Back to Authors

Schaar, Dale

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7627-548X

Mayo Clinic

Rutgers Cancer Institute

Citations 4

Phase II Results of ECOG-ACRIN EA9152: A multicenter study of liposomal vincristine (L-VCR) or vincristine sulfate (VCR) and venetoclax (VEN) in relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL)
Palmisiano, Neil , Lee, Ju‐Whei , Paietta, Elisabeth , Park, Jae H. , Schaar, Dale , Webster, Jonathan , Luger, Selina M. , Litzow, Mark R. , Claxton, David F. , Podoltsev, Nikolai , Litzow, Mark R.

Blood | December 4, 2025 | Volume: 146 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 1577-1577

10.1182/blood-2025-1577 Get It

Abstract Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remain challenging to treat, particularly in older patients and those with a T-cell phenotype. Venetoclax (VEN), a selective BCL-2 inhibitor, has shown preclinical synergy with vincristine (VCR) in multiple preclinical ALL models. Following the previously reported establishment of the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), we now report the results of the Phase II (Ph2) portion of EA9152 (VEN 600 mg daily with weekly L-VCR 2.25 mg/m² IV or VCR 1.5 mg/m2 IV capped at 2 mg), evaluating efficacy and safety in this high-risk population. Methods: This open-label, multicenter Phase II study enrolled adults (≥18 years) with R/R B- or T-cell ALL or LL. The phase II portion of this trial was a single-arm, open-label study evaluating the combination of VEN (600 mg po D1–28) with either L-VCR (2.25 mg/m² IV weekly x4) or vincristine sulfate (VCR) (1.4 mg/m² IV weekly x4). Following the market withdrawal of L-VCR in the United States in April 2022, no new patients were initiated on this formulation and patients already receiving L-VCR were transitioned to VCR at the start of their next treatment cycle or sooner if necessitated by drug availability. Prior VCR but not VEN exposure was permitted in Ph2. The primary endpoint was achievement of a complete response or complete response with incomplete count recovery CR + CRi rate by end of cycle 3. Secondary endpoints included measurable residual disease (MRD) response, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The association of phenotype with response and time-to-event were evaluated using Fisher's exact test and the Cox proportional hazards model, respectively. Results: Twenty-one eligible patients were treated (B-cell ALL/LL: n=12; T-cell ALL/LL: n=9). The trial was terminated early after 22/56 patients were accrued on account of withdrawal of sponsor support. Median age was 50 years and 76.2% were male. Performance status was 0–1 in 85.7%. All patients had received prior chemotherapy; 47.6% had undergone prior transplant. Median number of treatment cycles was 1 (2 for B-cell, 1 for T-cell). By end of cycle 3, no patients in the B-cell cohort (0/12; 90% CI, 0.00–0.22) achieved CR or CRi, 8 had stable disease (SD). In the T-cell cohort, 1 of 9 patients (11.1%; 90% CI, 0.01–0.43) achieved CR, 1 achieved PR and 1 had SD. There was no statistically significant difference in CR + CRi rate between phenotypes (p=0.43). None of the patients achieved an MRD-negative CR/CRi by flow cytometry or molecular methods. At the time of this analysis, 16 of 21 patients had died. Median overall survival (OS) was 4.3 months (95% CI, 1.5–22.0) for B-cell and 10.2 months (95% CI, 2.0–16.4) for T-cell patients (HR 1.32, p=0.60). Median PFS was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.7–3.7) for B-cell and 1.2 months (95% CI, 0.7–4.6) for T-cell cohorts (HR 2.18, p=0.18). Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in most patients. One T-cell patient experienced grade 5 respiratory failure. Among 16 patients enrolled under the revised protocol using VCR, only 1 experienced grade 3 peripheral motor neuropathy, and no peripheral sensory neuropathy was reported (combined AE rate 0.06; 90% CI, 0.00–0.26). Tumor lysis syndrome was not observed in this cohort. Conclusions: The combination of VEN at the established RP2D and L-VCR/VCR was feasible and had an acceptable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with R/R ALL/LL. However, response rates, including CR/CRi and MRD negativity, were limited, particularly in the B-cell cohort. Median OS and PFS remain poor in both subtypes, highlighting the need for improved strategies in this high-risk population. Venetoclax, in combination with other chemotherapy regimens, has shown encouraging response rates warranting continued exploration of its benefit in ALL.
A phase 1 trial of venetoclax in combination with liposomal vincristine in patients with relapsed or refractory B‐cell or T‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Results from the ECOG‐ACRIN EA9152 protocol
Palmisiano, Neil , Lee, Ju‐Whei , Claxton, David F. , Paietta, Elisabeth , Park, Jae H. , Podoltsev, Nikolai A. , Atallah, Ehab , Schaar, Dale , Dinner, Shira, Webster, Jonathan , Luger, Selina M. , Litzow, Mark R. , Palmisiano, Neil D , Alkhateeb, Hassan B , Podoltsev, Nikolai , Atallah, Ehab L , Webster, Jonathan A , Luger, Selina M , Claxton, David F , Alkhateeb, Hassan B.

