Quick, Donald P.

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low‐intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML.MethodsThis randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1‐hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1‐hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109/L and ≥10 × 109/L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1‐year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796).ResultsBetween October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017).ConclusionsThe regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.

Abstract Background: Sapacitabine is a novel oral nucleoside analogue with a unique ability to induce single-strand DNA breaks after incorporation into DNA, leading to production of double-strand DNA breaks and/or G2 cell cycle arrest. In AML cell lines, the active metabolite of sapacitabine, CNDAC, is synergistic with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) particularly when treated with HMAs first. In a pilot study, there were 6 CRs and 2 PRs in 25 patients treated with sapacitabine in alternating cycles with decitabine. This global randomized phase 3 study evaluated the survival benefit of this treatment strategy vs. decitabine monotherapy. Methods: Decitabine 20 mg/m2 was administered intravenously daily x 5 days of a 4-week cycle (for the control arm and odd cycles of the study arm) alternating with sapacitabine 300 mg p.o. b.i.d. x 3 days/week x 2 weeks of a 4-week cycle (even cycles of the study arm). The safety of these doses was further evaluated in the lead-in phase of the phase 3 study to confirm the findings from the pilot study. Eligible patients were ≥70 years with untreated AML and unsuitable for or unwilling to receive standard induction chemotherapy. Patients who had received HMAs for prior MDS or MPD were excluded. Results: For 482 patients randomized to receive decitabine/sapacitabine (n=241) vs. decitabine only (n=241), randomization was stratified by the presence of antecedent MDS or MPN, peripheral white blood cell count (WBC &lt;10,000 vs. ≥10,000) and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs. &lt; 50%). Median age was 77 years (range 70-90), and 317 patients had de novo AML (66%), 165 secondary AML (34%). WBC was ≥10,000 in 161 patients (33%) and &gt;40,000 in 59 patients (12%); 194 patients (40%) had unfavorable cytogenetic risk by SWOG criteria. Disease characteristics were well balanced in both arms. In total, 13.7% of patients achieved CR, more on the study arm vs. control (16.6% vs. 10.8%). A total of 37.3% treated patients received ≥5 cycles of treatment, similar on both arms, as were 30- and 60-day death rates. Median overall survival was 5.9 months on the study arm vs. 5.7 months on control arm, which did not reach a statistically significant difference. In the subgroup of patients with &lt;10,000 WBC (n=321), median overall survival was higher on the study arm vs. control arm (8.0 months vs. 5.8 months), as was CR rate (21.5% vs. 8.6%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (regardless of causality) that occurred in &gt;10% patients were thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, sepsis, and disease progression. Conclusion: The regimen of sapacitabine administered in alternating cycles with decitabine was active and well tolerated but it did not significantly improve overall survival as compared to decitabine monotherapy. Further analyses are being conducted to characterize the subgroups of patients who appeared to have benefited from this treatment regimen and the potential cost savings associated with the use of an oral drug. Disclosures Kantarjian: Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Goldberg: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; COTA: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Strickland: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Honoraria. Rubenstein: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Arellano: Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Schiller: bluebird bio: Research Funding; mateon therapeutics: Research Funding. Gaidano: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Montesinos: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rizzieri: Shire: Research Funding; Erytech: Research Funding. Subramanian: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, BMS, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Biocept: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Buyse: IDDI: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiao: Cyclacel LTD: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Introduction: Management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), which accounts for 1% of all cancers, is an area in dire need of therapeutic innovation. In recent years, the introduction of novel agents is one of the major advances in the management of patients with NDMM, in both transplant- eligible and transplant- ineligible candidates. Studies have combined daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38 which is highly expressed on myeloma cells, with proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents-based regimens in the first-line treatment of NDMM. The purpose of our study is to explore and consolidate the efficacy of upfront daratumumab combination regimen in patients with NDMM. Methods: We systematically conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE databases and meeting abstracts from inception through June 2019. Phase III RCTs utilizing daratumumab in patients with newly diagnosed/ untreated multiple myeloma were incorporated in the analysis. A generic inverse variance method was used to calculate the estimated pooled hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method was used to calculate the estimated pooled risk ratio (RR) for overall response rate (ORR), including stringent complete response (sCR), CR and very good partial response (VGPR). Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q -statistic. Random effects model was applied. Results: Three phase III RCTs with a total of 2,528 patients with NDMMwere included.Studies compared daratumumab (D) + bortezomib (V) + melphan (M) + prednisone (P) vs VMP, D + lenalidomide (R) + dexamethasone (d) vs Rd, and DVd + thalidomide (T) vs VTd. The randomization ratio was 1:1 in all studies. The I2statistic for heterogeneity was 0, suggesting homogeneity among RCT. The pooled HR for PFS was statistically significant at 0.52 (95% CI: 0.44-0.61; P < 0.0001). The PFS benefit was observed in all ISS categories, types of immunoglobulin (Ig) and standard risk cytogenetic; ISS I cohort (HR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37- 0.82; P = 0.003), ISS II cohort (HR, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33- 0.55; P < 0.0001), ISS III cohort (HR, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48- 0.82; P = 0.0006), IgG cohort (HR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40- 0.77; P = 0.0003), non-IgG cohort (HR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28- 0.97; P = 0.04), and standard risk cytogenetic cohort (HR, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35- 0.53; P < 0.0001). The pooled HR for PFS in high risk cytogenetic cohort was not statistically significant at 0.76 (95% CI: 0.53- 1.10; P = 0.15). The pooled RR for ORR was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01-1.26; P = 0.03), sCR was 2.02 (95% CI: 1.33-3.08; P = 0.001), CR was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.20-1.79; P = 0.0002),and VGPR was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.82-1.25; P = 0.93). The pooled RR for negative minimal residual disease (MRD) was 2.54 (95% CI: 1.24-5.20; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Upfront combination regimen with daratumumab significantly improved PFS, ORR, sCR and CR along with negative MRD, compared to control arm in patients with NDMM. The improvement in PFS was noted across all subgroups except in high-risk cytogenetic group. More randomized studies are required to explore further novel agents and to formulate optimal combination regimen to improve survival in this high-risk cytogenetic subset. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.