Solomon, Scott R.

Abstract This global phase 3 study compared lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) with a standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy for primary refractory or early relapsed (≤12 months) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Adults eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT; N = 184) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to liso-cel (100 × 106 chimeric antigen receptor–positive T cells) or SOC (3 cycles of platinum-based immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT in responders). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). In this primary analysis with a 17.5-month median follow-up, median EFS was not reached (NR) for liso-cel vs 2.4 months for SOC. Complete response (CR) rate was 74% for liso-cel vs 43% for SOC (P < .0001) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was NR for liso-cel vs 6.2 months for SOC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.400; P < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was NR for liso-cel vs 29.9 months for SOC (HR = 0.724; P = .0987). When adjusted for crossover from SOC to liso-cel, 18-month OS rates were 73% for liso-cel and 54% for SOC (HR = 0.415). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events occurred in 1% and 4% of patients in the liso-cel arm, respectively (no grade 4 or 5 events). These data show significant improvements in EFS, CR rate, and PFS for liso-cel compared with SOC and support liso-cel as a preferred second-line treatment compared with SOC in patients with primary refractory or early relapsed LBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03575351.

Abstract Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) has shown promising efficacy in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We present health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results from the TRANSFORM study, the first comparative analysis of liso-cel vs standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy in this population. Adults with LBCL refractory or relapsed ≤12 months after first-line therapy and eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation were randomized 1:1 to the liso-cel or SOC arms (3 cycles of immunochemotherapy in which responders proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation). HRQOL was assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – 30 items and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma subscale. Patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessment were analyzed (liso-cel, n = 47; SOC, n = 43). The proportion of patients with meaningful improvement in global health status/quality of life (QOL) was higher, whereas deterioration was lower in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm from day 126 to month 6. Mean change scores showed meaningful worsening in global health status/QOL at month 6, fatigue at day 29 and month 6, and pain at month 6 with SOC; mean scores for other domains were maintained or improved in both arms. Time to confirmed deterioration favored the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm in global health status/QOL (median: not reached vs 19.0 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.94). HRQOL was either improved or maintained from baseline in patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm as second-line treatment. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT0357531.

PURPOSE Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) are standard components of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Prior data suggested that CNI-free approaches using donor T-cell depletion, either by ex vivo CD34 selection or in vivo post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as a single agent, are associated with lower rates of chronic GVHD (cGVHD). METHODS This multicenter phase III trial randomly assigned patients with acute leukemia or myelodysplasia and an HLA-matched donor to receive CD34-selected peripheral blood stem cell, PTCy after a bone marrow (BM) graft, or tacrolimus and methotrexate after BM graft (control). The primary end point was cGVHD (moderate or severe) or relapse-free survival (CRFS). RESULTS Among 346 patients enrolled, 327 received HCT, 300 per protocol. Intent-to-treat rates of 2-year CRFS were 50.6% for CD34 selection (hazard ratio [HR] compared with control, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.15; P = .24), 48.1% for PTCy (HR, 0.86; 0.61 to 1.23; P = .41), and 41.0% for control. Corresponding rates of overall survival were 60.1% (HR, 1.74; 1.09 to 2.80; P = .02), 76.2% (HR, 1.02; 0.60 to 1.72; P = .95), and 76.1%. CD34 selection was associated with lower moderate to severe cGVHD (HR, 0.25; 0.12 to 0.52; P = .02) but higher transplant-related mortality (HR, 2.76; 1.26 to 6.06; P = .01). PTCy was associated with comparable cGVHD and survival outcomes to control, and a trend toward lower disease relapse (HR, 0.52; 0.28 to 0.96; P = .037). CONCLUSION CNI-free interventions as performed herein did not result in superior CRFS compared with tacrolimus and methotrexate with BM. Lower rates of moderate and severe cGVHD did not translate into improved survival.

