Pratz, Keith W.

Abstract Background: Induction therapy with daunorubicin (Dauno) & cytarabine (Ara-C) [DA] has been the standard of care for eligible older adults (age ≥ 60 years) with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) for over 2 decades. Single agent Clofarabine (CLO) induction & consolidation (Consol.) therapy has demonstrated important clinical activity in this age group in large phase II studies. Lower induction mortality (IM) & similar reported complete remission rate (CR) & overall survival (OS), as well as notable activity in those with higher risk disease features [including unfavorable cytogenetics, therapy-related AML (t-AML) & prior antecedent hematologic disorder (AHD)] raises the possibility that a non-Ara-C-based regimen could achieve similar or superior OS with lower toxicity. Methods: We performed a randomized United States Intergroup Phase III trial of single agent CLO [30mg/m2 x 5 days induction; 20 mg/m2 re-induction (if indicated) & 2 cycles Consol.] vs. standard DA therapy [Dauno 60mg/m2 D1-3 & Ara-C 100mg/m2 D1-7 induction x 1-2 cycles; 2 cycles Consol. with Ara-C (1.5g/m2 Q12hrs D1-6 age 60-69; once daily if age 70+)] in patients (pts) age ≥ 60 yrs with newly diagnosed AML. Patients with serum creatinine >1.0 (or GFR <60 mL/min) and those with AML-M3 and ECOG performance status >3 (PS>2 if age 70+ yrs) were excluded. Randomization was stratified by age (60-69 vs. 70+), t-AML, & AHD. Pts with HLA-matched donor were eligible for allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) after induction, and those completing Consol. were eligible for randomization #2 (R#2) to maintenance decitabine [20mg/m2 x 3D, monthly x 1 year] versus observation. With a target accrual of 747, E2906 was powered to determine non-inferiority [and possible superiority] of CLO vs. standard DA, and primary endpoint was OS. A weighted statistical analysis was performed to account for confounding impact of R#2. AlloHCT patients were censored at transplant in this analysis. Responses & cytogenetics were confirmed centrally and OS & CR rates were monitored by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) at pre-specified time points. Results: As of Feb 23, 2015, 727 pts were randomized. Median age was 68 years (range 60-86); 57% were male, and 38% were age ≥70 yrs. Treatment arms are well balanced for all baselineclinical & AML characteristics, & 30% had unfavorable cytogenetics. Of 659 with complete treatment information reported, 30.4% on DA vs. 40.1% on CLO received 2 cycles of induction (p=0.006). Median follow-up of surviving patients is 7.6 months. Table 1. shows early treatment results (CR, toxicity) for the 686 pts randomized as of Dec 23, 2014 (2 months prior to study end, & excluding 90 with ongoing response evaluation). DA CLO p-value CR/CRi 43.8% 42.8% p=0.87 30-day mortality 8.5% 7.9% p=0.89 60-day mortality 14.9% 13.1% p=0.58 Gr 4-5 Non-Heme Tox.Induction 27% 19% p=0.02 Gr 4-5 Non-Heme Tox.Consol. 20% 7% p=0.001 374 pts have died (174, DA; 200, CLO) & significantly inferior OS was observed for CLO vs. DA [Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.41 (95% CI 1.12-1.78)] (Fig. 1). Planned subgroup analyses were performed (Table 2) demonstrating significant differences in OS after CLO for patients age 60-69 yrs, without AHD, & with intermediate risk cytogenetics; but not for those with Unfav. Cytogen. (Fig. 2) or t-AML. Based on the primary weighted analysis, DSMC recommended suspension of new accrual to E2906 on Feb 23, 2015 & all active patients on CLO were transitioned to DA Arm. Table 2.NHR CLO/Standard (95% CI)*Weighted OS7271.41 (1.12-1.78)Unweighted OS7271.23 (1.00-1.50)Age 60-694491.48 (1.10-1.99)Age 70+2781.34 (0.93-1.93)Intermed. Risk Cytogen.3781.77 (1.27-2.47)Unfav. Risk Cytogen.2160.96 (0.65-1.43)No AHD6041.46 (1.13-1.89)AHD1231.22 (0.74-2.00)De novo AML6271.52 (1.18-1.96)Therapy-related AML1000.94 (0.54-1.61) Conclusions: Despite similar CR & IM, OS after single agent CLO is inferior to standard DA therapy for pts age ≥60 years with newly diagnosed AML who are fit for intensive therapy, and DA remains the standard of care. However no difference in OS was observed after CLO in some pre-specified high risk AML subgroups. R#2 & AlloHCT arms continue in E2906 for pts already enrolled. Embedded prospective minimal residual disease study at CR is being performed to identify pts at higher risk after CLO & DA. Figure 1. Weighted Kaplan-Meier Curves for OS Figure 1. Weighted Kaplan-Meier Curves for OS Figure 2. Unfavorable Cytogenetics OS by Therapy Figure 2. Unfavorable Cytogenetics OS by Therapy Disclosures Off Label Use: Use of clofarabine in AML, and maintenance therapy with decitabine in AML. Claxton:Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Ambit: Research Funding. Levine:Loxo Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy. Altman:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Among mechanisms underlying cytotoxic drug resistance is activation of diverse DNA damage response (DDR) pathways. