TBD Meeting (5364-20)

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.

“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”

Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”

In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
 

A potential role

Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.

“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”

In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”

In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”

The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”

In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”

Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”

Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.

“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”

Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”

In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
 

A potential role

Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.

“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”

In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”

In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”

The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”

In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”

Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”

Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.

“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”

Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”

In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
 

A potential role

Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.

“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”

In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”

In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”

The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”

In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”

Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”

Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Novel therapies are poised to dramatically change frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and they have the potential to replace chemotherapy, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

But more work needs to be done, noted Alexander Perl, MD, MS, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. While advances have transformed AML treatment in the relapsed/refractory setting, “we’re just not seeing that substantive improvement” for newly diagnosed patients, he said. “We need to find the disease-modifying drugs that work in the relapsed/refractory setting and move those frontline. That’s where we’re going to see the transformations.”

Research suggests that low-intensity therapy holds tremendous promise, he said, “with the idea that we could make therapy much more tolerable for the vast majority of patients affected by AML, who, as we know, are older patients.”

Dr. Perl highlighted the 2020 VIALE-A study – venetoclax/azacitidine versus azacitidine/placebo – which reported that “in previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone.”

Venetoclax promotes apoptosis in leukemia cells, Dr. Perl said. “To a certain extent, you can think of it as putting the rubber to the road in terms of what actually chemotherapy is designed to do, which is to make leukemic blasts apoptose. It does so without DNA damage and with much less toxicity to the patient. Therefore it can be added to any number of regimens – granted, with mild suppression, but with relatively little extramedullary toxicity.”

Dr. Perl noted that the venetoclax arm “showed a higher response rate than azacitidine in pretty much every subgroup that was looked at, whether patients had de novo leukemia, secondary leukemia, multiple mutational complements, various different karyotypes. The response rates on this study are as high as what we often will see with intensive chemotherapy.” He added that “the winning arm on this trial seems to hold up against any low-intensity therapy, and I would argue against many high-intensity therapies in older patients.”

As for other targeted agents, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors “are very promising drugs in the relapsed/refractory setting, which is primarily where these drugs are given. In regard to frontline treatment, “data are coming from a very small study, but they’re very encouraging. It’s hard to entirely say that we’re ready to change practice based on this. But it’s very encouraging – the idea that earlier use of a drug-targeting IDH mutation might lead to substantially better outcomes.”

Moving forward, he said, “we could put all of our eggs in one basket and use many active drugs [at] front line. Or we can perhaps be smart about sequencing these drugs one after another, or using more intensive approaches followed by maintenance approaches followed by more intensive approaches.”

This approach is similar to strategies in myeloma patients “who less and less are relying on an autologous transplant for durable control of their disease, and more and more are using low-intensity biologically targeted drugs,” he said.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Perl reported numerous disclosures, including relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Astellas.

Novel therapies are poised to dramatically change frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and they have the potential to replace chemotherapy, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

But more work needs to be done, noted Alexander Perl, MD, MS, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. While advances have transformed AML treatment in the relapsed/refractory setting, “we’re just not seeing that substantive improvement” for newly diagnosed patients, he said. “We need to find the disease-modifying drugs that work in the relapsed/refractory setting and move those frontline. That’s where we’re going to see the transformations.”

Research suggests that low-intensity therapy holds tremendous promise, he said, “with the idea that we could make therapy much more tolerable for the vast majority of patients affected by AML, who, as we know, are older patients.”

Dr. Perl highlighted the 2020 VIALE-A study – venetoclax/azacitidine versus azacitidine/placebo – which reported that “in previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone.”

Venetoclax promotes apoptosis in leukemia cells, Dr. Perl said. “To a certain extent, you can think of it as putting the rubber to the road in terms of what actually chemotherapy is designed to do, which is to make leukemic blasts apoptose. It does so without DNA damage and with much less toxicity to the patient. Therefore it can be added to any number of regimens – granted, with mild suppression, but with relatively little extramedullary toxicity.”

Dr. Perl noted that the venetoclax arm “showed a higher response rate than azacitidine in pretty much every subgroup that was looked at, whether patients had de novo leukemia, secondary leukemia, multiple mutational complements, various different karyotypes. The response rates on this study are as high as what we often will see with intensive chemotherapy.” He added that “the winning arm on this trial seems to hold up against any low-intensity therapy, and I would argue against many high-intensity therapies in older patients.”

As for other targeted agents, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors “are very promising drugs in the relapsed/refractory setting, which is primarily where these drugs are given. In regard to frontline treatment, “data are coming from a very small study, but they’re very encouraging. It’s hard to entirely say that we’re ready to change practice based on this. But it’s very encouraging – the idea that earlier use of a drug-targeting IDH mutation might lead to substantially better outcomes.”

