Search

Abstract: The effect of prior inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) treatment on brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) outcomes remains unclear in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We conducted a retrospective multicenter analysis of 189 patients with relapsed/refractory ALL treated with brexu-cel. Over half of the patients received InO before brexu-cel (InO exposed). InO-exposed patients were more heavily pretreated (P = .02) and frequently had active marrow disease before apheresis (P = .03). Response rate and toxicity profile after brexu-cel were comparable for InO-exposed and InO-naïve patients; however, consolidation therapy after brexu-cel response was used at a higher rate in InO-naïve patients (P = .005). With a median follow-up of 11.4 months, InO-exposed patients had inferior progression-free survival (PFS; P = .013) and overall survival (OS; P = .006) in univariate analyses; however, prior InO exposure did not influence PFS (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-2.03) in multivariate models. Within InO-exposed patients, InO responders had superior PFS (P = .002) and OS (P < .0001) relative to InO-refractory patients. The timing of administering InO did not affect brexu-cel outcomes, with comparable PFS (P = .51) and OS (P = .86) for patients receiving InO as bridging therapy or before apheresis. In conclusion, although InO exposure was associated with inferior survival outcomes after brexu-cel in unadjusted analyses, these associations were no longer significant in multivariate analyses, suggesting it is unlikely that InO negatively affects brexu-cel efficacy. Our data instead imply that InO-exposed recipients of brexu-cel tend to be higher-risk patients with intrinsic adverse leukemia biology., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

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.)

Purpose: We assessed the relationship between cluster of differentiation-22 (CD22) expression and outcomes of inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard of care (SC) in INO-VATE (NCT01564784)., Patients and Methods: Adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor CD22-positive (by local or central laboratory) acute lymphoblastic leukemia were randomized to inotuzumab ozogamicin ( n = 164) or SC ( n = 162). Outcomes were analyzed by baseline CD22 positivity (percentage of leukemic blasts CD22 positive, ≥90% vs. <90%) and CD22 receptor density [molecules of equivalent soluble fluorochrome (MESF), quartile analysis]., Results: Most patients had high (≥90%) CD22 positivity per central laboratory. The response rate was significantly higher with inotuzumab ozogamicin versus SC. Minimal/measurable residual disease negativity, duration of remission (DoR), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were significantly better with inotuzumab ozogamicin versus SC in patients with CD22 positivity ≥90%. Fewer patients had CD22 positivity <90%; for whom, response rates were higher with inotuzumab ozogamicin versus SC, but DoR and OS appeared similar. Similar trends were evident in quartile analyses of CD22 MESF and CD22 positivity per local laboratory. Among inotuzumab ozogamicin-responding patients with subsequent relapse, decrease in CD22 positivity and receptor density was evident, but not the emergence of CD22 negativity. Rates of grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs) were similar and hepatobiliary AEs rate was higher for inotuzumab ozogamicin versus SC. No apparent relationship was observed between the rates of hematologic and hepatic AEs and CD22 expression., Conclusions: Inotuzumab ozogamicin demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus SC in patients with higher and lower CD22 expression. Patients with high CD22 expression and normal cytogenetics benefited the most from inotuzumab ozogamicin therapy., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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.)

Background: Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options., Methods: The 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., Results: In 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%)., Conclusion: Given 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., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) have a poor prognosis, especially if disease burden is high. This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 INO-VATE trial examined the efficacy and safety of inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) vs. standard of care chemotherapy (SC) among R/R ALL patients with low, moderate, or high disease burden, respectively, defined as bone marrow blasts (BMB) < 50% (n = 53 vs. 48), 50-90% (n = 79 vs. 83), and >90% (n = 30 vs. 30). Patients in the InO vs. SC arm with low, moderate, and high BMB%, respectively, had improved rates of complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (74% vs. 46% [p = 0.0022], 75 vs. 27% [p < 0.0001], and 70 vs. 17% [p < 0.0001]), and improved overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.64 [p = 0.0260], 0.81 [p = 0.1109], and 0.60 [p = 0.0335]). Irrespective of BMB%, cytopenias were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, and post-transplant veno-occlusive disease was more common with InO vs. SC. Patients with extramedullary disease or lymphoblastic lymphoma showed similar efficacy and safety outcomes. This favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of InO treatment irrespective of disease burden supports its use in challenging and high disease burden subpopulations. INO-VATE is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov : #NCT01564784.