Abstract Background: Pts with previously treated R/R aggressive LBCL have compromised health-related QOL (HRQOL). Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351), a randomized, open-label, pivotal trial, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint of event-free survival and key secondary endpoints (complete response rate and progression-free survival) in adults with R/R LBCL after failure of first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy compared with SOC, with no new safety signals. Here we present results of the pt-reported outcomes (PRO) analysis from TRANSFORM. Methods: Adults (age ≤ 75 yrs) with R/R LBCL (≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy), who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), were randomized to receive either SOC (3 cycles of salvage chemotherapy [CT] and BEAM + ASCT for responding pts) or liso-cel after lymphodepletion. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in the SOC arm for pts who failed treatment. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lymphoma Subscale (FACT-LymS) were administered at randomization (baseline) and on Days 29 (infusion of liso-cel or 2 cycles of salvage CT), 64 (1 mo post liso-cel or completion of CT), 126 (3 mos post liso-cel or 2 mos post ASCT), and Mo 6 and other prespecified timepoints up to Mo 36 or end of study. No PRO data were collected after crossover. The analysis was based on the PRO-evaluable population (pts with a baseline and ≥ 1 post-baseline assessment). Predefined thresholds determined clinically meaningful changes. Global health/QOL (GH/QOL), physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, pain, and FACT-LymS were the primary domains of interest based on their relevance to the study population and treatment. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis was performed to assess the between-treatment difference in overall least squares (LS) mean change from baseline for each primary domain, using data collected up to Day 126 for visits with a sample size per arm ≥ 10. Proportions of pts with meaningful change from baseline were assessed for each primary domain up to Mo 6. All analyses were descriptive only. Results: Of 184 randomized pts, 90 (49%) and 85 (46%), respectively, were included in the PRO-evaluable population for the EORTC QLQ-C30 (SOC vs liso-cel n=43 vs 47) and FACT-LymS (n=40 vs 45, respectively). The PRO assessment completion rate from baseline up to Mo 6 was ≥ 45%, which was lower than expected primarily due to operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic but was comparable for both arms. In the MMRM analysis, the liso-cel arm had more favorable overall LS mean changes from baseline to Day 126 than the SOC arm in most of the EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and FACT-LymS. In particular, the between-treatment differences for cognitive functioning (−2.09 vs 2.21) and fatigue (3.75 vs −1.95) for SOC versus liso-cel, respectively, exceeded the prespecified minimal important difference threshold (Table); in those domains, the SOC arm deteriorated while the liso-cel arm improved. In individual-level analyses, the proportion of pts with meaningful improvement for fatigue and GH/QOL was higher, while deterioration was lower, in the liso-cel arm versus SOC arm from baseline up to Mo 6 (Figure). At Mo 6, a higher proportion of pts experienced worsened fatigue (71% vs 18%) and a lower proportion experienced improved fatigue (29% vs 47%) in the SOC arm compared with the liso-cel arm; for GH/QOL, a higher proportion of pts worsened (57% vs 18%) and lower proportion improved (14% vs 53%), respectively. For the other primary domains, the proportions of pts with improvement or deterioration favored liso-cel or were similar between arms. Conclusions: Compared with SOC, liso-cel showed favorable improvement in most primary PRO domains, particularly EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning and fatigue and more pts showed PRO improvements and fewer showed deterioration by Mo 6 with liso-cel. The results were achieved despite only responders remaining in the SOC arm after salvage CT. HRQOL was either improved or maintained after liso-cel treatment in pts with R/R LBCL after failure of 1L therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Braverman: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Guo: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; UCB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Evidera: Current Employment. Shi: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kamdar: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; Genetech: Other; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after first-line (1L) therapy may have poor outcomes with SOC, including salvage CT and ASCT, which underscores a critical unmet need. Liso-cel is an autologous CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (NCT02631044) in pts with R/R LBCL (≥ 2 prior lines of therapy), liso-cel treatment resulted in an ORR of 73% (CR rate, 53%), 2% grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 10% grade ≥ 3 neurological events (NE) (Abramson et al. Lancet 2020). Here we present a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351; SOC vs liso-cel as 2L therapy in pts with R/R LBCL). Methods: TRANSFORM is a pivotal, global, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing efficacy and safety of SOC (Arm A; R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP per investigator choice followed by BEAM + ASCT) vs liso-cel (Arm B). Pts were adults (aged ≤ 75 years), eligible for ASCT, and with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Key inclusion criteria were ECOG PS ≤ 1 and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥ 40%; serum CrCl > 45 mL/min); pts with secondary CNS lymphoma were allowed. Key exclusion criteria were prior gene or anti-CD19-targeted therapy, and active infection. Pts in Arm A were to receive 3 cycles of CT. Responding pts (CR or PR) were to proceed to BEAM + ASCT. Pts in Arm B were to undergo lymphodepletion with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide followed by liso-cel at a target dose of 100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells. Bridging therapy with an Arm A CT regimen was allowed. