Search

Early results of the randomized placebo-controlled SORAML trial showed that, in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), sorafenib led to a significant improvement in event-free (EFS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). In order to describe second-line treatments and their implications on overall survival (OS), we performed a study after a median follow-up time of 78 months. Newly diagnosed fit AML patients aged ≤60 years received sorafenib (n = 134) or placebo (n = 133) in addition to standard chemotherapy and as maintenance treatment. The 5-year EFS was 41 versus 27% (HR 0.68; p = 0.011) and 5-year RFS was 53 versus 36% (HR 0.64; p = 0.035). Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo SCT) was performed in 88% of the relapsed patients. Four years after salvage allo SCT, the cumulative incidence of relapse was 54 versus 35%, and OS was 32 versus 50%. The 5-year OS from randomization in all study patients was 61 versus 53% (HR 0.82; p = 0.282). In conclusion, the addition of sorafenib to chemotherapy led to a significant prolongation of EFS and RFS. Although the OS benefit did not reach statistical significance, these results confirm the antileukaemic activity of sorafenib.

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is characterized by a high relapse rate, indicating insufficient clearance of leukemia-initiating cells. Depending on genetic risk stratification, consolidating chemotherapy proves to significantly reduce the risk of relapse. In particular, in younger AML patients higher dosage of cytarabine appears to improve long-term outcome, while there is no apparent benefit of multiagent combination, compared to cytarabine monotherapy. However, to this end the optimal dosage of single agent cytarabine in consolidation therapy after 7+3 remission induction remains elusive. Methods: Here, we retrospectively assessed the impact of different dosages of cytarabine consolidation on outcome in a large real-world data set from the German Study Alliance Leukemia-Acute Myeloid Leukemia (SAL-AML) registry. Patients below 65 years of age, registered between April 2005 and September 2020 with non-acute promyelocytic leukemia, who attained complete remission after intensive induction and received at least one consolidation cycle with intermediate (IDAC) or high dose cytarabine (HiDAC) were selected. To account for differences in patient and disease characteristics between both groups, the average treatment effect was estimated by propensity score weighting. Results: 642 patients received HiDAC consolidation with a median dosage of 5794.88 (IQR, 4745.48-5971.56) mg/m 2/d with a median number of 3 cycles (IQR, 2-3), whereas 178 patients received IDAC consolidation with 1946.16 (IQR, 1869.51-2469.15) mg/m 2/d with a median of 2 cycles (IQR, 1-3). IDAC-treated patients showed in average a higher age (median (IQR) 58.5 (49-62) years vs. 50 (41-56) years) and more comorbidities with 43.8% having an HCT-CI score of 2-4, compared to 22.3% among HiDAC-treated patients. Alongside, significantly more secondary (5.1% vs. 3.1%) and therapy-related (12.4% vs. 4.1%) AML as well as more adverse (14.5% vs. 6.5%) and less favorable (40.6% vs. 56%) genetic risk features according to ELN 2017 risk classification were found among IDAC-treated patients. After propensity score weighting for differences in patient and disease characteristics, overall survival after 5 years was comparable between HiDAC-treated (71.1 %) and IDAC-treated (67.7%) patients. Moreover, no significant differences in relapse-free survival were observed after 5 years (47.4 vs. 45.2%). Notably, more patients treated with IDAC received allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first remission (37.6 vs. 19.8%) while significantly more HiDAC-treated patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation in relapse (30.8 vs. 20.2%). Censoring for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first remission revealed no significant survival difference with regard to cytarabine dosage. Considering only ELN favorable risk AML patients, there was no difference in 5-years overall (80.5% vs. 83.9%) nor relapse-free (57.7% vs. 56.8%) survival. Of note, significantly more patients treated with HiDAC suffered from ≥3 CTCAE infectious complications (56.7 vs. 44.1%), which was more striking in patients above 50 years of age. The rate of other ≥3 CTCAE non-hematological toxicities and secondary malignancies was comparable in both treatment groups. Conclusion: This retrospective analysis suggests no significant benefit of high dose cytarabine compared to intermediate dosages in consolidation for AML patients under 65 years of age, independent of ELN risk group. Disclosures Krause: Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; art-tempi: Honoraria; Kosmas: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel support; Abbvie: