| Literature DB >> 32781546 |
Laurène Fenwarth1, Elise Fournier1, Meyling Cheok1, Thomas Boyer2, Fanny Gonzales1, Sylvie Castaigne3, Nicolas Boissel4, Juliette Lambert3, Hervé Dombret5, Claude Preudhomme1, Nicolas Duployez1.
Abstract
Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg®) consists of a humanized CD33-targeted antibody-drug conjugated to a calicheamicin derivative. Growing evidence of GO efficacy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), demonstrated by improved outcomes in CD33-positive AML patients across phase I to III clinical trials, led to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval on 1 September 2017 in CD33-positive AML patients aged 2 years and older. Discrepancies in GO recipients outcome have raised significant efforts to characterize biomarkers predictive of GO response and have refined the subset of patients that may strongly benefit from GO. Among them, CD33 expression levels, favorable cytogenetics (t(8;21), inv(16)/t(16;16), t(15;17)) and molecular alterations, such as NPM1, FLT3-internal tandem duplications and other signaling mutations, represent well-known candidates. Additionally, in depth analyses including minimal residual disease monitoring, stemness expression (LSC17 score), mutations or single nucleotide polymorphisms in GO pathway genes (CD33, ABCB1) and molecular-derived scores, such as the recently set up CD33_PGx6_Score, represent promising markers to enhance GO response prediction and improve patient management.Entities:
Keywords: CD33; FLT3; acute myeloid leukemia; biomarkers; gemtuzumab ozogamicin; therapy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32781546 PMCID: PMC7460695 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21165626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) mechanism of action and biomarkers of response. SOCS3: Suppressor Of Cytokine Signaling 3; ABCB1: ATP-binding cassette subfamily B member 1 gene; NPM1mut: Nucleophosmin 1 gene mutation; FLT3-ITD: FMS-Like Tyrosine Kinase 3 Internal Tandem Duplication; KMT2A-r: Lysine Methyltransferase 2A rearrangement.
Overview of the main clinical trials evaluating GO efficacy
| Trial Acronym | Dates of Recruitement | Phase | Patient Population | Median Age of Patients in Years (Range) | Evaluable Patients | GO Dosing | Treatment Plan | Outcomes | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| NA | I | Relapsed/refractory AML patients | 54 (24–73) | 40 | Escalating doses, 0.25 to 9 mg/m2 | Single arm trial, GO administered as single agent | ORR: 8/40 patients (20%) | Sievers 1999 [ | |
| 1997–1999 | II | AML patients in first relapse | 61 (22–84) | 142 | 9 mg/m2, 2 doses recommended (max. 3 doses), with at least 14 days between 2 doses | Single arm trial, GO administered as single agent | ORR: 42/142 patients (30%), CR rate: 16%, CRp rate: 13% | Sievers 2001 [ | |
| Mylofrance-1 | 2005 | II | De novo AML in first relapse | 64 (22–80) | 57 | Fractionated doses: 3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4 and 7 of the first course | Single arm trial, GO administered as single agent in induction, followed by cytarabine-based consolidation | ORR: 19/57 (33%), CR rate: 15/57 (26%), CRp: 4/57 (7%) | Taksin 2007 [ |
| Mylofrance-2 | 2006–2007 | I/II | De novo AML in first relapse | 60 (40–70) | 20 | Fractionated doses: 3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4 and 7 of the first course | Single arm trial, GO combined with DA (DA dosing finding) | ORR: 13/20 patients (65%), CR rate: 11/20 patients (55%), CRp rate: 2/20 patients (10%) | Farhat 2012 [ |
| MRC AML15 | 2002–2006 | III | De novo/secondary AML | 50 (15–71) | 1113 | 3 mg/m2 on day 1 of course 1 +/− on day 1 of the course 3 | Randomization at induction and at consolidation. Induction regimen (DA or ADE or FLAG-Ida) +/− GO. Consolidation regimen (MACE or MidAC or high-dose cytarabine) +/− GO | GO- vs. no GO-arm: CR, 82% vs. 83%, OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.76–1.42, | Burnett 2011 [ |
