Venugopal, Parameswaran

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) Prognosis is highly variable due to underlying biological and molecular heterogeneity. The first-line (1L) treatment paradigm for MCL continues to evolve with increasing use of bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) and decreasing use of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). TP53 alterations are associated with inferior outcomes in MCL. The aim of this retrospective study is to determine treatment strategies and clinical outcomes in MCL patients based on TP53 gene mutation status. Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 19 institutions in the United States from 1/1993 to 1/2024. We examined treatment patterns and outcomes among MCL patients >18 years of age with known TP53 mutation status by sequencing. Patients who did not receive treatment were excluded. The analysis was stratified based on presence of TP53 mutations. Systemic therapies were categorized as chemo-immunotherapy (CIT), non-chemotherapy (including monoclonal antibodies, lenalidomide, venetoclax, and novel agents on clinical trial), and regimens containing BTKi. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes were progression free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment (TTNT). OS and PFS were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to compare groups. Results: 645 patients were included in the study, with 468 men (72.6%) and median age was 64 years (range 30-89). 230/645 patients (35.7%) had a TP53 mutation, of which 182 (79%) were identified prior to 1L. While the male/female distribution was the same between the mutated and unmutated groups, median age at diagnosis and MIPI risk score was higher in the TP53 mutated group (age 65.9 vs 63.1 yrs, p= 0.015; MIPI 6.4 vs 6.1, p<0.001). TP53 unmutated patients had a median of 1 line of therapy vs. 2 for the mutated group (p<0.001, range 1-8). Blastoid histology and higher ki67 were also associated with the TP53 mutated group (p=0.045, 0.01 respectively) The median OS was 14.2 years for TP53 unmutated and 8.3 years for TP53 mutated patients (p<0.0001). PFS in 1L was 0.95 years in TP53 mutated compared to 2.02 years in TP53 unmutated group (p<0.0001). Selection of 1L therapeutic strategy was not associated with presence of TP53 mutation (Χ2 p= 0.21) although more patients in the TP53 unmutated group underwent ASCT (119/415 vs 38/230; Χ2 p=0.0006) TP53 mutation was associated with inferior survival compared to TP53 unmutated patients for CIT in 1L but the difference did not reach statistical significance when non-chemotherapy regimens and regimens containing BTKi were used. For CIT in 1L, 5 year OS was 78% [71-84%] for unmutated compared to 58% [48-67%] for the mutated group (p=0.0001 ). For non-chemotherapy regimens, 5 year OS for unmutated patients was 73% [52- 86%] compared to 52% [25-73%] for the mutated group (p=0.09). For regimens containing BTKi, 5 year OS for unmutated was 93% [81-97%] compared to 57% [28-78%] for mutated (p=0.07). Within the TP53 mutated group, there were no differences in any clinical outcomes between those receiving CIT, non-chemotherapy, or BTKi in 1L. While median OS appeared numerically longer in the BTKi group (14.4 yrs vs 8.8 yrs for CIT and 6.8 yrs for non-chemotherapy), the difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.58). In contrast,TP53 unmutated patients who received CIT in 1L had better TTNT (p=0.0039) compared to those in non-chemotherapy and BTKi groups. There was no improvement in PFS (p=0.79) or OS (p=0.47). Conclusions To our knowledge this is the largest retrospective real world dataset of MCL treatment outcomes stratified by TP53 mutation. As in prior studies, TP53 mutation portends a worse prognosis in MCL compared to TP53 unmutated patients, but outcomes are better than historically reported. CIT in 1L was not associated with improved OS in either group. Irrespective of TP53 mutation status, incorporation of BTKi in first line was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. The gap in OS between TP53 mutated and unmutated MCL may be narrowing as treatment paradigms shift away from intensive induction chemotherapy and ASCT, and due to an increasing number of effective therapies for relapsed patients. Clinical trials of novel agents are needed to further improve the OS of TP53 mutated MCL patients.

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.