Search

BackgroundPatients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options.MethodsThe efficacy of inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), a humanized anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic antibiotic calicheamicin, was evaluated in R/R ALL patients in the phase 1/2 study 1010 (NCT01363297) and open-label, randomized, phase 3 study 1022 (INO-VATE; NCT01564784). This analysis focused specifically on Ph+ R/R ALL patients. In study 1022, Ph+ patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to InO (n = 22) or standard intensive chemotherapy (SC) (n = 27) and 16 Ph+ patients in study 1010 received InO.ResultsIn study 1022, rates of complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi) and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (patients achieving CR/CRi) were higher with InO (CR/CRi = 73%; MRD = 81%) versus SC (CR/CRi = 56%; MRD = 33%). The corresponding rates in study 1010 were 56% (CR/CRi) and 100% (MRD). The hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) rate in study 1022 was 41% versus 19% for InO versus SC; however, there was no benefit in overall survival (median OS: 8.7 vs 8.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.64-2.14]). The probability of being event-free (progression-free survival) at 12 months was greater with InO versus SC (20.1% vs 4.8%).ConclusionGiven the substantial improvement in responses and rates of HSCT, InO is an important treatment option for patients with R/R Ph+ ALL. Future studies need to consider better characterization of disease characteristics, more sensitive MRD measurements, MRD-directed therapy before HSCT, and potentially combination therapies, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

BackgroundInotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an antibody-drug conjugate used for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor (BCP) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The INotuzumab Ozogamicin trial to inVestigAte Tolerability and Efficacy (INO-VATE) previously reported improved outcomes with InO versus standard-of-care (SoC) chemotherapy. This article reports the final INO-VATE results (≥2 years of follow-up) and additional analyses of patient characteristics associated with improved outcomes.MethodsBetween August 27, 2012, and January 4, 2015, this multicenter, parallel, open-label, phase 3 trial randomized 326 adults with relapsed/refractory ALL to InO (n = 164) or SoC (n = 162); 307 received 1 or more doses of the study drug (164 in the InO arm and 143 in the SoC arm).ResultsThe complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rate was higher with InO versus SoC (73.8% vs 30.9%; 1-sided P

Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an antibody-drug conjugate approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Several clinical trials are investigating InO in combination with low-intensity chemotherapy or other anti-ALL-targeted therapies in the salvage and frontline settings, notably in older adults who often cannot tolerate intensive chemotherapy and tend to have higher-risk disease. InO is also increasingly used to bridge patients to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), in sequence with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, to eliminate measurable residual disease and to prevent post-HSCT relapse. Veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome is a potential complication of InO treatment, particularly when followed by HSCT. Herein, the authors review the historical development and current status of InO, strategies for mitigating the risk of InO-related veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, and future directions for InO research and clinical use., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: The 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., Methods: In 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., Results: Among 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)., Conclusions: Although 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., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)