Czader, Magdalena

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Hodgkin lymphoma provide expert, multidisciplinary recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma. The panel convenes annually to update recommendations based on a review of recently published clinical trials. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Hodgkin Lymphoma focuses on the management of newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma in adults aged 18 to 60 years.

Abstract Background Therapy-related myeloid neoplasm (tMN) includes t-myelodysplasia (tMDS) and t-acute myeloid leukemia (tAML) and are serious late effects of the treatment of cancer. Prognosis of tMN is poor, related to the increased frequency of adverse cytogenetics and other clinical features which predict poor response to conventional treatment. Over the last years, azacitidine (AZA) has become the standard of treatment for high risk MDS (Silverman, JCO 2002; Fenaux, Lancet Oncol 2009) and has shown efficacy in AML. AZA represents an interesting option for patients with tMN considering its safety profile and its efficacy in poor prognosis subgroups of apparently de novo MDS patients including those with monosomy 7. Most prospective trials of AZA have excluded patients with tMN. Most tMN data are retrospective or registry studies (Bally, Leuk Res 2013). This abstract presents the results of 47 t-MN patients prospectively enrolled as a specific cohort in the E1905 study. Methods E1905 study is a randomized phase 2 study from the North American Leukemia Intergroup (NCT00313586, Prebet , ASH 2010) testing 10 days of AZA (50mg/m2/d s.c.) vs. 10 days of AZA + the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m2/d PO days 3 and day 10). 6 cycles of treatment were planned; responding patients could receive up to 24 cycles. MDS, CMML, and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes were included. Patients with tMN were subsequently accrued as a separate cohort after amendment of the protocol. Response was assessed using IWG 2000 criteria (Cheson et al, Blood 2000); the primary endpoint of the overall trial was achievement of a normal hemogram in 25% of treated patients in either treatment arm. Results A total of 47 patients were included. Median age was 70 years (39y-83y), 45% male, and 94% of patients had ECOG PS 0-1. 29 patients could be subclassified as t-MDS and 18 as t-AML. At inclusion, median peripheral blood counts were: neutrophils 1.0 G/l, Platelets 35 G/L, Hemoglobin 9.2 g/l, peripheral blood blasts 0%, marrow blasts 14.0%. 68% of patients were RBC transfusion dependent and 40% platelet transfusion dependent. As expected, the cytogenetic evaluation showed a high frequency of unfavorable risk cytogenetics (74%) as compared to normal or intermediate risk cytogenetics (26%). Baseline characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 arms. 24 patients were treated with AZA monotherapy and 23 with AZA+entinostat. The median number of administered cycles was 4 and was significantly higher in patients treated with AZA monotherapy (6 cycles vs.3 cycles, p=0.008). 8 patients in the combination arm and 1 patient in the AZA monotherapy arm died of infection or hemorrhage before cycle 3. In an intent to treat analysis, overall response rates (CR, PR, or trilineage Hematologic improvement) were 11/24 (46%) in AZA monotherapy (95% CI 26 – 67%) and 4/23 (17%) in the combination arm (95% CI 5 – 39%, p=0.06 comparing the two arms). Median overall survival in the two arms were 12.8 months and 5.7 months (p=0.008). Conclusions In this group of very high risk patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms, the use of the novel 50 * 10 schedule of azacitidine monotherapy appears effective, with response rates comparable to those for patients with de novo MDS/AML treated on the same protocol (74 pts, 40% with unfavorable cytogenetics, ORR=32%, median OS=18 months). Because there are no prospective data examining the approved dose schedule of AZA (75 mg/m2/day * 7 days), it is not clear if this surprisingly high response rate derives from the current extended schedule of lower dose AZA, or would be true with standard dose AZA as well. This high response may enable many of these patients to proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplant. Entinostat combined with azacitidine at the dose and schedule applied in E1905 does not appear to be effective and tolerable as compared to azacitidine alone. Disclosures: Prebet: CELGENE: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Use of azacitidine in acute myeloid leukemia. Gore:CELGENE: Equity Ownership, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 4013 Background: In recent years, azacytidine (AZA) has become the standard of treatment for high risk myelodysplasia (MDS). The approved schedule of AZA uses a 75mg/m2/d s.c. regimen for 7 