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in Arm A for pts not achieving CR or PR after 3 cycles of CT or not in CR after ASCT, or demonstrating PD at any time. Primary endpoint is event-free survival (EFS) based on independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria, defined as time from randomization to death from any cause, PD, failure to achieve CR or PR by 9 weeks after randomization, or start of new antineoplastic therapy, whichever occurred first. Key secondary endpoints included in the testing strategy are CR rate, PFS, and OS. P value significance threshold for endpoints to reject the null hypothesis was ≤ 0.012. Results: A total of 184 pts were randomized, with 92 pts in each arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both arms (Table). Of 91 treated pts in Arm A (1 pt withdrew consent), 43 received BEAM + ASCT, of which 28 achieved CR with CT. Fifty pts crossed over to receive liso-cel. In Arm B, 90 pts received liso-cel infusion; 58 pts (63%) received bridging therapy. Two Arm B pts were not infused (1 each due to manufacturing failure and rapid progression). Median EFS and PFS were significantly longer, and CR rate was significantly improved for Arm B vs Arm A. For Arms A and B, respectively, median EFS was 2.3 vs 10.1 mo (HR, 0.349; P < 0.0001), median PFS was 5.7 vs 14.8 mo (HR, 0.406; P = 0.0001), and CR rate was 39% vs 66% (P < 0.0001). OS data were immature at the time of this analysis with a median follow-up of 6.2 mo (range, 0.9-20.0), but a numerical trend favored Arm B (HR, 0.509; 95% CI, 0.258-1.004; P = 0.0257). Cellular kinetics in Arm B showed a median t max of 10 d (range, 6‒22). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the 2L setting. In Arm B, any-grade CRS was reported in 49% of pts, with grade 1 in 37% and grade 2 in 11%. Only 1 pt had grade 3 CRS (onset at Day 9, which resolved in 2 days). Any-grade NEs were reported in 12% of pts and were also primarily low grade (grade 3, 4%). No grade 4 or 5 CRS or NEs were reported. In Arm B, 24% of pts received tocilizumab, 17% received corticosteroids, and none received vasopressors. The most common TEAEs in both arms were cytopenias. Prolonged cytopenias in Arm B (ie, grade ≥ 3 at 35 d after infusion) were reported in 43% of pts; the majority recovered within 2 mo after infusion. Conclusions: In the TRANSFORM study, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint, EFS, as well as in key secondary efficacy endpoints (CR rate and PFS) compared with SOC as 2L therapy in pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Safety results in the 2L setting were consistent with the liso-cel safety profile in 3L or later LBCL, and no new safety concerns were identified. Liso-cel improved outcomes vs SOC and exhibited a favorable safety profile, providing support for liso-cel as a potential new SOC for 2L treatment in pts with R/R LBCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kamdar: SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Other; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Genetech: Other; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Bachanova: KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ibrahimi: Karyopharm Theraputics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Mutsaers: BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri: Kite: Other: Advisory Boards; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; BMS: Other: Advisory Boards; Celgene: Other: Advisory Boards; Incyte: Other: Advisory Boards; AbbVie: Other: Advisory Boards; Gilead: Other: Advisory Boards; Epyzime: Other: Advisory Boards. Izutsu: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Huya Biosciences: Research Funding; Genmab: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fuji Film Toyama Chemical: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Allergan Japan: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Symbio: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Yakult: Research Funding. Morschhauser: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Maloney: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; A2 Biotherapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Umoja: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Juno therapeutics: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Navan Technologies: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stepan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ogasawara: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mack: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Abramson: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Liso-cel is a CAR T cell therapy approved for use in the third line for R/R LBCL. This trial reports data from the pivotal trial in the second line.

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.