Farhad Ravandi1, Ellen K Ritchie2, Hamid Sayar3, Jeffrey E Lancet4, Michael D Craig5, Norbert Vey6, Stephen A Strickland7, Gary J Schiller8, Elias Jabbour9, Harry P Erba10, Arnaud Pigneux11, Heinz-August Horst12, Christian Recher13, Virginia M Klimek14, Jorge Cortes9, Gail J Roboz2, Olatoyosi Odenike15, Xavier Thomas16, Violaine Havelange17, Johan Maertens18, Hans-Günter Derigs19, Michael Heuser20, Lloyd Damon21, Bayard L Powell22, Gianluca Gaidano23, Angelo-Michele Carella24, Andrew Wei25, Donna Hogge26, Adam R Craig27, Judith A Fox27, Renee Ward27, Jennifer A Smith27, Gary Acton27, Cyrus Mehta28, Robert K Stuart29, Hagop M Kantarjian9. 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: fravandi@mdanderson.org. 2. Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Indiana University Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 5. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA. 6. Institut Paoli-Calmettes and Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. 7. Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 8. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 9. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 10. Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA. 11. Université de Bordeaux, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 12. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. 13. Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse Oncopole, Université de Toulouse III, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 14. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 15. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 16. Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France. 17. Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium. 18. Universitair Ziekenhuis, Leuven, Belgium. 19. Klinikum Frankfurt Main, Frankfurt, Germany. 20. Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 21. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 22. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center-Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 23. Department of Translational Medicine, Amedeo Avogadro University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy. 24. Hematology Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genova, Italy. 25. The Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 26. Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 27. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, South San Francisco, CA, USA. 28. Cytel, Cambridge, MA, USA; Harvard School of Public Health, Cambridge, MA, USA. 29. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safe and effective treatments are urgently needed for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer quinolone derivative, plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. METHODS: This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken at 101 international sites. Eligible patients with acute myeloid leukaemia were aged 18 years of age or older and had refractory disease or were in first relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle ofanthracycline (or anthracenedione) plus cytarabine. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to vosaroxin (90 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m(2) in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m(2) intravenously on days 1-5) or placebo plus cytarabine through a central interactive voice system with a permuted block procedure stratified by disease status, age, and geographical location. All participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival and the primary safety endpoint was 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191801. FINDINGS:Between Dec 17, 2010, and Sept 25, 2013, 711 patients were randomly assigned to vosaroxin plus cytarabine (n=356) or placebo plus cytarabine (n=355). At the final analysis, median overall survival was 7·5 months (95% CI 6·4-8·5) in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group and 6·1 months (5·2-7·1) in the placebo plus cytarabine group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·73-1·02; unstratified log-rank p=0·061; stratified p=0·024). A higher proportion of patients achieved complete remission in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group (107 [30%] of 356 patients vs 58 [16%] of 355 patients, p<0·0001). Early mortality was similar between treatment groups (30-day: 28 [8%] of 355 patients in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group vs 23 [7%] of 350 in the placebo plus cytarabine group; 60-day: 70 [20%] vs 68 [19%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred at any time in 20 (6%) of 355 patients given vosaroxin plus cytarabine and in eight (2%) of 350 patients given placebo plus cytarabine. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 116 (33%) and 58 (17%) patients in each group, respectively. Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more frequent in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 [47%] vs 117 [33%]), neutropenia (66 [19%] vs 49 [14%]), stomatitis (54 [15%] vs 10 [3%]), hypokalaemia (52 [15%] vs 21 [6%]), bacteraemia (43 [12%] vs 16 [5%]), sepsis (42 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), and pneumonia (39 [11%] vs 26 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups, the prespecified secondary analysis stratified by randomisation factors suggests that the addition of vosaroxin to cytarabine might be of clinical benefit to some patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. FUNDING: Sunesis Pharmaceuticals.