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARP)-1/2 facilitate both single- and double-strand break (DSB) repair and play a key role in the base excision repair (BER) of chemotherapy-damaged DNA. The PARP inhibitor veliparib (V) potentiates the cytotoxicity of different chemotherapeutics, including temozolomide (TEM). TEM induces distinct alkylating events in neoplastic cells whose ultimate outcome depends on the interaction of BER, mismatch repair (MMR), O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT), and DSB repair. While clinical activity of TEM has been mainly observed in MGMT-deficient AML, V potentiated cytotoxicity of TEM in leukemia cells in vitro in the setting of MGMT overexpression or deficient MMR pathway (Mol Cancer Ther, 2009). Methods: We conducted a Phase I study to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) of V+TEM, using a 3+3 dose escalation. Patients (pts) ≥60 years (yrs) with newly diagnosed poor cytogenetic-risk AML/ALL who were not candidates for intensive therapy, or ≥18 yrs with relapsed/refractory AML/ALL, secondary AML (therapy-related or arising from MDS or MPN), and CMMoL-2 were eligible. Any number of prior regimens, including allogeneic transplant (alloSCT), were allowed. V was given orally day (d)1 once, then twice a day on d4-12 at one of 6 dose levels (DL) (DL1A-B 20mg; DL2-DL3-DL4-DL5-DL6: 40-80-120-150-200 mg). TEM was given orally once a day on d3-9 (DL1A 150 mg/m2/d; DL1B-DL6 200 mg/m2/d). 28-day cycles (cy) were repeated depending on response/tolerability (4-6 weeks delay allowed) with V on d1-8 and TEM d1-5. TEM was taken on empty stomach with antiemetics and V was taken irrespective of meals. Results: Forty-nine pts with median age 69 yrs (range, 22-88; 47% ≥70) were treated. Of 47 AML pts, 29 (62%) had secondary AML and 27 (57%) adverse karyotype. Median number of prior treatments for AML was 1 (range, 0-6): 18 (38%) had median 1 prior therapy (range, 1-3) for MDS; 30 (64%), 9 (18%), 34 (69%) received hypomethylating agents, alloSCT and intensive chemotherapy, respectively. Overall 42 (85%) pts were refractory to their last treatment. Pts received a median of 1 (range, 1-7) cy of therapy. Two did not complete cy 1, pt withdrawal d5 and progressive fungal pneumonia d9 with death d15 of progressive disease (PD). The MTD/RP2D was defined at V 150 mg and TEM 200 mg/m2; 2 of 4 pts treated at V 200 mg and TEM 200 mg/m2 developed dose-limiting toxicity of grade (gr) 3 oral mucositis/esophagitis. The most frequent drug-related toxicities (NCI CTC v4) were gr 1/2 nausea/vomiting (39%), fatigue (26%), oropharyngeal mucositis (26%), constipation (12%), and diarrhea (10%). Other common toxicities were infectious, including febrile neutropenia (29%), pneumonia (20%), bacteremia (18%). One (2%) pt died ≤d30 and 12 (24%) ≤d60 mainly of PD (1 pt fungal pneumonia before count recovery d31). Overall response rate was 33% (complete remission (CR), hematologic improvement (HI)/stable disease) with 8 (16%) pts achieving CR (1 CRi). Median overall survival was 5.03 months, for all responders 11.58 months, and for CR pts 19.89 months (Fig 1). Responses occurred at all DLs. Three CR pts underwent alloSCT; 2 remain in CR at ~3 yrs. Pharmacokinetics (PK): V or TEM PKs were not altered with co-administration. There was a correlation between the DLT of mucositis and V single (Cmax P=0.005; AUC P=0.009) and multiple dose exposure (Cmax P = 0.02; AUC P=0.03). Pharmacodynamics and pharmacoepigenetics: Four of 39 pts examined had MGMT methylation (3 CR; 75%) and 2 had BRCA-1 methylation (1 HI) in peripheral blood (PB) or bone marrow (BM) mononuclear cells (MC). Defective FancD2 pathway was observed in the BMMC of 19/19 pts using FancD2 ubiquitylation assays but did not correlate with response. V reduced PAR levels by >75% in PBMC of most pts and in the presence of TEM. Induction of γ-H2AX in CD34+ cells was seen upon V/V+TEM treatment. Conclusion: V plus TEM demonstrated safety and activity in this resistant and elderly leukemia population. Response rate was higher in MGMT methylated pts, but responses were also seen in pts who had no MGMT methylation, had failed multiple therapies, had secondary AML and/or adverse karyotype. Future clinical study should aim to identify pts with defective DDR pathways who are most likely to respond to this therapeutic approach. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Off Label Use: Temozolomide is not approved for AML. Beumer:Millenium: Other: Research support. