Citations

AbstractPurposeThis paper reports the efficacy of the poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib alone and in combination with the antiangiogenesis agent cediranib compared with cediranib alone in patients with advanced endometrial cancer.MethodsThis was open‐label, randomized, phase 2 trial (NCT03660826). Eligible patients had recurrent endometrial cancer, received at least one (<3) prior lines of chemotherapy, and were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by histology (serous vs. other) to receive cediranib alone (reference arm), olaparib, or olaparib and cediranib for 28‐day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression‐free survival in the intention‐to‐treat population. Homologous repair deficiency was explored using the BROCA‐GO sequencing panel.ResultsA total of 120 patients were enrolled and all were included in the intention‐to‐treat analysis. Median age was 66 (range, 41–86) years and 47 (39.2%) had serous histology. Median progression‐free survival for cediranib was 3.8 months compared with 2.0 months for olaparib (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 0.91‐2.3] p = .935) and 5.5 months for olaparib/cediranib (hazard ratio, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.43–1.14] p = .064). Four patients receiving the combination had a durable response lasting more than 20 months. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were hypertension in the cediranib (36%) and olaparib/cediranib (33%) arms, fatigue (20.5% olaparib/cediranib), and diarrhea (17.9% cediranib). The BROCA‐GO panel results were not associated with response.ConclusionThe combination of cediranib and olaparib demonstrated modest clinical efficacy; however, the primary end point of the study was not met. The combination was safe without unexpected toxicity.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cervical Cancer provide recommendations for all aspects of management for cervical cancer, including the diagnostic workup, staging, pathology, and treatment. The guidelines also include details on histopathologic classification of cervical cancer regarding diagnostic features, molecular profiles, and clinical outcomes. The treatment landscape of advanced cervical cancer is evolving constantly. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates regarding the systemic therapy recommendations for recurrent or metastatic disease.

Background: First-line therapies for chronic-phase (CP) CML include the tyrosine kinase inhibitors(TKIs) dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib or imatinib, while ponatinib and asciminib are indicated only in later lines. There are typically high response rates to first-line therapy in CP-CML, with responses to second- and third-line therapy lower and highly dependent on the specific TKI. Our goal in this study is to evaluate the role of ponatinib in the treatment of patients with CML using data from routine clinical practice. Study design and methods: Data will come from the H. Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium (HJKC3) CML registry, a North American multi-site research database. Participating sites include the HJKC3 members (curecml.org). Patient inclusion criteria include a diagnosis CML in chronic phase, receiving second line therapy after initial therapy with a second generation TKI (dasatinib, nilotinib, or bosutinib) or receiving third or later line TKI therapy for CML. Participating patients provide consent to collect their data both retrospectively and prospectively for 1 year. Clinical data, including toxicities and complications of TKI therapy, are abstracted from the electronic health record. Participating patients are invited to complete a questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life. Data are managed using REDCap, a secure web application. Study Objectives: The primary objective is to compare the outcome of patients treated with ponatinib vs. other TKIs as second or later line therapy. Secondary objectives are to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for CML treated with second or later line therapy and to determine if there are any patient or disease characteristics that can predict outcomes. Statistical plan for clinical outcomes: Descriptive statistics will be used to compare baseline demographic characteristics. Categorical variables will be compared using the Chi-square test. Continuous variables will be compared using ANOVA. Overall survival will be calculated from the time of diagnosis to death from any cause and patients will be censored if they were alive at the last follow-up. Survival probabilities will be computed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-ranktest. Cox regression analyses will be used to determine significant factors that influence survival, and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals will be presented. Event free survival (EFS) and transformation free survival (TFS) will be calculated for patients. For EFS, loss of complete hematologic remission, loss of major cytogenetic response, progression to accelerated or blast phase, or death from any cause at any time will be considered an event. For TFS, transformation to accelerated or blast phase while on therapy or death on study will be considered an event. Statistical plan for PRO: Different PRO domains will be analyzed separately (for example, depression separate from fatigue, etc.). Descriptive statistics for each PRO measure will be reported and compared to previously published studies. Differences by treatment type will be evaluated.