Moving forward, he said, “we could put all of our eggs in one basket and use many active drugs [at] front line. Or we can perhaps be smart about sequencing these drugs one after another, or using more intensive approaches followed by maintenance approaches followed by more intensive approaches.”

This approach is similar to strategies in myeloma patients “who less and less are relying on an autologous transplant for durable control of their disease, and more and more are using low-intensity biologically targeted drugs,” he said.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Perl reported numerous disclosures, including relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Astellas.

Novel therapies are poised to dramatically change frontline therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and they have the potential to replace chemotherapy, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

But more work needs to be done, noted Alexander Perl, MD, MS, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. While advances have transformed AML treatment in the relapsed/refractory setting, “we’re just not seeing that substantive improvement” for newly diagnosed patients, he said. “We need to find the disease-modifying drugs that work in the relapsed/refractory setting and move those frontline. That’s where we’re going to see the transformations.”

Research suggests that low-intensity therapy holds tremendous promise, he said, “with the idea that we could make therapy much more tolerable for the vast majority of patients affected by AML, who, as we know, are older patients.”

Dr. Perl highlighted the 2020 VIALE-A study – venetoclax/azacitidine versus azacitidine/placebo – which reported that “in previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone.”

Venetoclax promotes apoptosis in leukemia cells, Dr. Perl said. “To a certain extent, you can think of it as putting the rubber to the road in terms of what actually chemotherapy is designed to do, which is to make leukemic blasts apoptose. It does so without DNA damage and with much less toxicity to the patient. Therefore it can be added to any number of regimens – granted, with mild suppression, but with relatively little extramedullary toxicity.”

Dr. Perl noted that the venetoclax arm “showed a higher response rate than azacitidine in pretty much every subgroup that was looked at, whether patients had de novo leukemia, secondary leukemia, multiple mutational complements, various different karyotypes. The response rates on this study are as high as what we often will see with intensive chemotherapy.” He added that “the winning arm on this trial seems to hold up against any low-intensity therapy, and I would argue against many high-intensity therapies in older patients.”

As for other targeted agents, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors “are very promising drugs in the relapsed/refractory setting, which is primarily where these drugs are given. In regard to frontline treatment, “data are coming from a very small study, but they’re very encouraging. It’s hard to entirely say that we’re ready to change practice based on this. But it’s very encouraging – the idea that earlier use of a drug-targeting IDH mutation might lead to substantially better outcomes.”

Moving forward, he said, “we could put all of our eggs in one basket and use many active drugs [at] front line. Or we can perhaps be smart about sequencing these drugs one after another, or using more intensive approaches followed by maintenance approaches followed by more intensive approaches.”

This approach is similar to strategies in myeloma patients “who less and less are relying on an autologous transplant for durable control of their disease, and more and more are using low-intensity biologically targeted drugs,” he said.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Perl reported numerous disclosures, including relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and Astellas.

Physicians are gaining a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) in allo-hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues, and novel treatments are being tested.

However, options remain limited. There’s only one Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for cGVHD that’s failed one or more treatments, and clinical trials remain a crucial option in some cases, said Mary E.D. Flowers, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

According to Dr. Flowers, cGVHD – a product of a graft’s “immunological assault” against the person receiving a transplant – occurs in 40% of patients within a year after allo-HCT. The disorder “is associated with a poor quality of life, disability, and increased mortality after allo-transplantation,” she said. “It’s a syndrome that can be inflammatory and fibrotic. It involves several organs – the skin, the mouth, the eyes, the lungs, the GI tract.”

The median length of treatment after peripheral blood stem cell transplant is 3.5 years, Dr. Flowers said. Seven years after treatment, 10% of those who are alive – and have avoided relapse – will still need treatment. “Corticosteroids remain the first-line [treatment], at 0.5-1.0 [mg/kg], but they do not control at least 40% of the patients with cGVHD.”

In regard to pathophysiology, she highlighted a 2017 report that presented findings about the pathophysiology of cGVHD. The findings, the report authors wrote, “have yielded a raft of potential new therapeutics, centered on naive T-cell depletion, interleukin-17/21 inhibition, kinase inhibition, regulatory T-cell restoration, and CSF-1 inhibition.”

For now, no agents other than corticosteroids have shown benefit in cGVHD as initial therapy, Dr. Flowers said. In fact, several trials closed early from lack of benefit. But trials continue, she said: Results are pending for a completed phase 3 trial of ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus steroids for initial treatment of cGVHD. Nearly 500 patients were enrolled, she said. And there’s an ongoing phase 2/3 trial of itacitinib, a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor plus steroids as initial treatment.