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The results of the primary endpoint of the E2906 North American Intergroup phase 3 trial - demonstrating significantly inferior OS after single agent clofarabine versus standard intensive daunorubicin & cytarabine induction and consolidation - strongly support the use of intensive therapy for patients age ≥60 years with newly-diagnosed AML who are fit for treatment. This result was achieved despite similar CR rates (including CRi - CR with incomplete blood count recovery) and similar early (30- & 60-day) induction mortality between study arms, raising the question as to the importance of achieving CR as an endpoint. Therefore, we performed a follow-up analysis to address the factors that contribute to early mortality, the necessity for 2nd induction cycle to achieve CR, and to assess the survival impact of the quality of remission. Methods: E2906 design, study population and results for the primary objective were reported previously (ASH 2015, abstr. #217a). We performed this updated analysis to evaluate clinical risk factors for early mortality and re-induction, and to assess the impact of response quality on OS. Univariate comparisons were made with Fisher's exact test (category) and t-test (continuous variable), and logistic regression models were used to examine risk factors associated with early mortality, and with requiring a 2nd cycle of induction therapy. We performed a landmark analysis (beginning Day 60 after initiation of therapy) to determine the impact of response quality (CR/CRi, morphologic leukemia-free-state (MLFS), and treatment failure - i.e. residual/refractory AML) on OS. Survival comparisons were performed with log-rank test. Results: A total of n=727 patients were registered to E2906, the median age is 68 years (range 60-86) and the median follow-up of surviving patients is now 18.3 months. Adjusting for treatment, cytogenetic risk group, FAB subtype, WBC count, and secondary AML, increasing age (p=0.06) and performance status (PS) >1 (p=0.05) were associated with 30-day mortality and only PS >1 (p=0.06) with 60-day mortality. Treatment arm (p=0.003), adverse cytogenetic risk group (p=0.02), increasing age (p=0.03) and baseline WBC <10K (p=0.03) were each independently associated with higher risk of receiving 2nd cycle induction, but there was no difference in CR/CRi (44.2% vs. 42.2%, p=0.58) or in median OS (13.8 versus 12.0 months, p=0.11) for those receiving 1 vs. 2 induction cycles, respectively. We next performed a landmark analysis (day 60, n=608 evaluable patients) to evaluate OS in relation to the quality of response (Table). We observed an advantage in achieving CR and CR/CRi, although the benefit of CRi diminished greatly after 12 months, and OS after MLFS appeared more similar to treatment failure (Figure, p<0.001). The relative adverse impact of CRi and MLFS (vs. CR) was most pronounced for patients treated with clofarabine, where median OS was shorter for those achieving CRi (12.2m vs. 22.6m standard therapy, p=0.007) and MLFS (6.6m vs. 13.4m standard therapy, p=0.15). Conclusion: This follow-up analysis confirms the importance of CR regardless of the number of cycles of induction therapy required to achieve remission, and identifies risk factors associated with early mortality and with requiring re-induction. At longer follow-up the OS after CRi appears to be inferior to true CR, particularly after clofarabine. We hypothesize that this may be due to higher rates of minimal residual disease in CRi, and studies to determine this are being performed. MLFS is not associated with a better overall survival than frank treatment failure (i.e. residual disease) and therefore its value as a response category is uncertain. These results highlight the role of standard intensive remission induction therapy with the intent of achieving CR, which remains the standard of care for fit older adults. Table. Table. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Foran: karyopharm: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Melnick:Janssen: Research Funding. Altman:Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Syros: Honoraria. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common form of acute leukemia among adults and accounts for the largest number of annual deaths due to leukemias in the United States. Recent advances have resulted in an expansion of treatment options for AML, especially concerning targeted therapies and low-intensity regimens. This portion of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for AML focuses on the management of AML and provides recommendations on the workup, diagnostic evaluation and treatment options for younger (age <60 years) and older (age ≥60 years) adult patients.