Other: travel support. Schliemann: Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Haenel: Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Brummendorf: Takepart Media: Honoraria; Repeat Diagnostics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers: Research Funding. Fransecky: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Einsele: Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Held: MSD: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Acortech Biopharma: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Platzbecker: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Baldus: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Mueller-Tidow: Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background The combination of intermediate-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone (IMA) can induce high complete remission rates with acceptable toxicity in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We present the final results of a randomized-controlled trial comparing IMA with the standard 7 + 3 induction regimen consisting of continuous infusion cytarabine plus daunorubicin (DA). Patients and methods Patients with newly diagnosed AML >60 years were randomized to receive either intermediate-dose cytarabine (1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1, 3, 5, 7) plus mitoxantrone (10 mg/m2 days 1–3) (IMA) or standard induction therapy with cytarabine (100 mg/m2 continuously days 1–7) plus daunorubicin (45 mg/m2 days 3–5) (DA). Patients in complete remission after DA received intermediate-dose cytarabine plus amsacrine as consolidation treatment, whereas patients after IMA were consolidated with standard-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone. Results Between February 2005 and October 2009, 485 patients were randomized; 241 for treatment arm DA and 244 for IMA; 76% of patients were >65 years. The complete response rate after DA was 39% [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 33–45] versus 55% (95% CI: 49–61) after IMA (odds ratio 1.89, P = 0.001). The 6-week early-death rate was 14% in both arms. Relapse-free survival curves were superimposable in the first year, but separated afterwards, resulting in 3-year relapse-free survival rates of 29% versus 14% in the DA versus IMA arms, respectively (P = 0.042). The median overall survival was 10 months in both arms (P = 0.513). Conclusion The dose escalation of cytarabine in induction therapy lead to improved remission rates in the elderly AML patients. This did not translate into a survival advantage, most likely due to differences in consolidation treatment. Thus, effective consolidation strategies need to be further explored. In combination with an effective consolidation strategy, the use of intermediate-dose cytarabine in induction may improve curative treatment for elderly AML patients.

Evolution of NPM1 -negative therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes following curative treatment of NPM1 -mutant AML

Background: The addition of sorafenib to standard induction and consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed patients (pts) ≤60 years (yrs) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) led to significant prolongation of event-free survival (EFS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) in the randomized placebo-controlled SORAML trial (NCT00893373). After a median follow-up of 3 yrs, a benefit for sorafenib treated pts was observed also in overall survival (OS), but this difference was not significant. Here, we present updated survival data and information on relapse treatment and outcome. Methods: In the SORAML trial, 267 newly diagnosed untreated fit AML pts up to 60 yrs of age and irrespective of FLT3 mutation status received two cycles of induction chemotherapy with DA (daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 days 3-5 plus cytarabine 100 mg/m2 cont. inf. days 1-7), followed by three cycles of high-dose cytarabine consolidation (3 g/m2 b.i.d. days 1, 3, 5). Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) was scheduled for all intermediate-risk pts in first complete remission (CR) with a sibling donor and for all high-risk pts with a matched related or unrelated donor. At study inclusion, pts were randomized to receive either sorafenib (2x400 mg/day) or placebo as add-on to standard treatment in a double blinded fashion. Study medication was given on days 10-19 of DA I+II, from day 8 of each consolidation until 3 days before the start of the next consolidation and as maintenance for 12 months (mos) after the end of consolidation. The primary endpoint of the trial was EFS. The results after follow-up of 3 yrs were presented at ASH 2014 (Röllig et al., Blood 2014; 124: 6) and fully published (Röllig et al., Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 1691-9). Here, we present the results after prolonged