Citations

AbstractIntroductionRelapsed or refractory (r/r) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remains a therapeutic challenge. Preclinical data in both B‐ and T‐ALL suggests synergy of venetoclax (VEN) with vincristine (VCR). We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L‐VCR and VEN for patients with r/r B‐or T‐cell ALL or LL. Here, we report the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644).MethodsIn a 3+3 dose escalation design, r/r ALL subjects were given single‐agent VEN doses reaching 400, 600, or 800 mg for the three respective dose levels. Weekly L‐VCR at 2.25 mg/m2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1. The primary phase I objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination.ResultsAmong the 18 patients in phase I, grade ≥ 3 treatment‐related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated patients. Two patients (two of three) at dose level 3 experienced dose‐limiting toxicities. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 (VEN 600 mg). Twenty‐two percent of evaluable patients (N = 4) achieved a complete response, with two of them showing no evidence of measurable residual disease (MRD).ConclusionThe combination of VEN and L‐VCR was found to be safe for patients with r/r ALL and encouraging preliminary efficacy, including MRD negative responses. With the removal of L‐VCR from the US market, the phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with vincristine sulfate.

PURPOSE Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) can occur across all age groups, with a strikingly higher cure rate in children compared with adults. However, the pharmacological basis of age-related differences in ALL treatment response remains unclear. METHODS Studying 767 children and 309 adults with newly diagnosed B-cell ALL enrolled on frontline trials at St Jude Children's Research Hospital, MD Anderson Cancer Center, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, and the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, we determined the ex vivo sensitivity of leukemia cells to 21 drugs. Twenty-three ALL molecular subtypes were identified using RNA sequencing. We systematically characterized the associations between drug response and ALL genomics in children, adolescents and young adults, and elderly adults. We evaluated the effect of age-related gene expression signature on ALL treatment outcomes. RESULTS Seven ALL drugs (asparaginase, prednisolone, mercaptopurine, dasatinib, nelarabine, daunorubicin, and inotuzumab ozogamicin) showed differential activity between children and adults, of which six were explained by age-related differences in leukemia molecular subtypes. Adolescents and young adults showed similar patterns of drug resistance as older adults, relative to young children. Mercaptopurine exhibited subtype-independent greater sensitivity in children. Transcriptomic profiling uncovered subclusters within CRLF2 -, DUX4 -, and KMT2A -rearranged ALL that were linked to age and cytotoxic drug resistance. In particular, a subset of children had adult-like ALL on the basis of leukemia gene expression patterns across subtypes, despite their chronological age. Resistant to cytotoxic drugs, children with adult-like ALL exhibited poor prognosis in pediatric ALL trials, even after adjusting for age and minimal residual diseases. CONCLUSION Our results provide pharmacogenomic insights into age-related disparities in ALL cure rates and identify leukemia prognostic features for treatment individualization across age groups.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases, or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

ImportancePersistence of FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) in adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR) prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) is associated with increased relapse and death after transplant, but the association between the level of measurable residual disease (MRD) detected and clinical outcome is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the association between pre–allogeneic HCT MRD level with relapse and death posttransplant in adults with AML in first CR.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this cohort study, DNA sequencing was performed on first CR blood from patients with FLT3-ITD AML transplanted from March 2013 to February 2019. Clinical follow-up was through May 2022. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to December 2023.ExposureCentralized DNA sequencing for FLT3-ITD in pre–allogeneic HCT first CR blood using a commercially available kit.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcomes were overall survival and cumulative incidence of relapse, with non–relapse-associated mortality as a competing risk post–allogeneic HCT. Kaplan-Meier estimations (log-rank tests), Cox proportional hazards models, and Fine-Gray models were used to estimate the end points.ResultsOf 537 included patients with FLT3-ITD AML from the Pre-MEASURE study, 296 (55.1%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 55.6 (42.9-64.1) years. Using the variant allele fraction (VAF) threshold of 0.01% or greater for MRD positivity, the results closely aligned with those previously reported. With no VAF threshold applied (VAF greater than 0%), 263 FLT3-ITD variants (median [range] VAF, 0.005% [0.0002%-44%]), and 177 patients (33.0%) with positive findings were identified. Multivariable analyses showed that residual FLT3-ITD was the variable most associated with relapse and overall survival, with a dose-dependent correlation. Patients receiving reduced-intensity conditioning without melphalan or nonmyeloablative conditioning had increased risk of relapse and death at any given level of MRD compared with those receiving reduced-intensity conditioning with melphalan or myeloablative conditioning.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study provides generalizable and clinically applicable evidence that the detection of residual FLT3-ITD in the blood of adults in first CR from AML prior to allogeneic HCT is associated with an increased risk of relapse and death, particularly for those with a VAF of 0.01% or greater. While transplant conditioning intensification, an intervention not available to all, may help mitigate some of this risk, alternative approaches will be necessary for this high-risk population of patients who are underserved by the current standard of care.

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with AML harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 ( FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202 ) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005]; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387]; P = .575). CONCLUSION Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.