Dr. Flowers highlighted the case of a patient with moderate cGVHD. The patient was treated with infection prophylaxis, supportive care for oral and eyes manifestations, and prednisone 0.5 mg/kg (at a lower dose because of diabetes) plus a substitution of tacrolimus with sirolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor.

Why sirolimus? At this early point in progression, she said, the patient didn’t necessarily need systemwide chemo-suppression, and calcineurin inhibitors can be “quite effective” in management of inflammation in the liver. “It would be a completely different story once the patient develops severe cGVHR.” In that case, she said, calcineurin inhibitors wouldn’t be appropriate.

The patient’s status deteriorated to severe cGVHD, and sirolimus was replaced with ibrutinib. Other drugs were added to prevent infection and treat bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome.

In general, “the goal of the treatment is get adequate control of clinical manifestations and prevent more severe disease from developing,” Dr. Flowers said.

In response to a question about polypharmacy in patient with advanced disease – “we tend not to peel those drugs off” – Dr. Flowers said she does see new patients who appear to be taking too many medications. “They are on five drugs, and I say, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

Quite often, Dr. Flowers said, she doesn’t add therapies to existing ones but instead looks for substitutes. “A clinical lesson that I feel that I learned over time is: Ask your questions first. What would you like to see in 3 months? Or 6 months? Before you just add another therapy, do you really know what the trajectory of a disease might be?”

Dr. Flowers discloses research support (Pharmacyclics, Incyte), speaker honorarium (Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas, Mallinckrodt), and consulting relationships (Pharmacyclics, CSL Behring, Fresenius Kabi).

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Physicians are gaining a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) in allo-hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues, and novel treatments are being tested.

However, options remain limited. There’s only one Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for cGVHD that’s failed one or more treatments, and clinical trials remain a crucial option in some cases, said Mary E.D. Flowers, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

According to Dr. Flowers, cGVHD – a product of a graft’s “immunological assault” against the person receiving a transplant – occurs in 40% of patients within a year after allo-HCT. The disorder “is associated with a poor quality of life, disability, and increased mortality after allo-transplantation,” she said. “It’s a syndrome that can be inflammatory and fibrotic. It involves several organs – the skin, the mouth, the eyes, the lungs, the GI tract.”

The median length of treatment after peripheral blood stem cell transplant is 3.5 years, Dr. Flowers said. Seven years after treatment, 10% of those who are alive – and have avoided relapse – will still need treatment. “Corticosteroids remain the first-line [treatment], at 0.5-1.0 [mg/kg], but they do not control at least 40% of the patients with cGVHD.”

In regard to pathophysiology, she highlighted a 2017 report that presented findings about the pathophysiology of cGVHD. The findings, the report authors wrote, “have yielded a raft of potential new therapeutics, centered on naive T-cell depletion, interleukin-17/21 inhibition, kinase inhibition, regulatory T-cell restoration, and CSF-1 inhibition.”

For now, no agents other than corticosteroids have shown benefit in cGVHD as initial therapy, Dr. Flowers said. In fact, several trials closed early from lack of benefit. But trials continue, she said: Results are pending for a completed phase 3 trial of ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus steroids for initial treatment of cGVHD. Nearly 500 patients were enrolled, she said. And there’s an ongoing phase 2/3 trial of itacitinib, a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor plus steroids as initial treatment.

Dr. Flowers highlighted the case of a patient with moderate cGVHD. The patient was treated with infection prophylaxis, supportive care for oral and eyes manifestations, and prednisone 0.5 mg/kg (at a lower dose because of diabetes) plus a substitution of tacrolimus with sirolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor.

Why sirolimus? At this early point in progression, she said, the patient didn’t necessarily need systemwide chemo-suppression, and calcineurin inhibitors can be “quite effective” in management of inflammation in the liver. “It would be a completely different story once the patient develops severe cGVHR.” In that case, she said, calcineurin inhibitors wouldn’t be appropriate.

The patient’s status deteriorated to severe cGVHD, and sirolimus was replaced with ibrutinib. Other drugs were added to prevent infection and treat bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome.

In general, “the goal of the treatment is get adequate control of clinical manifestations and prevent more severe disease from developing,” Dr. Flowers said.

In response to a question about polypharmacy in patient with advanced disease – “we tend not to peel those drugs off” – Dr. Flowers said she does see new patients who appear to be taking too many medications. “They are on five drugs, and I say, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

Quite often, Dr. Flowers said, she doesn’t add therapies to existing ones but instead looks for substitutes. “A clinical lesson that I feel that I learned over time is: Ask your questions first. What would you like to see in 3 months? Or 6 months? Before you just add another therapy, do you really know what the trajectory of a disease might be?”

