Hagop M Kantarjian1, Gail J Roboz2, Patricia L Kropf3, Karen W L Yee4, Casey L O'Connell5, Raoul Tibes6, Katherine J Walsh7, Nikolai A Podoltsev8, Elizabeth A Griffiths9, Elias Jabbour10, Guillermo Garcia-Manero10, David Rizzieri11, Wendy Stock12, Michael R Savona13, Todd L Rosenblat14, Jesus G Berdeja15, Farhad Ravandi10, Edwin P Rock16, Yong Hao16, Mohammad Azab16, Jean-Pierre J Issa17. 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Leukemia, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: hkantarjian@mdanderson.org. 2. Weill Cornell Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, the New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 3. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Jeanes Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA; Department of Internal Medicine II/Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, University Medical Center, Würzburg, Germany. 7. Ohio State University, James Cancer Hospital, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 8. Yale University School of Medicine, Hematology Division, New Haven, CT, USA. 9. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 10. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Leukemia, Houston, TX, USA. 11. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 12. University of Chicago, MC2115, Chicago, IL, USA. 13. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Nashville, TN, USA. 14. New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 15. Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN, USA. 16. Astex Pharmaceuticals, Pleasanton, CA, USA. 17. Fels Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hypomethylating drugs azacitidine and decitabine have shown efficacy in myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukaemia, but complete tumour responses are infrequent and of short duration, possibly because of the short half-lives and suboptimal bone marrow exposure of the drugs. Guadecitabine, a next-generation hypomethylating drug, has a longer half-life and exposure than its active metabolite decitabine. A phase 1 study established 60 mg/m2 guadecitabine for 5 days as an effective treatment schedule. In this phase 2 study, we aimed to assess the safety and activity of two doses and schedules of guadecitabine in older (≥65 years) patients with treatment-naive acute myeloid leukaemia who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 1/2 study of guadecitabine in cohorts of patients with treatment-naive acute myeloid leukaemia, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes; here we report the phase 2 results from the cohort of treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. We included patients aged at least 65 years from 14 US medical centres (hospitals and specialist cancer clinics) who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy and randomly assigned them (1:1) using acomputer algorithm (for dynamic randomisation) to guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/m2 on days 1-5 (5-day schedule) of a 28-day treatment cycle. Treatment allocation was not masked. We also assigned additional patients to guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 in a 10-day schedule in a 28-day treatment cycle after a protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was composite complete response (complete response, complete response with incomplete platelet recovery, or complete response with incomplete neutrophil recovery regardless of platelets). Response was assessed in all patients (as-treated) who received at least one dose of guadecitabine. We present the final analysis, although at the time of the database lock, 15 patients were still in follow-up for overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01261312. FINDINGS:Between Aug 24, 2012, and Sept 15, 2014, 107 patients were enrolled: 54 on the 5-day schedule (26 randomly assigned to 60 mg/m2 and 28 to 90 mg/m2) and 53 were assigned to the 10-day schedule. Median age was 77 years (range 62-92), and median follow-up was 953 days (IQR 721-1040). All treated patients were assessable for a response. The number of patients who achieved a composite complete response did not differ between dose groups or schedules (13 [54%, 95% CI 32·8-74·4] with 60 mg/m2 on the 5-day schedule; 16 [59%; 38·8-77·6] with 90 mg/m2 on the 5-day schedule; and 26 [50%, 35·8-64·2] with 60 mg/m2 on the 10-day schedule). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of relationship to treatment, were febrile neutropenia (31 [61%] of 51 patients on the 5-day schedule vs 36 [69%] of 52 patients on the 10-day schedule), thrombocytopenia (25 [49%] vs 22 [42%]), neutropenia (20 [39%] vs 18 [35%]), pneumonia (15 [29%] vs 19 [37%]), anaemia (15 [29%] vs 12 [23%]), and sepsis (eight [16%] vs 14 [27%]). The most common serious adverse events, regardless of relationship to treatment, for the 5-day and 10-day schedules, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (27 [53%] vs 25 [48%]), pneumonia (14 [27%] vs 16 [31%]), and sepsis (eight [16%] vs 14 [27%]). 