Citations

The NCCN Guidelines for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) provide recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of adults with AML based on clinical trials that have led to significant improvements in treatment, or have yielded new information regarding factors with prognostic importance, and are intended to aid physicians with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent select updates to the NCCN Guidelines, including familial genetic alterations in AML, postinduction or postremission treatment strategies in low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia or favorable-risk AML, principles surrounding the use of venetoclax-based therapies, and considerations for patients who prefer not to receive blood transfusions during treatment.

BackgroundThe availability of novel agents (NAs), including blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), has improved the outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Because of the relative effectiveness, it is often a challenge for clinicians to determine how to best sequence these NAs with respect to efficacy and toxicity.MethodsIn this multicenter, retrospective study of patients with RR ALL treated with blinatumomab, InO, or both, their efficacy as a first or second NA was compared.ResultsAmong 276 patients, 221 and 55 received blinatumomab and InO, respectively, as a first NA therapy. The complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi) rate was 65% and 67% for the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively (P = .73). The rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was 4% and 7% in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. Ninety‐two patients (43%) in the blinatumomab group and 13 patients (29%) in the InO group proceeded with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The median overall survival (OS) was 15 and 11.6 months in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. A subset analysis was performed for 61 patients who received both NAs (blinatumomab and then InO [n = 40] or InO and then blinatumomab [n = 21]). The CR/CRi rate was 58% for patients who received InO as the second NA and 52% for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA. The median OS was 10.5 for patients who received InO as the second NA and 5.9 months for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA (P = .09).ConclusionsAlthough the limited power of this study to detect a significant difference between subgroups is acknowledged, the data suggest that blinatumomab and InO may have comparable efficacy as a first or second NA therapy in RR ALL.

Abstract The availability and use of blinatumomab symbolizes a paradigm shift in the management of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort analysis of 239 ALL patients (227 relapsed refractory [RR], n = 227; minimal residual disease [MRD], n = 12) who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy in the “real-world” setting. The median age of patients at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) patients had ≥3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) had allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation before blinatumomab. The response rate (complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery) in patients with RR disease was 65% (47% MRD−). Among 12 patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) patients achieved MRD negativity. In patients with RR disease, median relapse-free survival and overall survival (OS) after blinatumomab was 32 months and 12.7 months, respectively. Among patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, median relapse-free survival was not reached (54% MRD− at 2 years) and OS was 34.7 months. Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity were observed in 3%, 7%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Among patients who achieved complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery, consolidation therapy with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation retained favorable prognostic significance for OS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97; P = .04). In this largest “real-world” experience published to date, blinatumomab demonstrated responses comparable to those reported in clinical trials. The optimal sequencing of newer therapies in ALL requires further study.