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Safe and effective treatments are urgently needed for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer quinolone derivative, plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. METHODS: This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken at 101 international sites. Eligible patients with acute myeloid leukaemia were aged 18 years of age or older and had refractory disease or were in first relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle of anthracycline (or anthracenedione) plus cytarabine. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to vosaroxin (90 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m(2) in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m(2) intravenously on days 1-5) or placebo plus cytarabine through a central interactive voice system with a permuted block procedure stratified by disease status, age, and geographical location. All participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival and the primary safety endpoint was 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191801. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2010, and Sept 25, 2013, 711 patients were randomly assigned to vosaroxin plus cytarabine (n=356) or placebo plus cytarabine (n=355). At the final analysis, median overall survival was 7·5 months (95% CI 6·4-8·5) in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group and 6·1 months (5·2-7·1) in the placebo plus cytarabine group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·73-1·02; unstratified log-rank p=0·061; stratified p=0·024). A higher proportion of patients achieved complete remission in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group (107 [30%] of 356 patients vs 58 [16%] of 355 patients, p<0·0001). Early mortality was similar between treatment groups (30-day: 28 [8%] of 355 patients in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group vs 23 [7%] of 350 in the placebo plus cytarabine group; 60-day: 70 [20%] vs 68 [19%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred at any time in 20 (6%) of 355 patients given vosaroxin plus cytarabine and in eight (2%) of 350 patients given placebo plus cytarabine. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 116 (33%) and 58 (17%) patients in each group, respectively. Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more frequent in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 [47%] vs 117 [33%]), neutropenia (66 [19%] vs 49 [14%]), stomatitis (54 [15%] vs 10 [3%]), hypokalaemia (52 [15%] vs 21 [6%]), bacteraemia (43 [12%] vs 16 [5%]), sepsis (42 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), and pneumonia (39 [11%] vs 26 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups, the prespecified secondary analysis stratified by randomisation factors suggests that the addition of vosaroxin to cytarabine might be of clinical benefit to some patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. FUNDING: Sunesis Pharmaceuticals.
Authors: W Hiddemann; C Aul; G Maschmeyer; R Schönrock-Nabulsi; W D Ludwig; A Bartholomäus; P Bettelheim; K Becker; L Balleisen; B Lathan Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 1993
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: H M Kantarjian; E H Estey; W Plunkett; M J Keating; R S Walters; S Iacoboni; K B McCredie; E J Freireich Journal: Am J Med Date: 1986-09 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Peter L Greenberg; Sandra J Lee; Ranjana Advani; Martin S Tallman; Branimir I Sikic; Louis Letendre; Kathleen Dugan; Bert Lum; David L Chin; Gordon Dewald; Elisabeth Paietta; John M Bennett; Jacob M Rowe Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W Kern; C Aul; G Maschmeyer; R Schönrock-Nabulsi; W D Ludwig; A Bartholomäus; P Bettelheim; B Wörmann; T Büchner; W Hiddemann Journal: Leukemia Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Nicholas J Short; Hagop Kantarjian; Farhad Ravandi; Xuelin Huang; Lianchun Xiao; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; William Plunkett; Varsha Gandhi; Koji Sasaki; Naveen Pemmaraju; Naval G Daver; Gautam Borthakur; Nitin Jain; Marina Konopleva; Zeev Estrov; Tapan M Kadia; William G Wierda; Courtney D DiNardo; Mark Brandt; Susan M O'Brien; Jorge E Cortes; Elias Jabbour Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2017-07-18
Authors: Farhad Ravandi; Ellen K Ritchie; Hamid Sayar; Jeffrey E Lancet; Michael D Craig; Norbert Vey; Stephen A Strickland; Gary J Schiller; Elias Jabbour; Arnaud Pigneux; Heinz-August Horst; Christian Récher; Virginia M Klimek; Jorge E Cortes; Angelo-Michele Carella; Miklos Egyed; Utz Krug; Judith A Fox; Adam R Craig; Renee Ward; Jennifer A Smith; Gary Acton; Hagop M Kantarjian; Robert K Stuart Journal: Haematologica Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: J M Middeke; R Herbst; S Parmentier; G Bug; M Hänel; G Stuhler; K Schäfer-Eckart; W Rösler; S Klein; W Bethge; U Bitz; B Büttner; H Knoth; N Alakel; M Schaich; A Morgner; M Kramer; K Sockel; M von Bonin; F Stölzel; U Platzbecker; C Röllig; C Thiede; G Ehninger; M Bornhäuser; J Schetelig Journal: Leukemia Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Daniel J DeAngelo; Andrew M Brunner; Lillian Werner; David Avigan; Amir T Fathi; Adam S Sperling; Abigail Washington; Dina Stroopinsky; Jacalyn Rosenblatt; Malgorzata McMasters; Katarina Luptakova; Martha Wadleigh; David P Steensma; Gabriela S Hobbs; Eyal C Attar; Philip C Amrein; Benjamin L Ebert; Richard M Stone; Karen K Ballen Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 10.047