23 (22%) patients died because of adverse events (mainly from sepsis, eight [8%]; and pneumonia, five [5%]); four deaths were from adverse events deemed treatment-related (pneumonia, two [2%]; multiorgan failure, one [1%]; and sepsis, one [1%], all in the 10-day cohort). INTERPRETATION: More than half of older treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia achieved a composite complete response with guadecitabine at all drug doses and schedules investigated, with tolerable toxicity. The recommended guadecitabine regimen for this population is 60 mg/m2 in a 5-day schedule. A phase 3 study in this patient population is ongoing (NCT02348489) to assess guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 in a 5-day schedule versus standard of care. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals and Stand Up To Cancer.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The hypomethylating drugs azacitidine and decitabine have shown efficacy in myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukaemia, but complete tumour responses are infrequent and of short duration, possibly because of the short half-lives and suboptimal bone marrow exposure of the drugs. Guadecitabine, a next-generation hypomethylating drug, has a longer half-life and exposure than its active metabolite decitabine. A phase 1 study established 60 mg/m2 guadecitabine for 5 days as an effective treatment schedule. In this phase 2 study, we aimed to assess the safety and activity of two doses and schedules of guadecitabine in older (≥65 years) patients with treatment-naive acute myeloid leukaemia who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 1/2 study of guadecitabine in cohorts of patients with treatment-naive acute myeloid leukaemia, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes; here we report the phase 2 results from the cohort of treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. We included patients aged at least 65 years from 14 US medical centres (hospitals and specialist cancer clinics) who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy and randomly assigned them (1:1) using a computer algorithm (for dynamic randomisation) to guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/m2 on days 1-5 (5-day schedule) of a 28-day treatment cycle. Treatment allocation was not masked. We also assigned additional patients to guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 in a 10-day schedule in a 28-day treatment cycle after a protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was composite complete response (complete response, complete response with incomplete platelet recovery, or complete response with incomplete neutrophil recovery regardless of platelets). Response was assessed in all patients (as-treated) who received at least one dose of guadecitabine. We present the final analysis, although at the time of the database lock, 15 patients were still in follow-up for overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01261312. FINDINGS: Between Aug 24, 2012, and Sept 15, 2014, 107 patients were enrolled: 54 on the 5-day schedule (26 randomly assigned to 60 mg/m2 and 28 to 90 mg/m2) and 53 were assigned to the 10-day schedule. Median age was 77 years (range 62-92), and median follow-up was 953 days (IQR 721-1040). All treated patients were assessable for a response. The number of patients who achieved a composite complete response did not differ between dose groups or schedules (13 [54%, 95% CI 32·8-74·4] with 60 mg/m2 on the 5-day schedule; 16 [59%; 38·8-77·6] with 90 mg/m2 on the 5-day schedule; and 26 [50%, 35·8-64·2] with 60 mg/m2 on the 10-day schedule). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of relationship to treatment, were febrile neutropenia (31 [61%] of 51 patients on the 5-day schedule vs 36 [69%] of 52 patients on the 10-day schedule), thrombocytopenia (25 [49%] vs 22 [42%]), neutropenia (20 [39%] vs 18 [35%]), pneumonia (15 [29%] vs 19 [37%]), anaemia (15 [29%] vs 12 [23%]), and sepsis (eight [16%] vs 14 [27%]). The most common serious adverse events, regardless of relationship to treatment, for the 5-day and 10-day schedules, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (27 [53%] vs 25 [48%]), pneumonia (14 [27%] vs 16 [31%]), and sepsis (eight [16%] vs 14 [27%]). 23 (22%) patients died because of adverse events (mainly from sepsis, eight [8%]; and pneumonia, five [5%]); four deaths were from adverse events deemed treatment-related (pneumonia, two [2%]; multiorgan failure, one [1%]; and sepsis, one [1%], all in the 10-day cohort). INTERPRETATION: More than half of older treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia achieved a composite complete response with guadecitabine at all drug doses and schedules investigated, with tolerable toxicity. The recommended guadecitabine regimen for this population is 60 mg/m2 in a 5-day schedule. A phase 3 study in this patient population is ongoing (NCT02348489) to assess guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 in a 5-day schedule versus standard of care. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals and Stand Up To Cancer.
