was remission duration and overall survival. ORR was higher with mutations in DNMT3A and lower for SRSF2, whereas ORR duration improved with fewer mutations. Lenalidomide dose reduction was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.30; P = .05). Conclusion Patients with higher-risk MDS treated with azacitidine-based combinations had similar ORR to azacitidine monotherapy, although patients with CMML benefitted from azacitidine plus lenalidomide. The efficacy of combination regimens may have been affected by dose modifications.

Therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (tMN) are serious late effects of the treatment of cancer with poor response to conventional treatment. Azacitidine (AZA) has been used to treat patients with tMN but current data are retrospective. We present here 47 tMN patients prospectively enrolled as a specific cohort in the E1905 study. TheE1905 study was a randomized phase 2 study (NCT00313586) testing 10 d of AZA (50 mg/m(2) /d) +/- the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m(2) /d PO day-3 and day-10). A total of 47 patients [29 therapy-related myelosyspastic syndrome (t-MDS) and 18 therapy-related acute myeloid leukaemia (t-AML)] were recruited to the study. 24 patients were treated with AZA monotherapy and 23 with AZA+entinostat. The median number of administered cycles was 4, significantly higher in patients treated with AZA (6 cycles vs. 3 cycles, P = 0·008). Haematological normalization rates were 46% in monotherapy and 17% in the combination arm. Median overall survivals were 13 and 6 months, respectively. The novel 50 * 10 schedule of azacitidine appears effective, with response rates, when given as single agent, comparable to those for patients with de novo MDS/AML treated on the same protocol. However, the combination of AZA and entinostat was associated with increased toxicity and could not be recommended for treatment of tMN., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Reliable clinical or molecular predictors of benefit from azacitidine therapy in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are not defined. Doubling of platelet count at start of second cycle of azacitidine therapy compared to baseline was associated with achieving response and survival advantage in a Dutch cohort. To validate this observation, we analysed a larger cohort of North American patients, whose data was collected in a prospective clinical trial with a longer median follow-up. We found a significant association between platelet count doubling after first cycle of azacitidine therapy and probability of achieving objective response. Among patients with MDS or oligoblastic acute myeloid leukaemia (<30% bone marrow blasts, n = 102), there was a statistically significant reduction in risk of death for patients who achieved platelet count doubling (n = 23, median OS, 21·0 months) compared to those who did not (n = 79, median OS, 16·7 months, adjusted hazard ratio (no/yes)=1·88, 95% confidence interval, 1·03-3·40, P = 0·04). Nonetheless, the addition of this platelet count doubling variable did not improve the survival prediction provided by the revised International Prognostic Scoring System or the French Prognostic Scoring System. Identification of reliable and consistent predictors for clinical benefit for azacitidine therapy remains an unmet medical need and a top research priority., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) was developed in a cohort of untreated myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients. A French Prognostic Scoring System (FPSS) was recently reported to identify differential survival among azacitidine-treated patients with high-risk MDS. We applied the FPSS and IPSS-R to 150 patients previously randomized to azacitidine monotherapy or a combination of azacitidine with entinostat (a histone deacetylase inhibitor). Neither score predicted response but both discriminated patients with different overall survival (OS; median OS, FPSS: 9·7, 14·7, and 25·3 months, P = 0·018; IPSS-R: 12·5, 11·3, 20·8, and 36 months, P = 0·005). Statistical analysis suggested no improvement in OS prediction for the FPSS over the IPSS-R in azacitidine-treated patients., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Although azacitidine (AZA) improves survival in patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, the overall response remains approximately 50%. Entinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor that has been combined with AZA with significant clinical activity in a previous phase I dose finding study., Design: Open label phase II randomized trial comparing AZA 50 mg/m(2)/d given for 10 days ± entinostat 4 mg/m(2)/d day 3 and day 10. All subtypes of myelodysplasia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, and acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes were eligible for the study. The primary objective was the rate of hematologic normalization (HN; complete remission + partial remission + trilineage hematological improvement)., Results: One hundred forty-nine patients were analyzed, including 97 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome and 52 patients with acute myeloid leukemia. In the AZA group, 32% (95% CI, 22% to 44%) experienced HN and 27% (95% CI, 17% to 39%) in the AZA + entinostat group. Both arms exceeded the HN rate of historical control (Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9221 trial), but only the AZA group fulfilled the primary objective of the study. Rates of overall hematologic response were 46% and 44%, respectively. Median overall survivals were 18 months for the AZA group and 13 months for the AZA + entinostat group. The combination arm led to less demethylation compared with the monotherapy arm, suggesting pharmacodynamic antagonism., Conclusion: Addition of entinostat to AZA did not increase clinical response as defined by the protocol and was associated with pharmacodynamic antagonism. However, the prolonged administration of AZA by itself seems to increase HN rate compared with standard dosing and warrants additional investigation.