Guillermo Garcia-Manero1, Guillermo Montalban-Bravo1, Jesus G Berdeja2, Yasmin Abaza1, Elias Jabbour1, James Essell3, Roger M Lyons4, Farhad Ravandi1, Michael Maris5, Brian Heller6, Amy E DeZern7, Sunil Babu8, David Wright9, Bertrand Anz10, Ralph Boccia11, Rami S Komrokji12, Philip Kuriakose13, James Reeves14, Mikkael A Sekeres15, Hagop M Kantarjian1, Richard Ghalie16, Gail J Roboz17. 1. Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Oncology/Hematology Care, Cincinnati, Ohio. 4. Cancer Care Center of South Texas, San Antonio, Texas. 5. Colorado Blood Cancer Institute, Denver, Colorado. 6. Southern Cancer Center, Daphne, Alabama. 7. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 8. Fort Wayne Medical Oncology and Hematology, Fort Wain, Indiana. 9. Florida Cancer Specialists-North, Jacksonville, Florida. 10. Tennessee Oncology, Chattanooga, Tennessee. 11. Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland. 12. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 13. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan. 14. Florida Cancer Specialists-South, Cape Coral, Florida. 15. Leukemia Program, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 16. MEI Pharma, San Diego, California. 17. Joan and Sanford I. Weill Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) remains poor despite available therapies. Histone deacetylase inhibitors have demonstrated activity in patients with MDS and in vitro synergy with azacitidine. METHODS: A phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of azacitidine and pracinostat was conducted in patients who had International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-2-risk or high-risk MDS. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate by cycle 6 of therapy. RESULTS: Of 102 randomized patients, there were 51 in the pracinostat group and 51 in the placebo group. The median age was 69 years. The CR rate by cycle 6 of therapy was 18% and 33% (P = .07) in the pracinostat and placebo groups, respectively. No significant differences in overall survival (median, 16 vs 19 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-2.23) or progression-free survival (11 vs 9 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.546-1.46) were observed between groups. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred more frequently in the pracinostat group (98% vs 74%), leading to more treatment discontinuations (20% vs 10%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of azacitidine with pracinostat did not improve outcomes in patients with higher-risk MDS. Higher rates of treatment discontinuation may partially explain these results, suggesting alternative dosing and schedules to improve tolerability may be required to determine the potential of the combination. Cancer 2017;123:994-1002.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) remains poor despite available therapies. Histone deacetylase inhibitors have demonstrated activity in patients with MDS and in vitro synergy with azacitidine. METHODS: A phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of azacitidine and pracinostat was conducted in patients who had International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-2-risk or high-risk MDS. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate by cycle 6 of therapy. RESULTS: Of 102 randomized patients, there were 51 in the pracinostat group and 51 in the placebo group. The median age was 69 years. The CR rate by cycle 6 of therapy was 18% and 33% (P = .07) in the pracinostat and placebo groups, respectively. No significant differences in overall survival (median, 16 vs 19 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-2.23) or progression-free survival (11 vs 9 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.546-1.46) were observed between groups. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred more frequently in the pracinostat group (98% vs 74%), leading to more treatment discontinuations (20% vs 10%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of azacitidine with pracinostat did not improve outcomes in patients with higher-risk MDS. Higher rates of treatment discontinuation may partially explain these results, suggesting alternative dosing and schedules to improve tolerability may be required to determine the potential of the combination. Cancer 2017;123:994-1002.
Authors: Austin G Kulasekararaj; Alexander E Smith; Syed A Mian; Azim M Mohamedali; Pramila Krishnamurthy; Nicholas C Lea; Joop Gäken; Coralie Pennaneach; Robin Ireland; Barbara Czepulkowski; Sabine Pomplun; Judith C Marsh; Ghulam J Mufti Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Peter L Greenberg; John M Bennett; Bob Lowenberg; Pierre W Wijermans; Stephen D Nimer; Antonio Pinto; Miloslav Beran; Theo M de Witte; Richard M Stone; Moshe Mittelman; Guillermo F Sanz; Steven D Gore; Charles A Schiffer; Hagop Kantarjian Journal: Blood Date: 2006-04-11 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Thomas Prébet; Steven D Gore; Benjamin Esterni; Claude Gardin; Raphael Itzykson; Sylvain Thepot; François Dreyfus; Odile Beyne Rauzy; Christian Recher; Lionel Adès; Bruno Quesnel; C L Beach; Pierre Fenaux; Norbert Vey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andres O Soriano; Hui Yang; Stefan Faderl; Zeev Estrov; Francis Giles; Farhad Ravandi; Jorge Cortes; William G Wierda; Souzanne Ouzounian; Andres Quezada; Sherry Pierce; Elihu H Estey; Jean-Pierre J Issa; Hagop M Kantarjian; Guillermo Garcia-Manero Journal: Blood Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Mikkael A Sekeres; Megan Othus; Alan F List; Olatoyosi Odenike; Richard M Stone; Steven D Gore; Mark R Litzow; Rena Buckstein; Min Fang; Diane Roulston; Clara D Bloomfield; Anna Moseley; Aziz Nazha; Yanming Zhang; Mario R Velasco; Rakesh Gaur; Ehab Atallah; Eyal C Attar; Elina K Cook; Alyssa H Cull; Michael J Rauh; Frederick R Appelbaum; Harry P Erba Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Kasper D Rasmussen; Guangshuai Jia; Jens V Johansen; Marianne T Pedersen; Nicolas Rapin; Frederik O Bagger; Bo T Porse; Olivier A Bernard; Jesper Christensen; Kristian Helin Journal: Genes Dev Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 11.361
Authors: Yasmin M Abaza; Tapan M Kadia; Elias J Jabbour; Marina Y Konopleva; Gautam Borthakur; Alessandra Ferrajoli; Zeev Estrov; William G Wierda; Ana Alfonso; Toh Han Chong; Charles Chuah; Liang-Piu Koh; Boon-Cher Goh; Julie E Chang; Daniel E Durkes; Maria Cielo Foudray; Hagop M Kantarjian; Xiao Qin Dong; Guillermo Garcia-Manero Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gerwin Huls; Dana A Chitu; Thomas Pabst; Saskia K Klein; Georg Stussi; Laimonas Griskevicius; Peter J M Valk; Jacqueline Cloos; Arjan A van de Loosdrecht; Dimitri Breems; Danielle van Lammeren-Venema; Isabelle van Zeventer; Rinske Boersma; Mojca Jongen-Lavrencic; Martin Fehr; Mels Hoogendoorn; Markus G Manz; Maaike Söhne; Rien van Marwijk Kooy; Dries Deeren; Marjolein W M van der Poel; Marie Cecile Legdeur; Lidwine Tick; Yves Chalandon; Emanuele Ammatuna; Sabine Blum; Bob Löwenberg; Gert J Ossenkoppele Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-09-22