Background and significance: There are typically high response rates to first line TKI therapies in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML). However, responses in later lines (second line and beyond) are diminished and highly dependent on the specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used. Asciminib received FDA approval in October 2021 for the treatment of adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML-CP who were previously treated with two or more TKIs, and in patients with Ph+ CML-CP with the T315I mutation. Our goal in this study is to evaluate the role of asciminib therapy for patients with CML beyond clinical studies, in routine clinical practice. Study Design and methods: Data for this study will be abstracted from the HJKC3 (H. Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium) CML registry project (HJKC3-0005); the HJKC3 CML Registry is a collaborative academic multi-site registry. Patients will be consented to allow collection of both retrospective and prospective data for the HJKC3 CML Registry. The data forms and surveys will be built and managed through the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web application managed by the Clinical & Translational Science Institute. Participating sites include members of the HJKC3 (curecml.org). This study will be an opportunity to evaluate asciminib usage in ‘real-world’ academic practices across the United States. This observational study will include cohorts of patients diagnosed with CP-CML previously treated with two or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and/or receiving asciminib and/or those with a T315I mutation, not currently enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. The HJKC3 CML Registry intends to collect clinical and patient reported outcome (PRO) data. After obtaining patient consent, patients will be invited to complete PRO assessments. The study will attempt to collect PRO data regardless of disease or treatment status. PRO assessments will be primarily administered online, though study staff will offer alternatives (e.g., phone) for participants without internet access. Study subjects will be emailed a link to access a secure platform hosted by one of the study sites, Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), using the REDCap platform. Study Objectives: The primary objective of the study is to describe characteristics of patients who were previously treated with two or more TKIs and treated with asciminib or with any other TKIs. The secondary objectives are to describe the clinical outcomes and PRO of those patients. Exploratory objectives include description of characteristics, treatment outcome and PRO for patients with T315I mutation. Statistical plan: The sample size of approximately 225 participants during the 5-year recruitment period is based on the available clinical expertise and ongoing recruitment data in the HJKC3 CML registry in lieu of statistical power analysis. We estimate that 150 patients in the HJKC3 CML registry will be treated with other TKI and 75 treated with asciminib. Among a total of 225 patients, we estimate that 75 patients with the T315I mutation will be enrolled in the registry. No formal statistical inference will be drawn to compare the outcomes between these two groups. Bayesian predictive probability (PP) will be utilized for the exploratory analysis of Major Molecular Response (MMR). Survival probabilities will be computed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the p-values from the log-rank test will be provided. Different PRO domains of the patient's symptoms and functioning will be analyzed separately (e.g., depression separate from fatigue, separate from GI symptoms, etc.) since combining them into a summary score may dilute the effects of the individual (and not necessarily related) components and mask actual change. The main objective for the analyses of PRO data from the registry is to describe any differences by treatment type in patients treated with asciminib and other TKIs.

Introduction: Lineage switch (LS) refers to the transformation of acute leukemia from one cell lineage to another (e.g., lymphoid (ALL) to myeloid (AML)). This rare phenomenon, distinct from treatment induced malignancy (i.e., t-AML) and mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL), is increasingly being observed following cell surface antigen targeting. Given challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of LS, Project EVOLVE was developed to globally identify cases of LS following immunotherapy. Methods: A protocol and data collection form for this IRB exempt study was widely disseminated to capture deidentified LS case information across multiple centers and cancer consortia. This included collection of data from published reports of LS, with authors contacted to obtain additional information. For this analysis, LS was defined by the emergence of cell-surface markers warranting reclassification of the original leukemia as a different lineage derivation based on the immunophenotype, including cases of AML emerging alongside the original ALL. “Confirmed” LS cases included those where retention of original cytogenetic or molecular aberrations and/or the clonal immunoglobulin rearrangement patterns were verified to confirm the clonal relationship. “Suspected” LS cases included those where samples to confirm clonality marker retention could not be obtained, but the clinical presentation was consistent with LS. The term “transition” was applied when immunophenotypic shifts were transient. Cases with new cytogenetic abnormalities unrelated to the original diagnosis and compatible with t-AML were excluded. Statistical analysis was primarily descriptive. Data cut-off was July 26, 2023. Results: A total of 58 cases were identified, including 19 cases referenced in prior publications. Of the 58, 11 cases were excluded from this initial analysis, including: 4 cases of t-AML, 2 cases of T-ALL to AML, and 5 “transition” cases. Collectively, 47 cases of LS (43 “confirmed”; 4 “suspected”), spanning across 3 continents and 8 countries, were analyzed. (Fig. 1A) Cases included transition from B-ALL to AML in 36 (76.6%) and to MPAL/biphenotypic/ambiguous lineage in 11 (23.4%). Two likely had MPAL at diagnosis and a third with chronic myeloid leukemia. The median age at initial diagnosis was 8.4 years (range, 1 day-76.5 years); median age at LS presentation was 11.0 years (range 0.4-77.3 years). Twenty-three (48.9%) were male and 19 (40.4%) had prior stem cell transplant (SCT). Baseline cytogenetics showed KMT2A rearrangement in 27 (57.4%). Baseline myeloid antigen co-expression was seen in 22 of 23 patients with submitted data, but variation in degree of expression across patients and antigens was substantial. The most proximal immunotherapy prior to development of LS was CAR T-cells in 23 (48.9%) and blinatumomab in 24 (51.1%). The median time from the most proximal immunotherapy to development of LS was 1.6 months (range, 7 days-36.5 months). In 7 (29.2%) patients receiving blinatumomab, LS developed during the infusion. LS presented as isolated marrow relapse in 27 (57.4%), isolated CNS in 2 (4.3%), isolated non-CNS extramedullary disease in 3 (6.4%), combined relapse in 14 (29.8%) and unreported in 1. First line treatment for LS was chemotherapy induction in 31 (66.0%), palliative care/no therapy in 8 (17.0%), and alternative therapies in the remaining 8 (17.0%). In 35 (74.5%) patients, remission induction was the goal of first line therapy. Fifteen (31.9%) achieved a complete remission (CR) of whom 2 were treated with palliative intent. Across all patients, 8 (17.0%) are alive in remission, the longest being 4.7 years from LS diagnosis; 2 (4.3%) are alive with active LS and 37 (78.7%) died from LS, their original disease, or complications of treatment of LS (Fig 1B). For those alive in CR (n=8), 7 (87.5%) proceeded to a consolidative SCT for treatment of LS and 1 patient, an octogenarian remains in remission after AML directed therapy. Conclusions: LS is emerging as an important mechanism of immune escape following immunotherapy. Project EVOLVE provides the largest dataset of patients with LS to date. This systematic, international effort reveals substantial complexity and variability in diagnosing and managing LS. Unfortunately, outcomes following LS are grim, underscoring the critical need to identify risk factors of and optimal therapies for this leukemia transformation.