Citations

Abstract Introduction: Standardized reporting of clinical trials results for MDS is essential to improve clinical interpretation and cross-study comparison. However, reporting of patient characteristics, response criteria, and endpoints in publications is often inconsistent; there is no systemic analysis of MDS trial reporting available. We conducted a systematic review of published MDS trial manuscripts on behalf of the international consortium for MDS (icMDS) to assess variability in reporting practices. Methods We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all clinical trials registered for adults (≥18 years) with MDS that reported results between 2015-2024. Clinical trials that included acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) were included if they enrolled ≥5 MDS patients. We excluded trials without an MDS cohort; non-therapeutic trials; trials focused on transplant interventions; or those which enrolled solid malignancies or other hematologic malignancies (chronic myeloid leukemia or lymphoid diseases). Finally, trials were required to have a manuscript available on Larvol, PubMed, or Google Scholar. Trials were categorized by disease risk (lower-risk [LR] vs. higher-risk [HR]) and trial phase (early phase [EP] vs. late phase [LP]). Results We identified 502 MDS trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 351 did not meet inclusion criteria and 79 lacked a manuscript. A total of 72 trials (32 EP, 40 LP) with 80 publications (34 EP, 46 LP) were analyzed. Frequently reported baseline characteristics included age (100% EP, 100% LP), disease risk (74% EP, 74% LP), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (85% EP, 72% LP), prior treatments (71% EP, 67% LP), and RBC transfusion dependency (32% EP, 70% LP). Less frequently reported characteristics included blood counts (hemoglobin [Hb; 38% EP, 54% LP], platelet count [38% EP, 54% LP], neutrophil count [24% EP and LP]) and bone marrow blasts (29% EP, 43% LP). Although disease risk was widely reported, definitions varied: IPSS and IPSS-R were each reported in 54% of manuscripts, while IPSS-M appeared in only 3%. Cytogenetic risk was separately reported in 39% of manuscripts (38% EP, 39% LP), and mutational data in 45% (47% EP, 43% LP). Responses per IWG 2006 criteria were reported in 84% of manuscripts. The primary endpoint involved safety/tolerability in 85% of EP manuscripts, though definitions were variable; recommended phase 2 dose was the most common (26% of EP manuscripts). In LP trials, primary endpoints were risk-specific: transfusion independence (TI) in 77% of LR, overall response rate (ORR) in 28% of HR, and complete remission (CR) or overall survival (OS) in 22% of HR. In HR manuscripts, CR was reported in 100%, ORR in 73%, hematologic improvement (HI) in 48%, RBC-TI in 23%, and OS in 80%. However, seven different definitions were used for ORR: CR + marrow CR + partial remission + HI per IWG 2006 was most common (35%). Event-free survival was reported in 25%; progression-free survival and relapse-free survival in 13%; and leukemia-free survival in 5%. Early mortality rate was reported in 35% (18% EP, 56% LP) and transplant rate in 58% (50% EP, 67% LP). Only 47% of HR and 90% of LR manuscripts identified HI-eligible patients. In LR-MDS, RBC-TI was reported in 72% of manuscripts but used six definitions. The most common were RBC-TI ≥8 weeks at any time during treatment (24%), ≥8 weeks within 28 weeks of treatment (13%), ≥8 weeks with Hb increase ≥1.0 (4%), ≥12 weeks with Hb increase ≥1.5 (4%), and ≥16 weeks within 24 weeks of treatment (12%). The remainder did not report RBC-TI, did not define it, or used a custom definition not used in another trial. HI was reported in 80% of LR papers with most of those reporting HI using IWG 2006 criteria (90%). Conclusion Reporting of baseline characteristics, response criteria, and outcomes is inconsistent in MDS clinical trials, with wide variability in response definitions, including ORR and TI. This heterogeneity limits interpretability, hampers historical comparisons and may obscure efficacy signals. Our findings highlight the need for standardized reporting guidelines to ensure clarity and consistency in MDS trial publications. As a next phase of this effort, we will conduct a formal Delphi process among icMDS experts to establish consensus recommendations for minimal and optimal MDS clinical trial reporting in manuscripts by disease risk (LR/HR) and trial phase (EP/LP).