eJHaem | August 8, 2024 | Volume: 5 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 951-956

10.1002/jha2.991 Get It

AbstractIntroductionRelapsed or refractory (r/r) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remains a therapeutic challenge. Preclinical data in both B‐ and T‐ALL suggests synergy of venetoclax (VEN) with vincristine (VCR). We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L‐VCR and VEN for patients with r/r B‐or T‐cell ALL or LL. Here, we report the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644).MethodsIn a 3+3 dose escalation design, r/r ALL subjects were given single‐agent VEN doses reaching 400, 600, or 800 mg for the three respective dose levels. Weekly L‐VCR at 2.25 mg/m2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1. The primary phase I objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination.ResultsAmong the 18 patients in phase I, grade ≥ 3 treatment‐related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated patients. Two patients (two of three) at dose level 3 experienced dose‐limiting toxicities. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 (VEN 600 mg). Twenty‐two percent of evaluable patients (N = 4) achieved a complete response, with two of them showing no evidence of measurable residual disease (MRD).ConclusionThe combination of VEN and L‐VCR was found to be safe for patients with r/r ALL and encouraging preliminary efficacy, including MRD negative responses. With the removal of L‐VCR from the US market, the phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with vincristine sulfate.
Gilteritinib as Post-Transplant Maintenance for AML With Internal Tandem Duplication Mutation of FLT3
Levis, Mark J. , Hamadani, Mehdi , Logan, Brent R. , Jones, Richard J. , Singh, Anurag K. , Litzow, Mark R. , Wingard, John R. , Papadopoulos, Esperanza B. , Perl, Alexander E. , Soiffer, Robert J. , Üstün, Celalettin , Uy, Geoffrey L. , Vasu, Sumithra, Solh, Melhem , Mishra, Asmita , Muffly, Lori , Mikesch, Jan‐Henrik , Onozawa, Masahiro , Thomson, Kirsty , Nagler, Arnon , Marcucci, Guido , Geller, Nancy L. , Hasabou, Nahla, Delgado, David, Rosales, Matt, Hill, Jason E. , Gill, Stanley C. , Nuthethi, Rishita, King, Denise , Wittsack, Heather, Mendizabal, Adam , Horowitz, Mary M. , Chen, Yi‐Bin , Investigators, on behalf of the BMT-CTN 1506/MORPHO Study, Agura, Ed, Altman, Jessica K. , Anagnostopoulos, Achiles, Aulitzky, Walter E. , Balderman, Sophia , Ballen, Karen K. , Béguin, Yves , Berkahn, Leanne, Bilmon, Ian , Briggs, Adrienne, Brunstein, Claudio G. , Byrne, Michael , Carrum, George, Černý, Jan , Ciceri, Fabio , Colorado, Mercedes , Cook, Rachel J. , Couriel, Daniel R. , Damon, Lloyd E. , Deol, Abhinav , Desbrosses, Yohan, Devine, Steve, Grazia, Carmela Di, Stasi, Antonio Di , Dias, Ajoy , Dorritie, Kathy, Essell, James , Eto, Tetsuya , Forcade, Édouard , Frankfurt, Olga, Fukuda, Takahiro , Fürst, Sabine , Goto, Tatsunori , Hall, Aric C. , Hatta, Shunsuke , Hicheri, Yosr , Horwitz, Mitchell E. , How, Jonathan, Howard, Dianna S. , Hsu, Wei‐Hsun , Huynh, Anne , Irvine, David, Ishikawa, Takayuki , Jamieson, Katarzyna , Wiktor-Jędrzejczak, W , Karakasis, Dimitrios, Kato, Jun , Kekre, Natasha , Khera, Nandita , Klein, A. , Kobbe, Guido , Kornblit, Brian, Lachance, Silvy , Levis, Mark J., Lin, Tung‐Liang , Litzow, Mark, Liu, Ta‐Chih, Martelli, Maurizio , Matsuoka, Ken‐ichi , McCarty, John M. , Mendez, Lourdes , Michelis, Fotios V. , Mikesch, Jan-Henrik, Mineishi, Shin , Moors, Ine , Motyckova, Gabriela, Mueller, Lutz Peter , Muffly, Lori, Nakamae, Hirohisa , Nathan, Sunita , Norkin, Maxim , Ogawa, Yoshiaki, Olesen, G., Onozawa, Masahiro, Paulson, Kristjan, Pemberton, Lucy, Perera, Travis, Perl, Alexander E., Piątkowska‐Jakubas, Beata, Protheroe, Rachel, Ross, Kelly , Santarone, Stella , Sawa, Masashi , Schaar, Dale , Scheid, Christoph, Schriber, Jeffrey, Seropian, Stuart , Shah, Nilay , Shah, Nirav N. , Gil, Jorge Sierra, Sobecks, Ronald , Sprague, Kellie , Spyridonidis, Alexandros , Stelljes, Matthias , Stiff, Patrick J. , Tandra, Anand, Tholouli, Eleni , Thomas, Xavier , Tomlinson, Benjamin , Ustun, Celalettin, Uy, Geoffrey L., Ferreiras, David Valcarcel, Wagner, Eva , Watson, Anne-Marie, Wolschke, Christine, Yamauchi, Takuji , Yeh, Su‐Peng , Logan, Brent , Litzow, Mark R. , Ueda Oshima, Masumi , Uy, Geoffrey , Waller, Edmund K , Solh, Melham M , Mishra, Asmita , Muffly, Lori , Kim, Hee-Je , Najima, Yuho , Onozawa, Masahiro , Nagler, Arnon , Wei, Andrew H , Geller, Nancy , Hill, Jason , Gill, Stanley C , King, Denise , Devine, Steven , Horowitz, Mary , Chen, Yi-Bin , Hamadani, Mehdi , Ueda, Masumi , Waller, Edmund K. , Wei, Andrew H. , Devine, Steven M. , Investigators, on behalf of the BMT-CTN 1506/MORPHO Study, Anagnostopoulos, Achiles, Anand, Sarah , Artz, Andrew , Becker, Michael W. , Berneman, Zwi Nisan , Bhatt, Vijaya Raj , Bonifazi, Francesca , Bruno, Benedetto , Byrne, Jenny , Cabrero, Mónica , Cairoli, Roberto , Cheong, June‐Won , Colorado, Mercedes , Craddock, Charles , Grazia, Carmela Di, Farag, Sherif Shafik , Fujiwara, Shin‐ichiro , Fukushima, Kentaro , Hou, Hsin‐An , Jethava, Yogesh S. , Jiménez, Antonio , Jung, Chul Won , Kanda, Junya , Klein, Andreas, Kota, Vamsi , Leber, Brian F. , Lee, Catherine J , Lee, Je‐Hwan , Levis, Mark J., Litzow, Mark, Martínez, Carmen , Mikesch, Jan-Henrik, Mohty, Mohamad , Mueller, Lutz, Muffly, Lori, Nakano, Nobuaki , Nicholson, Emma , Oluwole, Olalekan O. , Onozawa, Masahiro, Pantin, Jeremy , Perl, Alexander E., Poiré, Xavier , Rambaldi, Alessandro , Ritchie, David , Rubio, Marie‐Thérèse , Sanz, Jaime , Shore, Tsiporah B. , Socié, Gèrard , Stuart, Robert K. , Tanaka, Masatsugu , Tiribelli, Mario , Tsirigotis, Panagiotis D. , Tzachanis, Dimitrios , Uchida, Naoyuki , Ustun, Celalettin, Uy, Geoffrey L., Ferreiras, David Valcarcel, Weisdorf, Daniel J. , Wróbel, Tomasz , Yakoub‐Agha, Ibrahim , Yared, Jean A. , Yoon, Sung‐Soo , Yoshihara, Satoshi