Dr. Flowers discloses research support (Pharmacyclics, Incyte), speaker honorarium (Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas, Mallinckrodt), and consulting relationships (Pharmacyclics, CSL Behring, Fresenius Kabi).

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Physicians are gaining a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) in allo-hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues, and novel treatments are being tested.

However, options remain limited. There’s only one Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for cGVHD that’s failed one or more treatments, and clinical trials remain a crucial option in some cases, said Mary E.D. Flowers, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

According to Dr. Flowers, cGVHD – a product of a graft’s “immunological assault” against the person receiving a transplant – occurs in 40% of patients within a year after allo-HCT. The disorder “is associated with a poor quality of life, disability, and increased mortality after allo-transplantation,” she said. “It’s a syndrome that can be inflammatory and fibrotic. It involves several organs – the skin, the mouth, the eyes, the lungs, the GI tract.”

The median length of treatment after peripheral blood stem cell transplant is 3.5 years, Dr. Flowers said. Seven years after treatment, 10% of those who are alive – and have avoided relapse – will still need treatment. “Corticosteroids remain the first-line [treatment], at 0.5-1.0 [mg/kg], but they do not control at least 40% of the patients with cGVHD.”

In regard to pathophysiology, she highlighted a 2017 report that presented findings about the pathophysiology of cGVHD. The findings, the report authors wrote, “have yielded a raft of potential new therapeutics, centered on naive T-cell depletion, interleukin-17/21 inhibition, kinase inhibition, regulatory T-cell restoration, and CSF-1 inhibition.”

For now, no agents other than corticosteroids have shown benefit in cGVHD as initial therapy, Dr. Flowers said. In fact, several trials closed early from lack of benefit. But trials continue, she said: Results are pending for a completed phase 3 trial of ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus steroids for initial treatment of cGVHD. Nearly 500 patients were enrolled, she said. And there’s an ongoing phase 2/3 trial of itacitinib, a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor plus steroids as initial treatment.

Dr. Flowers highlighted the case of a patient with moderate cGVHD. The patient was treated with infection prophylaxis, supportive care for oral and eyes manifestations, and prednisone 0.5 mg/kg (at a lower dose because of diabetes) plus a substitution of tacrolimus with sirolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor.

Why sirolimus? At this early point in progression, she said, the patient didn’t necessarily need systemwide chemo-suppression, and calcineurin inhibitors can be “quite effective” in management of inflammation in the liver. “It would be a completely different story once the patient develops severe cGVHR.” In that case, she said, calcineurin inhibitors wouldn’t be appropriate.

The patient’s status deteriorated to severe cGVHD, and sirolimus was replaced with ibrutinib. Other drugs were added to prevent infection and treat bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome.

In general, “the goal of the treatment is get adequate control of clinical manifestations and prevent more severe disease from developing,” Dr. Flowers said.

In response to a question about polypharmacy in patient with advanced disease – “we tend not to peel those drugs off” – Dr. Flowers said she does see new patients who appear to be taking too many medications. “They are on five drugs, and I say, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

Quite often, Dr. Flowers said, she doesn’t add therapies to existing ones but instead looks for substitutes. “A clinical lesson that I feel that I learned over time is: Ask your questions first. What would you like to see in 3 months? Or 6 months? Before you just add another therapy, do you really know what the trajectory of a disease might be?”

Dr. Flowers discloses research support (Pharmacyclics, Incyte), speaker honorarium (Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas, Mallinckrodt), and consulting relationships (Pharmacyclics, CSL Behring, Fresenius Kabi).

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Despite a variety of options, patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) continue to face poor prognoses, and a standard of care remains elusive, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues.

“Clearly we have a problem with this group of patients,” Ehab Atallah, MD, professor of medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. In regard to treatments, he added, “we still have multiple unanswered questions.”

As Dr. Atallah noted, a 2018 study of 3,012 patients – in 9 successive ECOG‐ACRIN trials for newly diagnosed AML from 1984-2008 – showed poor outcomes for relapsed/refractory patients. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, 59.1% reached first complete remission (CR1), and 58.9% of those relapsed. In the relapsed patients, the median overall survival from relapse was 0.5 years, and the overall survival (OS) over 5 years was 10%.

“Even among patients who relapsed with better prognostic factors – age < 40 and CR1 > 12 months – there was no significant OS difference between the studies,” the study noted. “In conclusion, this large cohort appears to confirm that the survival of AML patients post relapse continues to be dismal and has not improved during the past quarter of a century.”

There isn’t a clear standard of care, said Dr. Atallah, as shown by a 2014 phase 3 study of elacytarabine vs. investigator choice in relapsed/refractory AML patients. The investigators chose seven treatment options for the control arm.

