Jonathan A Webster1, Raoul Tibes2, Larry Morris3, Amanda L Blackford4, Mark Litzow5, Mrinal Patnaik5, Gary L Rosner4, Ivana Gojo6, Robert Kinders7, Lihua Wang7, L Austin Doyle7, Catherine J Huntoon5, Larry M Karnitz5, Scott H Kaufmann5, Judith E Karp6, B Douglas Smith6. 1. Division of Hematologic Malignancies, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: jwebst17@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, United States. 3. The Blood & Marrow Transplant Group of Georgia, Atlanta, GA, United States. 4. Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States. 5. Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States. 6. Division of Hematologic Malignancies, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, United States. 7. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cytosine arabinoside (AraC) remains the backbone of most treatment regimens for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Incorporation of AraC into DNA activates checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), leading to cell-cycle arrest and diminished AraC cytotoxicity, which can be reversed by the selective Chk1 inhibitor MK-8776. Building on a Phase I trial, we conducted a phase II trial comparing timed sequential AraC with or without MK-8776. METHODS: Patients with relapsed or primary refractory AML were randomized 1:1 to receive either AraC with MK-8776 (Arm A); or AraC alone (Arm B). RESULTS: 32 patients were treated: 14 assigned to Arm A and 18 to Arm B. There were 5 (36%) complete responses (CR/CRi) and 1 (7%) partial response (PR) in Arm A, and 8 (44%) CR/CRis and 1 (6%) PR in Arm B. Median survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (5.9months in Arm A vs. 4.5 months in Arm B). MK-8776 led to a robust increase in DNA damage in circulating leukemic blasts as measured by increased γ-H2AX (16.9%±6.1% prior and 36.4%±6.8% at one hour after MK-8776 infusion, p=0.016). CONCLUSION: Response rates and survival were similar between the two groups in spite of evidence that MK-8776 augmented DNA damage in circulating leukemic blasts. Better than expected results in the control arm using timed sequential AraC and truncated patient enrollment may have limited the ability to detect clinical benefit from the combination.
PURPOSE: Cytosine arabinoside (AraC) remains the backbone of most treatment regimens for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Incorporation of AraC into DNA activates checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), leading to cell-cycle arrest and diminished AraC cytotoxicity, which can be reversed by the selective Chk1 inhibitor MK-8776. Building on a Phase I trial, we conducted a phase II trial comparing timed sequential AraC with or without MK-8776. METHODS: Patients with relapsed or primary refractory AML were randomized 1:1 to receive either AraC with MK-8776 (Arm A); or AraC alone (Arm B). RESULTS: 32 patients were treated: 14 assigned to Arm A and 18 to Arm B. There were 5 (36%) complete responses (CR/CRi) and 1 (7%) partial response (PR) in Arm A, and 8 (44%) CR/CRis and 1 (6%) PR in Arm B. Median survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (5.9months in Arm A vs. 4.5 months in Arm B). MK-8776 led to a robust increase in DNA damage in circulating leukemic blasts as measured by increased γ-H2AX (16.9%±6.1% prior and 36.4%±6.8% at one hour after MK-8776 infusion, p=0.016). CONCLUSION: Response rates and survival were similar between the two groups in spite of evidence that MK-8776 augmented DNA damage in circulating leukemic blasts. Better than expected results in the control arm using timed sequential AraC and truncated patient enrollment may have limited the ability to detect clinical benefit from the combination.
Authors: Raoul Tibes; James M Bogenberger; Leena Chaudhuri; R Tanner Hagelstrom; Donald Chow; Megan E Buechel; Irma M Gonzales; Tim Demuth; James Slack; Ruben A Mesa; Esteban Braggio; Hongwei H Yin; Shilpi Arora; David O Azorsa Journal: Blood Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: X Thomas; N Cambier; A L Taksin; O Reman; A Vekhoff; C Pautas; V Leblond; P Soler-Michel; E Ecstein-Fraïssé; E Archimbaud Journal: Leuk Res Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 3.156
Authors: Zhaojun Qiu; Pengyan Fa; Tao Liu; Chandra B Prasad; Shanhuai Ma; Zhipeng Hong; Ernest R Chan; Hongbing Wang; Zaibo Li; Kai He; Qi-En Wang; Terence M Williams; Chunhong Yan; Steven T Sizemore; Goutham Narla; Junran Zhang Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Siang-Boon Koh; Yann Wallez; Charles R Dunlop; Sandra Bernaldo de Quirós Fernández; Tashinga E Bapiro; Frances M Richards; Duncan I Jodrell Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: N Sanjib Banerjee; Dianne Moore; Cameron J Parker; Thomas R Broker; Louise T Chow Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Albert Job; Lisa-Maria Schmitt; Lisa von Wenserski; Brigitte Lankat-Buttgereit; Thomas M Gress; Malte Buchholz; Eike Gallmeier Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2018-09-23 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Taynah Cascaes Puty; Jonathan Souza Sarraf; Tabata Cristina Do Carmo Almeida; Valter Cordeiro Barbosa Filho; Luis Eduardo Werneck de Carvalho; Fernando Luiz Affonso Fonseca; Fernando Adami Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2019-05-03