Background Blinatumomab is a bispecific T cell antibody construct, that binds and allows CD-3 positive cytotoxic T cells to recognize and eradicate CD19-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) blasts. The drug is approved for patient (pts) with relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell ALL and those with minimal residual disease (MRD) based on efficacy in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab in the "real world" setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of RR B-cell ALL pts, who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS) from the time of blinatumomab initiation and toxicity. DOR was estimated among pts who had achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Results From December 2014 to May 2019, 239 pts with B-cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (yrs) (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) pts had Philadelphia chromosome [t(9;22)] positive (Ph+ve) disease. Sixty-one (26%) pts had ≥ 3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-two (9%) pts received inotuzumab ozagamicin prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-nine (12%) pts received blinatumomab in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Twelve (5%) pts received blinatumomab for MRD. Response rate (CR/CRi) in pts with RR disease was 61%; 44% had CR with MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Rate of CR/CRi in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 74.5%. Among 12 pts who received Blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) pts achieved MRD negativity. Overall 113 (48%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median DOR in pts with RR disease was 32.1 months (95% CI; 9.5-not reached [NR]) (Fig. 1a) and when censored at allo-HCT was 14.8 months (95% CI; 5.2-NR) (Fig. 1b). Median OS in pts with RR disease after blinatumomab was 12.7 months (95% CI; 9.2 -17.9) (Fig. 1c) and when censored at allo-HCT was 8.6 months (95% CI; 6.4-11.6) (Fig.1d). Median OS after blinatumomab in RR B-cell ALL Ph+ve pts was NR (59% alive at 2 yr). Among pts who received blinatumomab for MRD, median DOR was NR and 54% sustained MRD negativity at 2 yrs. Median OS was 34.7 months (95% CI; 8.8-34.7) in group of pts who received blinatumomab for MRD. Seven (3%) pts discontinued blinatumomab due to adverse events and 40 (21%) pts had dose interruptions. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade (G) was reported in higher number of pts (93 [39%]) compared to clinical trials, though G3-4 CRS appears to be similar (G1-2 [36%], G3-4 [3%]). Forty-four (44%) pts were treated with steroids and 8 (8%) pts required tocilizumab with steroids for CRS. Ninety-three percent of pts had complete resolution of CRS. CNS toxicities were observed in 31 (13%) pts, among them 60% (n= 19) had G3-4 toxicities. Hepatic toxicities were observed in 84 (35%) pts as outlined in Table 1. Six (2.5%) pts died due to blinatumomab induced toxicities. Conclusion: Our real-world data with multicenter collaboration suggest that overall blinatumomab was well tolerated and had led to significant response in pts with RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Advani: Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Aldoss:AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau. Podoltsev:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Yang:Agios: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah:Helsinn: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 400FN2 Patients with primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF) have a worse prognosis than those with essential thrombocytosis (ET) or polycythemia vera (PV). MF and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) share chromosomal and genetic lesions such as ASXL1 and JAK2 mutations, but effective treatments are lacking. The aim of the study was to identify perturbed pathways in MPN and CMML that were amenable to targeted molecular therapies. In a large genomic analysis of MPN cases, we identified recurrent deletions of multiple DNA repair genes, including BRCA2 and Fanconi anemia (FANC) proteins, which have been associated with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor sensitivity. Neoplastic cells from these patients are hypersensitive to PARP inhibitors in vitro and may provide a therapeutic strategy to improve treatment response for patients with advanced MPNs. Genomic screens utilizing SNP-A karyotyping were performed on primary cells from 144 patients with either ET, PV, or MF (90 were previously reported, McDevitt et al., ASH 2009). We focused on the potential functional relevance of recurrent genomic deletions, including BRCA2, by performing a GO analysis using the EASE software application (Hosack et al. 2003). This revealed statistically significant (p≤0.05) enrichment of 13 biological pathways. Notably, genes involved in cell cycle regulation and DNA repair (DR) were enriched in MF loss regions (p=0.007) as compared to regions lost in ET and PV. Several genes directly involved in DR including BRCA2, XRCC2, and several members of the FANC pathway, also critical for DNA crosslink repair, were deleted or present in copy neutral LOH regions. DNA methyltransferase inhibitors are being tested clinically in MF patients, and both cell cycle and DNA repair genes have been identified as epigenetically silenced in hematological malignancies. We therefore screened for BRCA1, BRCA2, FANC-C, L, and N promoter CpG island methylation in a series of 48 MPN samples. No methylation was identified in BRCA2 and FANC members, suggesting a potential haploinsufficiency mechanism. Methylation of BRCA1 was identified in a small number of cases and is under further study in a larger cohort to investigate the effects on BRCA1 expression, DR and sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. Based on these genetic and epigenetic findings, we then focused on a functional analysis of the homologous recombination (HR) pathway. Leukocytes from normal controls and MPN patients were exposed to ionizing radiation (IR) and stained for Rad51 foci, a marker of HR activity. Six of 15 MPN/CMML samples (40%), but none of the controls failed to form IR-induced Rad51 foci, suggesting impaired HR. Of the samples that demonstrated defects in HR [MPN-U, MF, CMML (2), MDS/MPN-U, and CML], there was no significant correlation between the MPN subtype, the JAK2 mutation status, or the specific metaphase karyotype, but the most sensitive case in our series exhibited a deletion of Ch13q that spanned the BRCA2 gene. We then examined sensitivity of MPN vs. normal myeloid progenitors to the PARP inhibitors veliparib and/or olaparib in methylcellulose (MC)-based colony forming assays. Failure to form Rad51 foci with irradiation was statistically correlated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity (p = 0.021). When an expanded series of cases were then analyzed for PARP inhibitor sensitivity using the MC colony assay, lower IC50s for both veliparib and olaparib were observed in MPN cases (N= 25, IC50S=2.69uM vs. 11.2uM, N=15 IC50S=.64uM vs. 1.27uM, respectively) relative to normal controls (p =.0003, p =.05, via Wilconon rank-sum test respectively). Two cases in this series were treated on a clinical trial combining the ABT-888 PARP inhibitor with salvage chemotherapy consisting of carboplatin and topotecan (Karp et al., ASH 2010). Both patients, one with sAML evolving out of PPV-MF, and a second with accelerating MPN-U, had failed four prior therapies but achieved complete clearance of bone marrow blasts at day 14. Interestingly, cells from this MPN-U patient (13q-) were the most sensitive to PARP inhibition in vitro. Additional accrual and correlative evaluations are underway and will be updated at the meeting. Collectively, these results demonstrate that a subset of MPN and CMML patients have intrinsic genetic and epigenetic defects affecting the FANC and HR pathways, providing pre-clinical rationale for the use of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of aggressive MPN and CMML. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Purpose: DNA repair defects have been previously reported in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). Inhibitors of PARP have shown activity in solid tumors with defects in homologous recombination (HR). This study was performed to assess MPN sensitivity to PARP inhibitors ex vivo. Experimental Design: HR pathway integrity in circulating myeloid cells was evaluated by assessing the formation of RAD51 foci after treatment with ionizing radiation or PARP inhibitors. Sensitivity of MPN erythroid and myeloid progenitors to PARP inhibitors was evaluated using colony formation assays. Results: Six of 14 MPN primary samples had reduced formation of RAD51 foci after exposure to ionizing radiation, suggesting impaired HR. This phenotype was not associated with a specific MPN subtype, JAK2 mutation status, or karyotype. MPN samples showed increased sensitivity to the PARP inhibitors veliparib and olaparib compared with normal myeloid progenitors. This hypersensitivity, which was most pronounced in samples deficient in DNA damage–induced RAD51 foci, was observed predominantly in samples from patients with diagnoses of chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, or unspecified myelodysplastic/MPN overlap syndromes. Conclusions: Like other neoplasms with HR defects, MPNs exhibit PARP inhibitor hypersensitivity compared with normal marrow. These results suggest that further preclinical and possibly clinical study of PARP inhibitors in MPNs is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 22(15); 3894–902. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract O6 methylguanine DNA methyltransferease (MGMT) is overexpressed in majority of cancers including pancreatic cancer. MGMT has been the focus of significant research for its role in the repair of DNA damage caused by alkylating agents. In the present study, we tested the administration of the MGMT inhibitor O6-benzylguanine (BG) at non-toxic doses in combination with an alkylator TMZ (temozolomide) on pancreatic cancer cells (L3.6 pl and PANC1) in cell culture and xenograft model. Here, we report that TMZ decreases pancreatic cancer cell growth in a dose dependent manner. BG further sensitizes pancreatic cancer cells to TMZ and significantly inhibits pancreatic cancer growth. We also report that BG, either alone or in combination with TMZ, inhibits the expression of MGMT, Ki-67 and BIRC5 (survivin), which are involved in pancreatic tumorigenesis and cell division, and induces the expression of p21cip1 cell cycle inhibitor. Microarray analysis revealed that BG significantly decreased the transcription of a group of proto-oncogenes, growth factors, cell cycle and overall transcription regulators involved in tumorigenesis like ARHGDIB, IGFL1, KIF20A, CA9, MMP10 and E2F2 and increased the transcription of a variety of genes involved in tissue differentiation, cell cycle regulation and invasion inhibitors like GDF15, CDKN1A and TIMP1. In our pancreatic cancer xenograft model, BG +/- TMZ significantly inhibited pancreatic tumor growth in vivo compared to single agent TMZ or controls. Further, BG promotes p53 function leading to growth inhibition, in part substantiating the underlying mechanism of BIRC5 (survivin) inhibition and p21cip1 induction. In conclusion, our findings suggest that MGMT inhibition may potentially provide a novel therapeutic approach in pancreatic cancer by opening the option of using (oral) alkylators like TMZ. Citation Format: George C. Bobustuc, Jonathan Ticku, Anand Patel, Kalkunte S. Srivenugopal, Santhi D. Konduri. O6 methylguanine DNA methyltransferase inhibition sensitizes pancreatic cancer cells to temozolomide. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 810. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-810