To improve the outcome of relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML), a randomized phase II trial of three novel regimens was conducted. Ninety patients were enrolled and were in first relapse or were refractory to induction/re‐induction chemotherapy. They were randomized to the following regimens: carboplatin‐topotecan (CT), each by continuous infusion for 5 days; alvocidib (formerly flavopiridol), cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (FLAM) in a timed sequential regimen; or sirolimus combined with mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (S‐MEC). The primary objective was attainment of a complete remission (CR). A Simon two‐stage design was used for each of the three arms. The median age of the patients in the FLAM arm was older at 62 years compared with 55 years for the CT arm and the S‐MEC arm. The overall response was 14% in the CT arm (5/35, 90% CI 7%‐35%), 28% in the FLAM arm (10/36, 90% CI, 16%‐43%), and 16% in the S‐MEC arm (3/19, 90% CI, 4%‐36%). There were nine treatment‐related deaths, seven of which occurred in the FLAM arm with four of these in elderly patients. We conclude that the FLAM regimen had an encouraging response rate and should be considered for further clinical development but should be used with caution in elderly patients.

AbstractNovel therapies have potential to improve outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) harboring FLT3‐ITD mutations that have high risk of relapse and poor survival following standard of care (SOC) cytarabine/anthracycline‐based induction/consolidation chemotherapy. Quizartinib is a selective and highly potent FLT3 inhibitor that has shown strong single‐agent activity in relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML. This phase 1, open‐label, sequential group dose‐escalation trial (NCT 01390337) is the first evaluating safety and tolerability of quizartinib in combination with SOC chemotherapy in newly diagnosed AML (ndAML). Nineteen patients unselected for FLT3 mutational status received one of three quizartinib dihydrochloride dose levels (DL): 60 mg/d for 7 days (DL1; n = 6), 60 mg/d for 14 days (DL2; n = 7), and 40 mg/d for 14 days (DL‐1; n = 6); administered orally starting on day 4 of chemotherapy. Median age was 43.8 years. Ten patients completed induction and consolidation. Three patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicities (DLTs): 2 at DL2 (1 pericardial effusion; 1 febrile neutropenia, decreased platelet count, and QT prolongation); 1 at DL‐1 (pericarditis). Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was identified as DL‐1. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (47%), neutropenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (32%), and anemia (26%). There were no apparent additional toxicities with addition of quizartinib to chemotherapy although grade ≤1 QT prolongation was observed at MTD. Sixteen patients (84%) achieved a response; 14 (74%) composite complete response; 2 (11%) morphologic leukemia‐free state. The phase 3 QuANTUM‐First trial (NCT02668653) is further evaluating the effect of quizartinib plus SOC chemotherapy in ndAML FLT3‐ITD mutated patients.