Abstract Introduction: While newly diagnosed patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy have prolonged survival outcomes with venetoclax plus azacitidine (VEN+AZA) over AZA alone (2-year overall survival rate: 37.5% vs 16.9%), more can be done to further enhance outcomes (Pratz et al., 2024). CD123 is overexpressed on AML blasts and leukemia stem cells in AML. Pivekimab sunirine (PVEK) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate comprised of a high-affinity anti-CD123 antibody, a cleavable linker, and an indolinobenzodiazepine pseudodimer payload. Previously, in pts with CD123-positive AML, PVEK combined with VEN+AZA demonstrated robust response rates with a manageable safety profile (Daver et al., 2023). Here we report a subgroup analysis from a preliminary cohort of frontline (1L)-treated pts with AML. Methods: Data are from the dose expansion phase of an ongoing, open-label, multicenter, fully enrolled, Phase 1b/2 study of PVEK+VEN+AZA in adults with 1L unfit AML deemed CD123-positive by investigator. Unfit pts were aged ≥75 years (yr), or aged <75 yr with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score 2–3, or ≥1 defined comorbidity. Pts received PVEK (0.045 mg/kg, intravenous [IV]) on Day (D) 7 plus VEN (400 mg equivalent, oral) daily in a 28-D cycle (cohort 1 received ≥14 D of VEN; cohort 2 received 28 D of VEN) plus AZA (up to 75 mg/m2, subcutaneous or IV) on D1–7. Bone marrow assessments were performed by D12–14 (cohort 1) or D18–21 (cohort 2) to determine VEN duration in cycle 1 and at the end of every subsequent cycle to assess responses and myelosuppression. The primary endpoint was antileukemia activity (complete remission [CR] rate) and measurable residual disease (MRD) assessments. Responses were determined using the modified European LeukemiaNet 2017 criteria (plus CR + partial hematologic recovery [CRh]). MRD-negativity was defined centrally as <0.1% using multiparameter flow cytometry. Safety was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Results: Among 1L unfit pts with CD123-positive AML (n=49), the median (range) age was 77 (58–85) yr, with most pts aged ≥75 yr (n=36 [74%]). Forty-two (86%) pts reported an ECOG PS ≤1, 14% (n=7) had secondary AML, and 20% (n=10) and 51% (n=25) had intermediate or adverse cytogenetic risk, respectively; 65% (n=32) and 35% (n=17) were reported as TP53wt or TP53mut, respectively. Eight (16%) pts bridged to stem cell transplant. The median (range) number of treatment cycles and duration of treatment were 4 (1–20) and 5.5 (0.7–22.7) months (mo), respectively, for PVEK; 4 (1–20) and 5.1 (0.9–22.9) mo for VEN; and 4 (1–21) and 5.7 (0.9–23.4) mo for AZA. For cohort 1 (n=10), the median (range) duration of VEN was 4.5 (2.1–22.9) mo, and for cohort 2 (n=39), the median (range) duration of VEN was 5.7 (0.9–15.2) mo. With a median (range) follow-up of 10 (1.2–26.7) mo, 63.3% (95% CI: 48.3%–76.6%) of pts achieved CR, 79.6% (95% CI: 65.7%–89.8%) achieved CR/CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), and 73.5% (95% CI: 58.9%–85.1%) achieved CR/CRh; morphologic leukemia free state was achieved in 4% (n=2) of pts. Of pts who achieved CR or CR/CRi with a MRD-evaluable sample, 92% (23/25) and 90% (27/30) achieved flow cytometry MRD-negativity (<0.1%) respectively. The most common (≥50% of pts) any grade treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia/neutrophil count decreased and thrombocytopenia/platelet count decreased (both 69%); constipation (61%); and peripheral edema (51%). Three pts (6%) experienced AEs leading to discontinuation (myocardial infarction/soft tissue infection/thrombocytopenia) and 2 pts had AEs leading to death (respiratory failure/pancytopenia). Conclusions: Unfit pts with newly diagnosed CD123-postive AML demonstrated high CR rates with PVEK+VEN+AZA. These robust response rates were observed across the select mutational profiles tested. Follow up with duration of response and survival estimates among all pts, by molecular subgroups and MRD negativity status, are being evaluated. Triplet therapy in unfit 1L pts with CD-123–positive AML was well-tolerated, and no new safety signals were observed. These data highlight the need to further evaluate this regimen in a randomized trial.