So how can physicians make the best decisions about treatment? A 2018 report finds that some factors do offer guidance about how well relapsed patients will do, Dr. Atallah said, including worse prognoses for higher age (>50 years), time to relapse (< 1 year), number of cycles of treatment needed to achieve remission (more than 1), and unfavorable cytogenetics. And, he said, “practically no one is cured when their leukemia relapses without stem cell transplantation.”

Also keep comorbidities in mind, he said, and consider previous therapies – not just the ones implemented prior to their induction but from all treatments they received: “How much anthracycline did they get? Do they still have room to receive any more anthracycline? Do they have any pulmonary complications from GVHD [graft versus host disease]?”

Another tool may be helpful. A 2013 study found that geriatric assessment predicted survival for older adults with AML who took induction chemotherapy, he said. “I’m pretty sure that this geriatric assessment would also have significant prognostic information for patients with relapsed refractory AML.”

Molecular changes add to the complexity of treatment for relapsed/refractory AML, Dr. Atallah said, in light of new molecularly targeted drugs. He pointed to a 2019 study that showed a slight increase in median overall survival (9.3 months vs. 5.6 months) for gilteritinib vs. salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory patients with FLT3-mutated AML. Other studies have shown limited effects of ID1 inhibitors, he said.

In the big picture, “there are many patient-, disease-, and prior-therapy-related variables that are involved in our decisions plus donor availability, social support, whether they have a transplant before, what kind of treatment they got before the functional assessment, and comorbidities. Even with the current choices for relapsed/refractory AML, the overall survival remains poor. Enrollment in clinical trials would be the best option for these patients.”

Dr. Atallah disclosed ties with Jazz, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, and Novartis.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

SOURCE: “Why Is There No Standard of Care for Relapsed AML?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

Despite a variety of options, patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) continue to face poor prognoses, and a standard of care remains elusive, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues.

“Clearly we have a problem with this group of patients,” Ehab Atallah, MD, professor of medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. In regard to treatments, he added, “we still have multiple unanswered questions.”

As Dr. Atallah noted, a 2018 study of 3,012 patients – in 9 successive ECOG‐ACRIN trials for newly diagnosed AML from 1984-2008 – showed poor outcomes for relapsed/refractory patients. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, 59.1% reached first complete remission (CR1), and 58.9% of those relapsed. In the relapsed patients, the median overall survival from relapse was 0.5 years, and the overall survival (OS) over 5 years was 10%.

“Even among patients who relapsed with better prognostic factors – age < 40 and CR1 > 12 months – there was no significant OS difference between the studies,” the study noted. “In conclusion, this large cohort appears to confirm that the survival of AML patients post relapse continues to be dismal and has not improved during the past quarter of a century.”

There isn’t a clear standard of care, said Dr. Atallah, as shown by a 2014 phase 3 study of elacytarabine vs. investigator choice in relapsed/refractory AML patients. The investigators chose seven treatment options for the control arm.

So how can physicians make the best decisions about treatment? A 2018 report finds that some factors do offer guidance about how well relapsed patients will do, Dr. Atallah said, including worse prognoses for higher age (>50 years), time to relapse (< 1 year), number of cycles of treatment needed to achieve remission (more than 1), and unfavorable cytogenetics. And, he said, “practically no one is cured when their leukemia relapses without stem cell transplantation.”

Also keep comorbidities in mind, he said, and consider previous therapies – not just the ones implemented prior to their induction but from all treatments they received: “How much anthracycline did they get? Do they still have room to receive any more anthracycline? Do they have any pulmonary complications from GVHD [graft versus host disease]?”

Another tool may be helpful. A 2013 study found that geriatric assessment predicted survival for older adults with AML who took induction chemotherapy, he said. “I’m pretty sure that this geriatric assessment would also have significant prognostic information for patients with relapsed refractory AML.”

Molecular changes add to the complexity of treatment for relapsed/refractory AML, Dr. Atallah said, in light of new molecularly targeted drugs. He pointed to a 2019 study that showed a slight increase in median overall survival (9.3 months vs. 5.6 months) for gilteritinib vs. salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory patients with FLT3-mutated AML. Other studies have shown limited effects of ID1 inhibitors, he said.

In the big picture, “there are many patient-, disease-, and prior-therapy-related variables that are involved in our decisions plus donor availability, social support, whether they have a transplant before, what kind of treatment they got before the functional assessment, and comorbidities. Even with the current choices for relapsed/refractory AML, the overall survival remains poor. Enrollment in clinical trials would be the best option for these patients.”