Abstract Purpose: The PARP inhibitor veliparib delays DNA repair and potentiates cytotoxicity of multiple classes of chemotherapy drugs, including topoisomerase I inhibitors and platinating agents. This study evaluated veliparib incorporation into leukemia induction therapy using a previously described topotecan/carboplatin backbone. Experimental Design: Employing a 3+3 trial design, we administered escalating doses of veliparib combined with topotecan + carboplatin in relapsed or refractory acute leukemias, aggressive myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Results: A total of 99 patients received veliparib 10–100 mg orally twice daily on days 1–8, 1–14, or 1–21 along with continuous infusion topotecan 1.0–1.2 mg/m2/d + carboplatin 120–150 mg/m2/d on days 3–7. The MTD was veliparib 80 mg twice daily for up to 21 days with topotecan 1.2 mg/m2/d + carboplatin 150 mg/m2/d. Mucositis was dose limiting and correlated with high veliparib concentrations. The response rate was 33% overall (33/99: 14 CR, 11 CRi, 8 PR) but was 64% (14/22) for patients with antecedent or associated aggressive MPNs or CMML. Leukemias with baseline DNA repair defects, as evidenced by impaired DNA damage–induced FANCD2 monoubiquitination, had improved survival [HR = 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.27–0.92)]. A single 80-mg dose of veliparib, as well as veliparib in combination with topotecan + carboplatin, induced DNA damage as manifested by histone H2AX phosphorylation in CD34+ leukemia cells, with greater phosphorylation in cells from responders. Conclusions: The veliparib/topotecan/carboplatin combination warrants further investigation, particularly in patients with aggressive MPNs, CMML, and MPN- or CMML-related acute leukemias. Clin Cancer Res; 23(4); 899–907. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: In preclinical studies, the PARP inhibitor veliparib enhanced the antileukemic action of temozolomide through potentiation of DNA damage. Accordingly, we conducted a phase 1 study of temozolomide with escalating doses of veliparib in patients with relapsed, refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or AML arising from aggressive myeloid malignancies. Experimental Design: Patients received veliparib [20–200 mg once a day on day 1 and twice daily on days 4–12 in cycle 1 (days 1–8 in cycle ≥2)] and temozolomide [150–200 mg/m2 daily on days 3–9 in cycle 1 (days 1–5 in cycle ≥2)] every 28 to 56 days. Veliparib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics [ability to inhibit poly(ADP-ribose) polymer (PAR) formation and induce H2AX phosphorylation] were assessed. Pretreatment levels of MGMT and PARP1 protein, methylation of the MGMT promoter, and integrity of the Fanconi anemia pathway were also examined. Results: Forty-eight patients were treated at seven dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were oral mucositis and esophagitis lasting &gt;7 days. The MTD was veliparib 150 mg twice daily with temozolomide 200 mg/m2 daily. The complete response (CR) rate was 17% (8/48 patients). Veliparib exposure as well as inhibition of PAR polymer formation increased dose proportionately. A veliparib-induced increase in H2AX phosphorylation in CD34+ cells was observed in responders. Three of 4 patients with MGMT promoter methylation achieved CR. Conclusions: Veliparib plus temozolomide is well tolerated, with activity in advanced AML. Further evaluation of this regimen and of treatment-induced phosphorylation of H2AX and MGMT methylation as potential response predictors appears warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 23(3); 697–706. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: DNA repair defects have been previously reported in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). Inhibitors of PARP have shown activity in solid tumors with defects in homologous recombination (HR). This study was performed to assess MPN sensitivity to PARP inhibitors ex vivo. Experimental Design: HR pathway integrity in circulating myeloid cells was evaluated by assessing the formation of RAD51 foci after treatment with ionizing radiation or PARP inhibitors. Sensitivity of MPN erythroid and myeloid progenitors to PARP inhibitors was evaluated using colony formation assays. Results: Six of 14 MPN primary samples had reduced formation of RAD51 foci after exposure to ionizing radiation, suggesting impaired HR. This phenotype was not associated with a specific MPN subtype, JAK2 mutation status, or karyotype. MPN samples showed increased sensitivity to the PARP inhibitors veliparib and olaparib compared with normal myeloid progenitors. This hypersensitivity, which was most pronounced in samples deficient in DNA damage–induced RAD51 foci, was observed predominantly in samples from patients with diagnoses of chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, or unspecified myelodysplastic/MPN overlap syndromes. Conclusions: Like other neoplasms with HR defects, MPNs exhibit PARP inhibitor hypersensitivity compared with normal marrow. These results suggest that further preclinical and possibly clinical study of PARP inhibitors in MPNs is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 22(15); 3894–902. ©2016 AACR.

Key Points Agents that inhibit both complexes containing the mammalian target of rapamycin are particularly toxic to acute lymphocytic leukemia cells. This killing reflects engagement of a 4EBP1/c-MYC/PUMA axis downstream of mTORC1 and an NF-κB/EGR1/BIM axis downstream of mTORC2.