Attaining complete remission of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) correlates with better post-transplant outcomes. Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), an anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, has shown significantly higher rates of remission, minimal residual disease negativity, and HSCT versus standard chemotherapy in treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) ALL. We investigated the role of previous transplant and proceeding directly to HSCT after remission as factors in determining post-transplant survival in the setting of InO treatment for R/R ALL. The analyzed population comprised InO-treated patients who proceeded to allogeneic HSCT in 2 clinical trials (phase 1/2: NCT01363297 and phase 3: NCT01564784). Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from HSCT to death (any cause). Of 236 InO-treated patients, 101 (43%) proceeded to allogeneic HSCT and were included in this analysis. Most received InO as first salvage (62%); 85% had no previous HSCT. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) post-transplant OS was 9.2 months (5.1, not evaluable) with 2-year survival probability (95% CI) of 41% (32% to 51%). In first-HSCT patients (n = 86), median (95% CI) post-transplant OS was 11.8 months (5.9, not evaluable) with 2-year survival probability (95% CI) of 46% (35% to 56%); some patients relapsed and needed additional treatment before HSCT (n = 28). Those who went directly to first HSCT upon remission with no additional salvage/induction treatment (n = 73) fared best: median post-transplant OS was not reached with a 2-year survival probability (95% CI) of 51% (39% to 62%). In patients with R/R ALL, InO followed by allogeneic HSCT provided an optimal long-term survival benefit among those with no previous HSCT who went directly to transplant after remission., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inotuzumab 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., Methods: Between 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)., Results: The 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 < .0001), with consistent CR/CRi rates across patient subgroups. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.7 months with InO and 6.2 months with SoC, with 2-year OS rates of 22.8% and 10.0%, respectively (overall hazard ratio, 0.75; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.99; 1-sided P = .0105). The predictors of OS with InO were the best minimal residual disease status, baseline platelet count, duration of first remission, achievement of CR/CRi, and follow-up hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT; all 2-sided P values < .05). More InO arm patients proceeded directly to HSCT after achieving CR/CRi before any follow-up induction therapy (39.6% [95% CI, 32.1%-47.6%] vs 10.5% [6.2%-16.3%]; 1-sided P < .0001). The most frequent all-grade and grade 3 or higher adverse events in both arms were hematologic. Veno-occlusive disease (VOD)/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) was more frequent with InO (23 of 164 [14.0%] vs 3 of 143 [2.1%])., Conclusions: In patients with relapsed/refractory BCP ALL in INO-VATE, InO was associated with a greater likelihood of CR/CRi across key patient subgroups, and it served as a bridge to HSCT. Potential VOD/SOS risk factors must be considered when InO treatment decisions are being made., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Karyotype is frequently used to predict response and outcome in leukemia. This post hoc exploratory analysis evaluated the relationship between baseline cytogenetics and outcome in patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), a humanized CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, in the phase 3, open-label, randomized INO-VATE trial. Data as of March 8, 2016, are presented in this analysis. Of the 326 patients randomized, 284 had screening karyotyping data (144 in the InO arm and 140 in the standard care [SC] arm). With InO, complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), minimal residual disease negativity rates, and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between cytogenetic subgroups. CR/CRi rates favored InO over SC in the diploid with ≥20 metaphases, complex, and "other" cytogenetic subgroups. The OS hazard ratio favored InO over SC in the diploid with ≥20 metaphases, complex, and other cytogenetic subgroups. Generally, InO is effective and provides substantial clinical benefit in patients with R/R ALL who have specific baseline karyotypes., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

BackgroundThe prognosis for adults with relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia is poor. We sought to determine whether inotuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, results in better outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia than does standard therapy.MethodsIn this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia to receive either inotuzumab ozogamicin (inotuzumab ozogamicin group) or standard intensive chemotherapy (standard-therapy group). The primary end points were complete remission (including complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery) and overall survival.ResultsOf the 326 patients who underwent randomization, the first 218 (109 in each group) were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of complete remission. The rate of complete remission was significantly higher in the inotuzumab ozogamicin group than in the standard-therapy group (80.7% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 72.1 to 87.7] vs. 29.4% [95% CI, 21.0 to 38.8], P

Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in patients aged 18 to 78 years with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in the INO-VATE trial. This subset analysis compared the efficacy and safety of InO in younger and older patients.Methods: Intent-to-treat analyses of morphologic responses and overall survival (OS) included 326 randomized patients, and safety assessments included 307 patients receiving 1 or more doses of the study treatment. Of the 326 patients, 164 received InO at a starting dose of 1.8 mg/m2 /cycle (0.8 mg/m2 on day 1 and 0.5 mg/m2 on days 8 and 15 of a 21- to 28-day cycle [≤6 cycles]); 60 patients were aged ≥55 years, and 104 were aged <55 years.Results: For older and younger patients, the median duration of InO therapy and the types and frequencies of adverse events of any grade were generally similar. Although the remission rates, median duration of remission (DOR), and progression-free survival were similar with InO for those aged <55 years and those aged ≥55 years, OS was longer for younger patients (median, 8.6 vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.610). Among patients proceeding to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after InO treatment (28% of older patients and 58% of younger patients), the incidence of veno-occlusive disease was greater in older patients (41% vs 17%). The study database was not locked at the time of this analysis.Conclusions: InO was tolerable in older patients with relapsed/refractory ALL. Although OS was longer for younger patients versus older patients, InO demonstrated high response rates with similar DOR in the 2 age groups. Cancer 2018;124:1722-32. © 2018 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy alone cures only 25-45% of adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), making novel treatment agents and strategies desperately needed. The addition of monoclonal antibodies (rituximab, alemtuzumab, epratzumab) to chemotherapy has demonstrated encouraging results in patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed ALL. The anti-CD22 immunoconjugate, inotuzumab ozogamicin, and the anti-CD19 BiTE® antibody, blinatumomab, have demonstrated impressive single agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory B-ALL. Early reports of chimeric antigen receptor therapies have been promising in patients with relapsed ALL. Other agents targeting NOTCH1, FLT3, the proteasome and DNA methylation are early in development. These new agents hope to improve the outcome of ALL therapy with less toxicity. The challenge going forward will be to find safe and effective combinations and determine where in the treatment schema these agents will be most effective in ALL therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]