Dr. Atallah disclosed ties with Jazz, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, and Novartis.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

SOURCE: “Why Is There No Standard of Care for Relapsed AML?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

Despite a variety of options, patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) continue to face poor prognoses, and a standard of care remains elusive, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues.

“Clearly we have a problem with this group of patients,” Ehab Atallah, MD, professor of medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. In regard to treatments, he added, “we still have multiple unanswered questions.”

As Dr. Atallah noted, a 2018 study of 3,012 patients – in 9 successive ECOG‐ACRIN trials for newly diagnosed AML from 1984-2008 – showed poor outcomes for relapsed/refractory patients. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, 59.1% reached first complete remission (CR1), and 58.9% of those relapsed. In the relapsed patients, the median overall survival from relapse was 0.5 years, and the overall survival (OS) over 5 years was 10%.

“Even among patients who relapsed with better prognostic factors – age < 40 and CR1 > 12 months – there was no significant OS difference between the studies,” the study noted. “In conclusion, this large cohort appears to confirm that the survival of AML patients post relapse continues to be dismal and has not improved during the past quarter of a century.”

There isn’t a clear standard of care, said Dr. Atallah, as shown by a 2014 phase 3 study of elacytarabine vs. investigator choice in relapsed/refractory AML patients. The investigators chose seven treatment options for the control arm.

So how can physicians make the best decisions about treatment? A 2018 report finds that some factors do offer guidance about how well relapsed patients will do, Dr. Atallah said, including worse prognoses for higher age (>50 years), time to relapse (< 1 year), number of cycles of treatment needed to achieve remission (more than 1), and unfavorable cytogenetics. And, he said, “practically no one is cured when their leukemia relapses without stem cell transplantation.”

Also keep comorbidities in mind, he said, and consider previous therapies – not just the ones implemented prior to their induction but from all treatments they received: “How much anthracycline did they get? Do they still have room to receive any more anthracycline? Do they have any pulmonary complications from GVHD [graft versus host disease]?”

Another tool may be helpful. A 2013 study found that geriatric assessment predicted survival for older adults with AML who took induction chemotherapy, he said. “I’m pretty sure that this geriatric assessment would also have significant prognostic information for patients with relapsed refractory AML.”

Molecular changes add to the complexity of treatment for relapsed/refractory AML, Dr. Atallah said, in light of new molecularly targeted drugs. He pointed to a 2019 study that showed a slight increase in median overall survival (9.3 months vs. 5.6 months) for gilteritinib vs. salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory patients with FLT3-mutated AML. Other studies have shown limited effects of ID1 inhibitors, he said.

In the big picture, “there are many patient-, disease-, and prior-therapy-related variables that are involved in our decisions plus donor availability, social support, whether they have a transplant before, what kind of treatment they got before the functional assessment, and comorbidities. Even with the current choices for relapsed/refractory AML, the overall survival remains poor. Enrollment in clinical trials would be the best option for these patients.”

Dr. Atallah disclosed ties with Jazz, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, and Novartis.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

SOURCE: “Why Is There No Standard of Care for Relapsed AML?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

How old is too old for a patient to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)? That’s the wrong question to ask, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. Instead, he said, look at other factors such as disease status and genetics.

“Transplantation for older patients, even beyond the age of 70, is acceptable, as long as it’s done with caution, care, and wisdom. So we’re all not too old for transplantation, at least not today,” said Daniel Weisdorf, MD, professor of medicine and deputy director of the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

As he noted, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is often fatal. Among the general population, “the expected survival life expectancy at age 75 is 98% at 1 year, and most people living at 75 go on to live more than 10 years,” he said. “But if you have AML, at age 75, you have 20% survival at 1 year, 4% at 3 years. And since the median age of AML diagnosis is 68, and 75% of patients are diagnosed beyond the age of 55, this becomes relevant.”

Risk factors that affect survival after transplantation “certainly include age, but that interacts directly with the comorbidities people accumulate with age, their assessments of frailty, and their Karnofsky performance status, as well as the disease phenotype and molecular genetic markers,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “Perhaps most importantly, though not addressed very much, is patients’ willingness to undertake intensive therapy and their life outlook related to patient-reported outcomes when they get older.”

Despite the lack of indications that higher age by itself is an influential factor in survival after transplant, “we are generally reluctant to push the age of eligibility,” Dr. Weisdorf said. He noted that recently published American Society of Hematology guidelines for treatment of AML over the age of 55 “don’t discuss anything about transplantation fitness because they didn’t want to tackle that.”

Overall survival (OS) at 1 year after allogenic transplants only dipped slightly from ages 51-60 to 71 and above, according to Dr. Weisdorf’s analysis of U.S. data collected by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research for the time period 2005-2019.