Treatment-induced ovarian function loss is a significant concern for many young patients with breast cancer. Accurately predicting this risk is crucial for counselling young patients and informing their fertility-related decision-making. However, current risk prediction models for treatment-related ovarian function loss have limitations. To provide a broader representation of patient cohorts and improve feature selection, we combined retrospective data from six datasets within the FoRECAsT (Infertility after Cancer Predictor) databank, including 2679 pre-menopausal women diagnosed with breast cancer. This combined dataset presented notable missingness, prompting us to employ cross imputation using the k-nearest neighbours (KNN) machine learning (ML) algorithm. Employing Lasso regression, we developed an ML model to forecast the risk of treatment-related amenorrhea as a surrogate marker of ovarian function loss at 12 months after starting chemotherapy. Our model identified 20 variables significantly associated with risk of developing amenorrhea. Internal validation resulted in an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.820 (95% CI: 0.817–0.823), while external validation with another dataset demonstrated an AUC of 0.743 (95% CI: 0.666–0.818). A cutoff of 0.20 was chosen to achieve higher sensitivity in validation, as false negatives—patients incorrectly classified as likely to regain menses—could miss timely opportunities for fertility preservation if desired. At this threshold, internal validation yielded sensitivity and precision rates of 91.3% and 61.7%, respectively, while external validation showed 92.9% and 60.0%. Leveraging ML methodologies, we not only devised a model for personalised risk prediction of amenorrhea, demonstrating substantial enhancements over existing models but also showcased a robust framework for maximally harnessing available data sources.

Abstract Aims The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Classification provides risk stratification of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). This sub-study of the ECLS-SHOCK trial investigates the prognostic impact of SCAI stages in AMI-CS and the influence of SCAI stages on the effect of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) therapy in AMI-CS patients. Methods Patients with AMI-CS enrolled in the multicentre, randomized ECLS-SHOCK trial were included. The outcomes, treatment effect and safety of ECLS were stratified according to SCAI stage at admission using a post-hoc classification. Results From a total of 417 patients enrolled in the ECLS-SHOCK trial between June 2019 and November 2022, 51.6% (n = 215), 13.4% (n = 56) and 35.0% (n = 146) presented in SCAI Stages C, D and E, respectively. SCAI stages were associated with the risk of 30 day all-cause mortality (C vs. D vs. E: 32.6% vs. 67.9% vs. 64.4%, P < 0.001), with rates of renal replacement therapy at 30 days (C vs. D vs. E: 7.0% vs. 19.6% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.03) and with poor neurological outcomes (C vs. D vs. E: 17.2% vs. 44.4% vs. 36.5%, P < 0.001). No interaction was observed between SCAI stage and the treatment effect of ELCS on 30 day all-cause mortality (ELCS vs. control SCAI C: 32.7% vs. 32.4%; SCAI D: 68.4% vs. 66.7%; SCAI E: 59.7% vs. 68.4%, P for interaction = 0.65). Conclusions In AMI-CS patients included in the ECLS-SHOCK trial, SCAI stages at admission were predictive for mortality and for the incidence of safety events. The efficacy of ECLS treatment was not affected by SCAI stage.