| SWOG S0106 | 2004–2009 | III | De novo AML | 47 (18–60) | 595 | 6 mg/m2 on day 4; additional 3 doses of GO, 5 mg/m2 for patients in CR after consolidation | Randomized trial, GO plus modified DA (daunorubicin, 45 mg/m2/d, day 1 to day 3; cytarabine, 100 mg/m2/d, day 1 to day 7) vs. standard DA (daunorubicin, 60 mg/m2/d, day 1 to day 3; cytarabine, 100 mg/m2/d, day 1 to day 7) | DA + GO vs. DA alone: ORR: 76% vs. 74%, | Petersdorf 2013 [ |
| NCRI AML16 | 2006–2010 | III | De novo/secondary AML and high-risk MDS | 67 (51–84) | 1115 | 3 mg/m2 on day 1 of the first course | Randomized trial: DA or daunorubicin/clofarabine +/− GO | GO- vs. no GO-arm: ORR: 70% vs. 68%, OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.68–1.13, | Burnett 2012 [ |
| GOELAMS-AML 2006 IR | 2007–2010 | III | De novo AML patients with intermediate cytogenetic risk | 50 (18–60) | 238 | 6 mg/m2 on day 4 of the induction and on day 4 of the first consolidation course | Randomized trial: intensive induction regimen (DA) +/− GO, consolidation (MidAC) +/− GO, +/− HSCT | GO- vs. no-GO-arm: CR rate: 91.6% vs. 86.5%, | Delaunay 2011 [ |
| ALFA-0701 | 2008–2010 | III | De novo AML | 62 (50–70) | 271 | 3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, and 7 of induction and on day 1 of each of the subsequent two consolidation courses | Randomized trial: DA +/− GO | GO- vs. no-GO-arm: ORR: 81.5% vs. 73.5% ( | Castaigne 2012, Lambert 2019 [ |
| UK NCRI AML17 | 2009–2011 | III | De novo or secondary AML and high-risk MDS | 50 (0–81) | 788 | 3 mg/m2 vs. 6 mg/m2 on day 1 of induction | Randomized trial: GO 3 vs. 6 mg/m2 + combined with ADE vs. DA | GO 3 mg/m2 vs. 6 mg/m2: ORR: 89% vs. 86%, HR: 1.34, 95%CI:0.88–2.04, | Burnett 2016 [ |
| EORTC-GIMEMA AML-17 | 2002–2007 | III | De novo/secondary AML | 67 (60–75) | 472 | 3 mg/m2 for 2 doses, on days 1 and 15 of induction, 3 mg/m2 on the first day of consolidation | Randomized trial: intensive chemotherapy (MICE induction) +/− GO | GO vs. no-GO-arm: ORR: 45% vs. 49%; OR: 0.86, 95% CI, 0.6–1.23, | Amadori 2013 [ |
| EORTC-GIMEMA AML-19 | 2004–2013 | III | De novo/secondary AML unfit for intensive chemotherapy | 77 (62–88) | 237 | 6 mg/m2 on day 1 and 3 mg/m2 on day 8, +/−2 mg/m2/month for up to 8 doses | Randomized trial: GO alone vs. BSC | GO- vs. BSC-arm: median OS: 4.9 months vs. 3.6 months, HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53–0.90, | Amadori 2016 [ |
|
| |||||||||
| 1999–2002 | I | Relapsed/refractory AML patients | 12 (1–16) | 29 | Escalating doses, 6 to 9 mg/m2 | Single arm trial, GO administered as single agent | ORR: 8/29 patients (28%); CR rate: 14%; CRp rate: 14%) | Arceci et al. 2005 [ | |
| COG-AAML00P2 | 2002–2006 | II | Refractory de novo AML or newly diagnosed secondary AML | 11.5 (0.8–19.8) | 45 | 2 to 3 mg/m2 | Non randomized multi-arm trial, GO + cytarabine + mitoxantrone (arm A) vs. GO+ cytarabine+ L-asparaginase (arm B) | Arm A vs. arm B: ORR: 55% vs. 40%, | Aplenc 2008 [ |
| COG-AAML03P1 | 2003–2005 | II | Newly diagnosed de novo AML | 9.5 (0.07–21.6) | 340 | 3 mg/m2 on day 6 of course 1 and day 7 of course 4 | Single arm trial, GO combined with intensive chemotherapy | CR rate: 83.1%; 3-year OS: 66%; 3-year EFS: 53% | Cooper 2012 [ |
| COG-AAML0531 | 2006–2010 | III | Newly diagnosed de novo AML | 9.7 (0–29) | 1022 | 3 mg/m2 on day 6 of induction course 1, and on day 7 of intensification course 2 | Randomized trial, GO +/− standard chemotherapy | GO- vs. no-GO arm: CR rate: 88.3% vs. 85.1, | Gamis 2014 [ |
COG: Children’s Oncology Group; MDS: myelodysplastic syndrome; CR: Complete Remission; CRp: all criteria for CR without the full recovery of platelets count; ORR: overall response rate (CR+CRp); DA: daunorubicin plus cytarabine; DAE: cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide; FLAG-Ida: fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin; MACE: amsacrine, cytarabine and etoposide; MidAC: mitoxantrone and cytarabine; MICE: mitoxantrone, cytarabine, and etoposide; BSC: best supportive care, HSCT: hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; NA: Not available; NS: not significant.