OS was 67.6% (66.8%-68.3%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 9,287) and 57.9% (56.1%-59.8%) for the 71 and older group, Dr. Weisdorf found. Overall, OS dropped by about 4 percentage points per decade of age, he said, revealing a “modest influence” of advancing years.

His analysis of autologous transplant data from the same source, also for 2005-2019, revealed “essentially no age influence.” OS was 90.8% (90.3%-91.2%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 15,075) and 86.6% (85.9%-87.3%) for the 71 and older group (n = 7,247).

Dr. Weisdorf also highlighted unpublished research that suggests that cord-blood transplant recipients older than 70 face a significantly higher risk of death than that of younger patients in the same category. Cord blood “may be option of last resort” because of a lack of other options, he explained. “And it may be part of the learning curve of cord blood transplantation, which grew a little bit in the early 2000s, and maybe past 2010, and then fell off as everybody got enamored with the haploidentical transplant option.”

How can physicians make decisions about transplants in older patients? “The transplant comorbidity index, the specific comorbidities themselves, performance score, and frailty are all measures of somebody’s fitness to be a good candidate for transplant, really at any age,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “But we also have to recognize that disease status, genetics, and the risk phenotype remain critical and should influence decision making.”

However, even as transplant survival improves overall, “very few people are incorporating any very specific biological markers” in decision-making, he said. “We’ve gotten to measures of frailty, but we haven’t gotten to any biologic measures of cytokines or other things that would predict poor chances for doing well. So I’m afraid we’re still standing at the foot of the bed saying: ‘You look okay.’ Or we’re measuring their comorbidity index. But it is disappointing that we’re using mostly very simple clinical measures to decide if somebody is sturdy enough to proceed, and we perhaps need something better. But I don’t have a great suggestion what it should be.”

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Weisdorf disclosed consulting fees from Fate Therapeutics and Incyte Corp.

SOURCE: “The Ever-Increasing Upper Age for Transplant: Is This Evidence-Based?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

How old is too old for a patient to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)? That’s the wrong question to ask, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. Instead, he said, look at other factors such as disease status and genetics.

“Transplantation for older patients, even beyond the age of 70, is acceptable, as long as it’s done with caution, care, and wisdom. So we’re all not too old for transplantation, at least not today,” said Daniel Weisdorf, MD, professor of medicine and deputy director of the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

As he noted, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is often fatal. Among the general population, “the expected survival life expectancy at age 75 is 98% at 1 year, and most people living at 75 go on to live more than 10 years,” he said. “But if you have AML, at age 75, you have 20% survival at 1 year, 4% at 3 years. And since the median age of AML diagnosis is 68, and 75% of patients are diagnosed beyond the age of 55, this becomes relevant.”

Risk factors that affect survival after transplantation “certainly include age, but that interacts directly with the comorbidities people accumulate with age, their assessments of frailty, and their Karnofsky performance status, as well as the disease phenotype and molecular genetic markers,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “Perhaps most importantly, though not addressed very much, is patients’ willingness to undertake intensive therapy and their life outlook related to patient-reported outcomes when they get older.”

Despite the lack of indications that higher age by itself is an influential factor in survival after transplant, “we are generally reluctant to push the age of eligibility,” Dr. Weisdorf said. He noted that recently published American Society of Hematology guidelines for treatment of AML over the age of 55 “don’t discuss anything about transplantation fitness because they didn’t want to tackle that.”

Overall survival (OS) at 1 year after allogenic transplants only dipped slightly from ages 51-60 to 71 and above, according to Dr. Weisdorf’s analysis of U.S. data collected by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research for the time period 2005-2019.

OS was 67.6% (66.8%-68.3%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 9,287) and 57.9% (56.1%-59.8%) for the 71 and older group, Dr. Weisdorf found. Overall, OS dropped by about 4 percentage points per decade of age, he said, revealing a “modest influence” of advancing years.

His analysis of autologous transplant data from the same source, also for 2005-2019, revealed “essentially no age influence.” OS was 90.8% (90.3%-91.2%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 15,075) and 86.6% (85.9%-87.3%) for the 71 and older group (n = 7,247).

Dr. Weisdorf also highlighted unpublished research that suggests that cord-blood transplant recipients older than 70 face a significantly higher risk of death than that of younger patients in the same category. Cord blood “may be option of last resort” because of a lack of other options, he explained. “And it may be part of the learning curve of cord blood transplantation, which grew a little bit in the early 2000s, and maybe past 2010, and then fell off as everybody got enamored with the haploidentical transplant option.”