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 12, 2024 | Volume: 42 | Issue: 15 | Pages: 1766-1775

10.1200/jco.23.02474 Get It

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with AML harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 ( FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202 ) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005]; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387]; P = .575). CONCLUSION Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.
Maximal Tolerated Dose Determined for Venetoclax in Combination with Liposomal Vincristine in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Ph-Negative T-Cell or B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Results of Phase 1 Portion of ECOG-ACRIN EA9152
Palmisiano, Neil , Lee, Ju‐Whei , Paietta, Elisabeth , Park, Jae H. , Schaar, Dale , Dinner, Shira, Webster, Jonathan , Luger, Selina M. , Litzow, Mark R. , Claxton, David F. , Alkhateeb, Hassan B. , Podoltsev, Nikolai , Atallah, Ehab

Blood | November 24, 2021 | Volume: 138 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 3407-3407

10.1182/blood-2021-153621 Get It

Abstract Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remain a therapeutic challenge, especially in elderly patients(pts) or those with T-cell immunophenotype. Inhibition of apoptosis is an increasingly recognized mechanism for resistance to conventional chemotherapy. Recently, the oral bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) has shown remarkable activity in a variety of hematologic malignancies. Preclinical data in both B- and T-ALL suggests synergy of VEN with vincristine(VCR). Liposomal VCR (L-VCR) is FDA approved for relapsed ALL having progressed following 2 or more antileukemia therapies. We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L-VCR and VEN for pts with r/r B-or T-cell ALL or LL. Here, we report for the first time the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644). Methods: This open-label phase I/II study enrolled pts age>=18 with ALL or LL who were R/R to multiagent chemotherapy. Subjects could have received prior VCR or VEN . In a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design, subjects were given a two week lead-in phase of single agent VEN in the following schedule: dose level 1 - 20, 50, 100, 200 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 400 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; dose level 2 - 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; and dose level 3 ‒ 100, 200, 400, 600 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 800 mg on days 5 ‒ 42. Weekly L-VCR 2.25mg/m 2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1, and starting day 1 for subsequent cycles (cycle 2+ = 28 days). For cycle 2 and beyond, VEN 400mg, 600mg, or 800mg based on dose level was given starting on day 1 of the cycle. Primary objective of the phase I portion was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of VEN in combination with L-VCR. Secondary objectives included determining preliminary response rates. Results: EA9152 was activated on April 26, 2018 and the phase I portion closed to accrual on March 2, 2021. Among the 18 pts in dose escalation (Table 1), the median age was 42 years (22-77). The majority of pts were male (56%), white (80%), and with a performance status (PS) of 1 (78%). Among 13 pts with disease diagnosis reported, 9 had ALL and 4 had LL. Seventeen of 18 (94%) reported previous chemotherapy, two of which had previous stem cell transplant. Median treatment cycles received is 1 (range 1-11). One patient, having received 11 cycles, remains on study at the time of data analysis. Grade >=3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated pts, with neutrophil count decreased (67%), white blood cell decreased (56%), and anemia (50%) as the most common. One pt experienced grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome. Twelve pts were considered evaluable for MTD determination. Six pts were considered not evaluable for toxicity analysis on account of withdraw of consent for treatment (n=4) or rapid disease progression (n=2). Two pts (2 of 3) at dose level 3 experienced DLTs, one each of hypokalemia and heart failure. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 - VEN 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42 and for subsequent cycles, with L-VCR 2.25mg/m2 IV weekly. In regards to best overall responses observed (Table 2) 4 of 18 pts (22%) achieved complete response (CR), 4 patients (22%) had stable disease, and 7 (39%) had progressive disease. Two patients in CR were found to be measurable residual disease (MRD) negative as well. Conclusions: In the phase 1 portion of this study, the combination of VEN and L-VCR was found to be safe for patients with ALL and LL. The MTD of the combination was found to be VEN 600mg daily with encouraging preliminary efficacy seen including MRD negative responses. The phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with VEN 600mg daily starting C1D1. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palmisiano: Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Foundation One: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Claxton: Astellas: Other: Clinical Trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Park: BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Podoltsev: Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Dinner: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Webster: AmGen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Litzow: AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inihibitor, is not FDA-approved for use in ALL.