Literature DB >> 28844816

Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: phase 2 results from a multicentre, randomised, phase 1/2 trial.

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.   

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 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.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28844816      PMCID: PMC5925750          DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30576-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  17 in total

1.  Bioavailability of azacitidine subcutaneous versus intravenous in patients with the myelodysplastic syndromes.

Authors:  Guido Marcucci; Lewis Silverman; Mark Eller; Linda Lintz; C L Beach
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.126

2.  Decitabine in patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed acute myeloid leukemia.

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

3.  Clinical response and miR-29b predictive significance in older AML patients treated with a 10-day schedule of decitabine.

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

4.  Multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of decitabine versus patient choice, with physician advice, of either supportive care or low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia.

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

Review 5.  The fundamental role of epigenetic events in cancer.

Authors:  Peter A Jones; Stephen B Baylin
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 53.242

6.  International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts.

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

7.  Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomised, open-label, phase III study.

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

8.  Decitabine improves patient outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes: results of a phase III randomized study.

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

9.  Delivery of 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine to cells using oligodeoxynucleotides.

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

10.  Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine (decitabine) in the design of its dose-schedule for cancer therapy.

Authors:  Metin Karahoca; Richard L Momparler
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 6.551

View more
  49 in total

Review 1.  New Treatment Options for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in 2019.

Authors:  Marco Cerrano; Raphael Itzykson
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 2.  Following in the footsteps of acute myeloid leukemia: are we witnessing the start of a therapeutic revolution for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes?

Authors:  Jan Philipp Bewersdorf; Amer M Zeidan
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2020-05-18

3.  Intensive chemotherapy vs. hypomethylating agents in older adults with newly diagnosed high-risk acute myeloid leukemia: A single center experience.

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

Review 4.  Current and Future Treatment Options for Myelodysplastic Syndromes: More Than Hypomethylating Agents and Lenalidomide?

Authors:  Katja Sockel; Uwe Platzbecker
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 9.546

5.  A Phase I Clinical Trial of Guadecitabine and Carboplatin in Platinum-Resistant, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Clinical, Pharmacokinetic, and Pharmacodynamic Analyses.

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

Review 6.  Secondary AML Emerging After Therapy with Hypomethylating Agents: Outcomes, Prognostic Factors, and Treatment Options.

Authors:  Daniel R Richardson; Steven D Green; Matthew C Foster; Joshua F Zeidner
Journal:  Curr Hematol Malig Rep       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 3.952

Review 7.  Personalizing therapy for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: Role of geriatric assessment and genetic profiling.

Authors:  Vijaya Raj Bhatt
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2019-04-11       Impact factor: 12.111

8.  "Epigenetic" modification as therapy for acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Charles A Schiffer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 9.  Clinical developments in epigenetic-directed therapies in acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Darren Pan; Raajit Rampal; John Mascarenhas
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-03-10

10.  Next-generation hypomethylating agent SGI-110 primes acute myeloid leukemia cells to IAP antagonist by activating extrinsic and intrinsic apoptosis pathways.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.