BACKGROUND: In this phase 2 study, the authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the Aurora B kinase inhibitor barasertib compared with low-dose cytosine arabinoside (LDAC) in patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either open-label barasertib 1200 mg (as a 7-day intravenous infusion) or LDAC 20 mg (subcutaneously twice daily for 10 days) in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective complete response rate (OCRR) (complete responses [CR] plus confirmed CRs with incomplete recovery of neutrophils or platelets [CRi] according to Cheson criteria [also requiring reconfirmation of CRi ≥21 days after the first appearance and associated with partial recovery of platelets and neutrophils]). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: In total, 74 patients (barasertib, n = 48; LDAC, n = 26) completed ≥1 cycle of treatment. A significant improvement in the OCRR was observed with barasertib (35.4% vs 11.5%; difference, 23.9%; 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-39.9%; P < .05). Although the study was not formally sized to compare OS data, the median OS with barasertib was 8.2 months versus 4.5 months with LDAC (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.58; P = .663). Stomatitis and febrile neutropenia were the most common adverse events with barasertib versus LDAC (71% vs 15% and 67% vs 19%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Barasertib produced a significant improvement in the OCRR versus LDAC and had a more toxic but manageable safety profile, consistent with previous studies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In this phase 2 study, the authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the Aurora B kinase inhibitor barasertib compared with low-dose cytosine arabinoside (LDAC) in patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS:Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either open-label barasertib 1200 mg (as a 7-day intravenous infusion) or LDAC 20 mg (subcutaneously twice daily for 10 days) in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective complete response rate (OCRR) (complete responses [CR] plus confirmed CRs with incomplete recovery of neutrophils or platelets [CRi] according to Cheson criteria [also requiring reconfirmation of CRi ≥21 days after the first appearance and associated with partial recovery of platelets and neutrophils]). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: In total, 74 patients (barasertib, n = 48; LDAC, n = 26) completed ≥1 cycle of treatment. A significant improvement in the OCRR was observed with barasertib (35.4% vs 11.5%; difference, 23.9%; 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-39.9%; P < .05). Although the study was not formally sized to compare OS data, the median OS with barasertib was 8.2 months versus 4.5 months with LDAC (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.58; P = .663). Stomatitis and febrile neutropenia were the most common adverse events with barasertib versus LDAC (71% vs 15% and 67% vs 19%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Barasertib produced a significant improvement in the OCRR versus LDAC and had a more toxic but manageable safety profile, consistent with previous studies.
Authors: J R Bischoff; L Anderson; Y Zhu; K Mossie; L Ng; B Souza; B Schryver; P Flanagan; F Clairvoyant; C Ginther; C S Chan; M Novotny; D J Slamon; G D Plowman Journal: EMBO J Date: 1998-06-01 Impact factor: 11.598
Authors: Kevin R Kelly; Steffan T Nawrocki; Claudia M Espitia; Mengkun Zhang; Johnny J Yang; Swaminathan Padmanabhan; Jeffrey Ecsedy; Francis J Giles; Jennifer S Carew Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; John M Bennett; Kenneth J Kopecky; Thomas Büchner; Cheryl L Willman; Elihu H Estey; Charles A Schiffer; Hartmut Doehner; Martin S Tallman; T Andrew Lister; Francesco Lo-Coco; Roel Willemze; Andrea Biondi; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Richard A Larson; Bob Löwenberg; Miguel A Sanz; David R Head; Ryuzo Ohno; Clara D Bloomfield; Francesco LoCocco Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mary E Ross; Rami Mahfouz; Mihaela Onciu; Hsi-Che Liu; Xiaodong Zhou; Guangchun Song; Sheila A Shurtleff; Stanley Pounds; Cheng Cheng; Jing Ma; Raul C Ribeiro; Jeffrey E Rubnitz; Kevin Girtman; W Kent Williams; Susana C Raimondi; Der-Cherng Liang; Lee-Yung Shih; Ching-Hon Pui; James R Downing Journal: Blood Date: 2004-06-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Marc Payton; Hung-Kam Cheung; Maria Stefania S Ninniri; Christian Marinaccio; William C Wayne; Kelly Hanestad; John D Crispino; Gloria Juan; Angela Coxon Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Sarah Wang; Elizabeth E Hwang; Rajarshi Guha; Allison F O'Neill; Nicole Melong; Chansey J Veinotte; Amy Conway Saur; Kellsey Wuerthele; Min Shen; Crystal McKnight; Gabriela Alexe; Madeleine E Lemieux; Amy Wang; Emma Hughes; Xin Xu; Matthew B Boxer; Matthew D Hall; Andrew Kung; Jason N Berman; Mindy I Davis; Kimberly Stegmaier; Brian D Crompton Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 12.531