days based on the CALGB-9221 (Silverman, JCO 2002) and the AZA-001 studies (Fenaux, Lancet Oncol 2009). The clinical response rates after AZA have been extensively presented but there is only limited data on the rates of cytogenetic response (CyR). Based on the review of the literature, there are no specific cytogenetic data published on prospective trials. Methods: We based our analysis on a randomized phase 2 study from the US Leukemia Intergroup (E1905 study, NCT00313586) testing 10 days of AZA (50mg/m2/d s.c.) vs 10 days of AZA+ the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m2/d PO days 3 and day 10). MDS, CMML, and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes were included. This analysis includes all patients with cytogenetic abnormalities (at baseline or acquired following treatment) with available cytogenetic follow-up (cycle 6). Of 150 patients, 70 demonstrated baseline cytogenetic abnormalities. To date, forty patients (27 MDS and 13 AML) were evaluable for both time points. Karyotypes were performed at local laboratories, and reviewed centrally (RPK and GH). Cytogenetic response was assessed using IWG 2000 (Cheson et al, Blood 2000) criteria. Results: The clinical response rate (CR+PR+ trilineage HI) according to IPSS cytogenetic risk stratification were of 20%, 33%, and 35% for favorable, intermediate and poor cytogenetic risk groups respectively (p=NS). Patients with Chr 7 abnormalities (i.e. -7 or -7q, n=18) had a response rate of 28% including 17% CR. Of patients with complete cytogenetic data, the rate of overall CyR was 52% (n=21): 22% (n=9) complete CyR, 30% (n=12) partial CyR. This represents a complete CyR of 13% and a partial CyR of 23% as a proportion of all treated patients with initial cytogenetic abnormalities (including those who did not receive six cycles of therapy). To date, confirmatory FISH analyses were available for 4 patients with CyR (2 CCyR and 2 PCyR). All four had complete clearance of their cytogenetic clone. Among the cytogenetic responders, 15 had MDS and 6 had AML (p=NS). CyR did not differ between the two treatment arms. CyR and clinical response were highly correlated (p<0.001): all patients with complete CyR and 7/10 partial CyR had a clinical CR. Only 3 patients (1 CCyR and 2 PCyR) had a CyR without associated clinical response. Among 8 patients with cytogenetic progression, 3 pts showed increased frequency of a known aberration and 5 showed new or additional aberration including 2 cases involving Chr7. 65 AZA-treated patients from AZA001 had comparable cytogenetic results available. Only 3 patients experienced complete CyR 4.6% with 33.8% partial CyR (n=22). In contrast, the reported rate of clinical response was similar in the two studies. Complete CyR were more frequent in the E1905 10 days AZA schedule compared to the 7 days AZA schedule (p=0.007). There was no difference in overall CyR between the two studies. Conclusions: Both the standard AZA schedule and the 10 day schedule administered on E1905 lead to high rates of cytogenetic response. The novel schedule explored in E1905 demonstrated a particularly high rate of complete CyR (22%) with complete clearance of abnormal clone by FISH in 4 tested patients. Further prospective comparison of different AZA schedules will be needed to confirm this higher rate of complete CyR and determine its clinical significance. Disclosures: Beach: Celgene: Employment. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, stock options; Syndax: Consultancy.

AbstractTherapy‐related myeloid neoplasms (tMN) are serious late effects of the treatment of cancer with poor response to conventional treatment. Azacitidine (AZA) has been used to treat patients with tMN but current data are retrospective. We present here 47 tMN patients prospectively enrolled as a specific cohort in the E1905 study. TheE1905 study was a randomized phase 2 study (NCT00313586) testing 10 d of AZA (50 mg/m2/d) +/− the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m2/d PO day‐3 and day‐10). A total of 47 patients [29 therapy‐related myelosyspastic syndrome (t‐MDS) and 18 therapy‐related acute myeloid leukaemia (t‐AML)] were recruited to the study. 24 patients were treated with AZA monotherapy and 23 with AZA+entinostat. The median number of administered cycles was 4, significantly higher in patients treated with AZA (6 cycles vs. 3 cycles, P = 0·008). Haematological normalization rates were 46% in monotherapy and 17% in the combination arm. Median overall survivals were 13 and 6 months, respectively. The novel 50 * 10 schedule of azacitidine appears effective, with response rates, when given as single agent, comparable to those for patients with de novo MDS/AML treated on the same protocol. However, the combination of AZA and entinostat was associated with increased toxicity and could not be recommended for treatment of tMN.