Abstract Purpose :Tamoxifen undergoes bioactivation to its active metabolite (Z)-endoxifen, which blocks estrogen-dependent breast tumor growth at high potency. We tested the feasibility and safety of supplementing standard tamoxifen therapy with low-dose (Z)-endoxifen in patients with breast cancer with compromised tamoxifen bioactivation. Patients and Methods :We conducted a prospective, interventional, three group randomized trial including 235 patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who received standard tamoxifen therapy (20 mg/day). Patients were stratified by CYP2D6 genotype (n = 78), defining poor, intermediate, and normal metabolizers, or by baseline (Z)-endoxifen plasma concentration (n = 78), defining ≤15, 15 to 25, and ≥25 nmol/L. Co-treatment with (Z)-endoxifen 3 and 1.5 mg/day or placebo was performed, respectively. A control group (n = 79) received placebo regardless of metabolizer phenotype. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with (Z)-endoxifen levels >32 nmol/L after 6 weeks of treatment. Adverse events were continuously monitored. Results: A higher proportion of patients in both intervention groups achieved target concentrations >32 nmol/L compared with control (P < 0.0001). At 3 mg (Z)-endoxifen supplementation, 92.3% of CYP2D6 poor metabolizer patients and all patients with baseline (Z)-endoxifen ≤15 nmol/L achieved the target concentration. At 1.5 mg (Z)-endoxifen supplementation, 88% of CYP2D6 intermediate metabolizer patients and 95% of patients with 15 to 25 nmol/L baseline (Z)-endoxifen levels achieved the target concentration. Similar proportions of patients receiving (Z)-endoxifen (6/80, 7.5%) or placebo (8/155, 5.2%) experienced grade 3 adverse events. Conclusions: Adding low-dose (Z)-endoxifen to standard tamoxifen is safe and provides a new approach to personalized antiestrogen treatment for patients with low endoxifen plasma levels.

Acute right ventricular failure (ARVF) is commonly seen in the intensive care unit and constitutes a significant clinical challenge, with associated high in-hospital mortality. Recently, the treatment of ARVF has significantly changed, with the progressive implementation of mechanical circulatory support devices that now represent important tools for clinicians in treating this condition. However, despite recent advancements, the optimal approach for ARVF remains elusive, and precise treatment algorithms and comprehensive management protocols are still lacking. In the present review, we explore the pathophysiology of ARVF, highlighting the different mechanisms that may lead to this clinical entity and emphasizing the left and right heart’s complex interplay. We analyze the different therapeutic options that are now available for short- and long-term management of ARVF, with a particular focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the mechanical circulatory support devices actually used. Furthermore, we propose future directions in the field and a possible flowchart for the treatment of this condition.

Abstract Excessively restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical trials are one of many barriers to clinical trial enrollment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs). Many organizations are developing efforts to increase clinical trial eligibility; yet, several recent publications focused on patients with MDS suggest that many patients with this disease may be excluded from clinical trials unnecessarily. Clinical trial eligibility should reflect the phase of the study and risks of the agent being studied. Phase 3 trials should be less restrictive than early-phase trials to represent the real-world population as closely as possible. We hypothesize that many clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, have unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria. This study aims to evaluate the most common eligibility criteria according to phase of trial and to determine whether criteria correspond with drug safety signals. We identified MDS clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 2000 to 1 September 2023 and analyzed the eligibility criteria of 191 therapeutic MDS trials. We found that categorical inclusion and exclusion criteria are remarkably similar in representation across trial phases. Additionally, only 13% of trials are concordant with drug safety signals, suggesting that the eligibility criteria are often arbitrary. On behalf of the icMDS (International Consortium for Myelodysplastic Syndromes), an association of international MDS experts, we provide a position statement on restrictive eligibility criteria for MDS clinical trials that should be avoided with the aim of removing barriers to clinical trial enrollment.

PURPOSE In patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), brentuximab vedotin (BV) as monotherapy or combined with either lenalidomide (Len) or rituximab (R) has demonstrated efficacy with acceptable safety. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of BV + Len + R versus placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. METHODS ECHELON-3 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing BV + Len + R with placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. Patients received BV or placebo once every 3 weeks, Len once daily, and R once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). A prespecified interim analysis was performed after 134 OS events, with two-sided P = .0232 as the efficacy boundary. RESULTS Patients (N = 230) were randomly assigned to receive BV + Len + R (n = 112) or placebo + Len + R (n = 118). Two patients in the placebo arm did not receive treatment. With a median follow-up of 16.4 months, the median OS was 13.8 months with BV + Len + R versus 8.5 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.89]; two-sided P = .009). The median PFS was 4.2 months with BV + Len + R versus 2.6 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73]; two-sided P < .001). The ORR was 64% ([95% CI, 55 to 73]; two-sided P < .001) with BV + Len + R and 42% (95% CI, 33 to 51) with placebo + Len + R; complete response rates were 40% and 19%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of patients in both arms. In both arms, the most common treatment-emergent AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and anemia. CONCLUSION BV + Len + R demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with R/R DLBCL.