How can physicians make decisions about transplants in older patients? “The transplant comorbidity index, the specific comorbidities themselves, performance score, and frailty are all measures of somebody’s fitness to be a good candidate for transplant, really at any age,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “But we also have to recognize that disease status, genetics, and the risk phenotype remain critical and should influence decision making.”

However, even as transplant survival improves overall, “very few people are incorporating any very specific biological markers” in decision-making, he said. “We’ve gotten to measures of frailty, but we haven’t gotten to any biologic measures of cytokines or other things that would predict poor chances for doing well. So I’m afraid we’re still standing at the foot of the bed saying: ‘You look okay.’ Or we’re measuring their comorbidity index. But it is disappointing that we’re using mostly very simple clinical measures to decide if somebody is sturdy enough to proceed, and we perhaps need something better. But I don’t have a great suggestion what it should be.”

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Weisdorf disclosed consulting fees from Fate Therapeutics and Incyte Corp.

SOURCE: “The Ever-Increasing Upper Age for Transplant: Is This Evidence-Based?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.

How old is too old for a patient to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)? That’s the wrong question to ask, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. Instead, he said, look at other factors such as disease status and genetics.

“Transplantation for older patients, even beyond the age of 70, is acceptable, as long as it’s done with caution, care, and wisdom. So we’re all not too old for transplantation, at least not today,” said Daniel Weisdorf, MD, professor of medicine and deputy director of the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

As he noted, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is often fatal. Among the general population, “the expected survival life expectancy at age 75 is 98% at 1 year, and most people living at 75 go on to live more than 10 years,” he said. “But if you have AML, at age 75, you have 20% survival at 1 year, 4% at 3 years. And since the median age of AML diagnosis is 68, and 75% of patients are diagnosed beyond the age of 55, this becomes relevant.”

Risk factors that affect survival after transplantation “certainly include age, but that interacts directly with the comorbidities people accumulate with age, their assessments of frailty, and their Karnofsky performance status, as well as the disease phenotype and molecular genetic markers,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “Perhaps most importantly, though not addressed very much, is patients’ willingness to undertake intensive therapy and their life outlook related to patient-reported outcomes when they get older.”

Despite the lack of indications that higher age by itself is an influential factor in survival after transplant, “we are generally reluctant to push the age of eligibility,” Dr. Weisdorf said. He noted that recently published American Society of Hematology guidelines for treatment of AML over the age of 55 “don’t discuss anything about transplantation fitness because they didn’t want to tackle that.”

Overall survival (OS) at 1 year after allogenic transplants only dipped slightly from ages 51-60 to 71 and above, according to Dr. Weisdorf’s analysis of U.S. data collected by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research for the time period 2005-2019.

OS was 67.6% (66.8%-68.3%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 9,287) and 57.9% (56.1%-59.8%) for the 71 and older group, Dr. Weisdorf found. Overall, OS dropped by about 4 percentage points per decade of age, he said, revealing a “modest influence” of advancing years.

His analysis of autologous transplant data from the same source, also for 2005-2019, revealed “essentially no age influence.” OS was 90.8% (90.3%-91.2%) for the 41-50 age group (n = 15,075) and 86.6% (85.9%-87.3%) for the 71 and older group (n = 7,247).

Dr. Weisdorf also highlighted unpublished research that suggests that cord-blood transplant recipients older than 70 face a significantly higher risk of death than that of younger patients in the same category. Cord blood “may be option of last resort” because of a lack of other options, he explained. “And it may be part of the learning curve of cord blood transplantation, which grew a little bit in the early 2000s, and maybe past 2010, and then fell off as everybody got enamored with the haploidentical transplant option.”

How can physicians make decisions about transplants in older patients? “The transplant comorbidity index, the specific comorbidities themselves, performance score, and frailty are all measures of somebody’s fitness to be a good candidate for transplant, really at any age,” Dr. Weisdorf said. “But we also have to recognize that disease status, genetics, and the risk phenotype remain critical and should influence decision making.”

However, even as transplant survival improves overall, “very few people are incorporating any very specific biological markers” in decision-making, he said. “We’ve gotten to measures of frailty, but we haven’t gotten to any biologic measures of cytokines or other things that would predict poor chances for doing well. So I’m afraid we’re still standing at the foot of the bed saying: ‘You look okay.’ Or we’re measuring their comorbidity index. But it is disappointing that we’re using mostly very simple clinical measures to decide if somebody is sturdy enough to proceed, and we perhaps need something better. But I don’t have a great suggestion what it should be.”

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Dr. Weisdorf disclosed consulting fees from Fate Therapeutics and Incyte Corp.

SOURCE: “The Ever-Increasing Upper Age for Transplant: Is This Evidence-Based?” Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus, Oct. 15, 2020.