Authors: Ellen K Ritchie; Eric J Feldman; Paul J Christos; Sarah D Rohan; Catherine B Lagassa; Cindy Ippoliti; Joseph M Scandura; Karen Carlson; Gail J Roboz Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2013-02-07
Authors: William Blum; Ramiro Garzon; Rebecca B Klisovic; Sebastian Schwind; Alison Walker; Susan Geyer; Shujun Liu; Violaine Havelange; Heiko Becker; Larry Schaaf; Jon Mickle; Hollie Devine; Cheryl Kefauver; Steven M Devine; Kenneth K Chan; Nyla A Heerema; Clara D Bloomfield; Michael R Grever; John C Byrd; Miguel Villalona-Calero; Carlo M Croce; Guido Marcucci Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Hagop M Kantarjian; Xavier G Thomas; Anna Dmoszynska; Agnieszka Wierzbowska; Grzegorz Mazur; Jiri Mayer; Jyh-Pyng Gau; Wen-Chien Chou; Rena Buckstein; Jaroslav Cermak; Ching-Yuan Kuo; Albert Oriol; Farhad Ravandi; Stefan Faderl; Jacques Delaunay; Daniel Lysák; Mark Minden; Christopher Arthur Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hervé Dombret; John F Seymour; Aleksandra Butrym; Agnieszka Wierzbowska; Dominik Selleslag; Jun Ho Jang; Rajat Kumar; James Cavenagh; Andre C Schuh; Anna Candoni; Christian Récher; Irwindeep Sandhu; Teresa Bernal del Castillo; Haifa Kathrin Al-Ali; Giovanni Martinelli; Jose Falantes; Richard Noppeney; Richard M Stone; Mark D Minden; Heidi McIntyre; Steve Songer; Lela M Lucy; C L Beach; Hartmut Döhner Journal: Blood Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Pierre Fenaux; Ghulam J Mufti; Eva Hellstrom-Lindberg; Valeria Santini; Carlo Finelli; Aristoteles Giagounidis; Robert Schoch; Norbert Gattermann; Guillermo Sanz; Alan List; Steven D Gore; John F Seymour; John M Bennett; John Byrd; Jay Backstrom; Linda Zimmerman; David McKenzie; Cl Beach; Lewis R Silverman Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Hagop Kantarjian; Jean-Pierre J Issa; Craig S Rosenfeld; John M Bennett; Maher Albitar; John DiPersio; Virginia Klimek; James Slack; Carlos de Castro; Farhad Ravandi; Richard Helmer; Lanlan Shen; Stephen D Nimer; Richard Leavitt; Azra Raza; Hussain Saba Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christine B Yoo; Shinwu Jeong; Gerda Egger; Gangning Liang; Pasit Phiasivongsa; Chunlin Tang; Sanjeev Redkar; Peter A Jones Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Pankit Vachhani; Raed Al Yacoub; Austin Miller; Fan Zhang; Tara L Cronin; Evelena P Ontiveros; James E Thompson; Elizabeth A Griffiths; Eunice S Wang Journal: Leuk Res Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.156
Authors: Daniela Matei; Sharad Ghamande; Lynda Roman; Angeles Alvarez Secord; John Nemunaitis; Merry Jennifer Markham; Kenneth P Nephew; Simone Jueliger; Aram Oganesian; Sue Naim; Xiang Yao Su; Harold Keer; Mohammad Azab; Gini F Fleming Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jessica Dittmann; Tinka Haydn; Patrick Metzger; George A Ward; Melanie Boerries; Meike Vogler; Simone Fulda Journal: Cell Death Differ Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 15.828