Introduction Age correlates with survival in patients (pts) with DLBCL, which has a median age at diagnosis of 67 y. Recent therapeutic advances, including bispecifics and cell therapy, have promising efficacy, but safety and accessibility continue to be limited for older pts. The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) with brentuximab vedotin (BV) + lenalidomide (Len) + rituximab (R; BV+Len+R) vs placebo+Len+R in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Here, we present safety and efficacy in pts aged ≥65 y. Methods In ECHELON-3, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with R (375 mg/m2) q3w and Len (20 mg) once daily. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was required in all cycles. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. Other secondary endpoints included detailed safety and tolerability. This subgroup analysis comprises pts aged ≥65 y. P values are descriptive. Results A total of 155 pts aged ≥65 y were enrolled from April 2021 to November 2023 and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=79) or placebo+Len+R (n=76). The median age was 75 y (range, 65-89 y); 54% of pts were male, 59% were White, and 19% were Asian. Twenty-three percent and 54% had Ann Arbor stage III and IV disease, respectively, and 64% had high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index scores (3-5) at enrollment. The most common DLBCL subtype was DLBCL not otherwise specified (58%). Twenty-nine percent of pts had transformed DLBCL. Approximately half (49%) of pts had primary refractory disease, and 81% had disease refractory to their most recent prior line of therapy. Seventy percent of pts had &lt;1% CD30 expression via IHC; 48% of cases had germinal center B-cell origin. Prior CAR-T was reported in 21.9% of pts. At a median follow-up of 16.8 mo (95% CI, 14.3-19.5 mo), median OS was 15.9 mo (95% CI, 11.7 mo-not estimable [NE]) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 mo (95% CI, 5.5-11.5 mo) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.540; 95% CI, 0.351-0.830; P=.0043). Median PFS was 5.7 mo (95% CI, 4.1-12.7 mo) with BV+Len+R vs 2.8 mo (95% CI, 1.9-4.1 mo) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.478; 95% CI, 0.318-0.718; P=.0003). ORR was 70.9% (95% CI, 59.6%-80.6%) with BV+Len+R vs 46.1% (95% CI, 34.5%-57.9%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0020); complete response (CR) rate was 45.6% vs 19.7%, respectively. Median time to CR was 1.61 mo with both BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R (range, 1.2-7.3 vs 0.7-4.6 mo, respectively). Median duration of CR was 18.9 mo (95% CI, 12.4 mo-NE) with BV+Len+R vs 5.4 mo (95% CI, 2.8 mo-NE) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.416; 95% CI, 0.139-1.250). In total, 154 pts were evaluable for safety analysis (75 pts in placebo+Len+R group). The median number of cycles was 5 (range, 1-34) vs 3 (range, 1-31) in the BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R groups, respectively. The percentage of pts with any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar between groups (97% with BV+Len+R and 99% with placebo+Len+R); grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 89% of pts in the BV+Len+R group and 76% in the placebo+Len+R group. Serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to death were reported more frequently in the BV+Len+R group (62% and 13%, respectively) than the placebo+Len+R group (47% and 8%, respectively). More pts discontinued study treatment due to TEAEs in the BV+Len+R group than the placebo+Len+R group (20% vs 8%). In total, 39% of pts on BV+Len+R had a peripheral neuropathy event vs 27% of pts on placebo+Len+R; however, the majority of cases were grade 1 (22% and 17%, respectively). Additional information on older pts will be presented. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes in pts aged ≥65 y, which is consistent with the overall ECHELON-3 population (median age 74 y; 70.5% of pts aged ≥65 y in BV+Len+R group). Differences in some safety endpoints are likely attributable to longer duration of treatment in the BV+Len+R group. No clinically meaningful safety trends in pts aged ≥65 y were identified. These results suggest that BV+Len+R may be an effective treatment option in older pts with R/R DLBCL.