A new mechanism involving cleavage of a transcription factor called CREB3L1 has been proposed to explain the anti-tumour effects of doxorubicin.

Abstract Purpose: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are undergoing extensive clinical testing for their single-agent activity in homologous recombination (HR)-deficient tumors and ability to enhance the action of certain DNA-damaging agents. Compared with other PARP inhibitors in development, iniparib (4-iodo-3-nitrobenzamide) is notable for its simple structure and the reported ability of its intracellular metabolite 4-iodo-3-nitrosobenzamide to covalently inhibit PARP1 under cell-free conditions. The present preclinical studies were conducted to compare the actions iniparib with the more extensively characterized PARP inhibitors olaparib and veliparib. Experimental Design: The abilities of iniparib, olaparib, and veliparib to (i) selectively induce apoptosis or inhibit colony formation in HR-deficient cell lines, (ii) selectively sensitize HR-proficient cells to topoisomerase I poisons, and (iii) inhibit formation of poly(ADP-ribose) polymer (pADPr) in intact cells were compared. Results: Consistent with earlier reports, olaparib and veliparib selectively induced apoptosis and inhibited colony formation in cells lacking BRCA2 or ATM. Moreover, like earlier generation PARP inhibitors, olaparib and veliparib sensitized cells to the topoisomerase I poisons camptothecin and topotecan. Finally, olaparib and veliparib inhibited formation of pADPr in intact cells. In contrast, iniparib exhibited little or no ability to selectively kill HR-deficient cells, sensitize cells to topoisomerase I poisons, or inhibit pADPr formation in situ. In further experiments, iniparib also failed to sensitize cells to cisplatin, gemcitabine, or paclitaxel. Conclusions: While iniparib kills normal and neoplastic cells at high (>40 μmol/L) concentrations, its effects are unlikely to reflect PARP inhibition and should not be used to guide decisions about other PARP inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res; 18(6); 1655–62. ©2012 AACR.