follow-up. For this analysis, information on remission and survival status, mode and outcome of relapse treatment including SCT were collected for all randomized pts and analyzed by standard statistical methods. Results: Of 267 treated pts, 134 were randomized in the sorafenib arm and 133 in the placebo arm with a resulting CR rate of 60% and 59%, respectively. After a median observation time of 78 mos, the primary study endpoint EFS in the placebo vs sorafenib arm was 9 mos vs 26 mos (HR 0.68, p=0.01) in univariate Kaplan Meier analysis. The beneficial effect of sorafenib on EFS was confirmed in multivariate Cox regression analysis with a HR of 0.61 (p=0.005). Median RFS in the placebo vs sorafenib arms was 22 vs 63 mos, corresponding to a HR of 0.64 (p=0.033). Exploratory analyses were performed in the 70 relapsing pts (40 after placebo vs 30 after sorafenib treatment). Among relapsing pts, 82% vs 73% achieved a second CR. In these two groups, 88% and 87% of pts received a SCT as part of salvage treatment. A lower proportion of pts in the placebo arm received a second SCT as salvage treatment (5% vs 13%). In the context of salvage SCT, the proportion of haploident donors in the placebo and sorafenib group was 3% vs 15% and the incidence of Grade 3/4 GVDH was 17% vs 0%. SCT-related non-relapse mortality (NRM) was similar in both groups, but the cumulative incidence of second relapse (CIR) was higher in the sorafenib group (35% vs 54% after 48 mos). Therefore, median OS from relapse in the placebo vs sorafenib groups were 27 mos vs 10 mos, corresponding to a HR of 1.68 (p=0.098). The projected median OS from randomization is 83 mos in the placebo arm and was not reached for the sorafenib arm, corresponding to a 5-year OS of 52% vs 61% (HR 0.81, p=0.263). Conclusion: Mature follow-up data confirms the antileukemic efficacy of sorafenib in younger AML pts with and without FLT3 mutation. The addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy resulted in a significantly longer EFS and clinically relevant 36% risk reduction for relapse or death. Five pts need to be treated (NNT) to prevent one relapse or death at 3 years and six pts at 5 yrs. Exploratory analyses in relapsing pts show that survival after relapse is shorter after sorafenib which might be due to i) a higher rate of second SCTs and a higher incidence of haploidentical SCT despite the lower frequency of severe GVHD, most likely by chance and not explainable by systematic reasons and ii) a lower response to salvage treatment after sorafenib therapy. Despite these observations, primary sorafenib treatment led to an OS benefit with a 19% risk reduction for death which was not statistically significant since this phase II trial was not adequately powered to detect OS differences. Figure Figure. Disclosures Rollig: Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hüttmann: Gilead, Amgen: Other: Travel cost; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Celgene, Roche: Honoraria. Giagounidis: Acceleron: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Mackensen: AMGEN: Research Funding. Hänel: Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Thiede: Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agendix: Employment. Schetelig: Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Summary Background Preclinical data and results from non-randomised trials suggest that the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib might be an effective drug for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib versus placebo in addition to standard chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia aged 60 years or younger. Methods This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was done at 25 sites in Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18–60 years with newly diagnosed, previously untreated acute myeloid leukaemia who had a WHO clinical performance score 0–2, adequate renal and liver function, no cardiac comorbidities, and no recent trauma or operation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two cycles of induction therapy with daunorubicin (60 mg/m 2 on days 3–5) plus cytarabine (100 mg/m 2 on days 1–7), followed by three cycles of high-dose cytarabine consolidation therapy (3 g/m 2 twice daily on days 1, 3, and 5) plus either sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo on days 10–19 of induction cycles 1 and 2, from day 8 of each consolidation, and as maintenance for 12 months. Allogeneic stem-cell transplantation was scheduled for all intermediate-risk patients with a sibling donor and for all high-risk patients with a matched donor in first remission. Computer-generated randomisation was done in blocks. The primary endpoint was event-free survival, with an event defined as either primary treatment failure or relapse or death, assessed in all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. We report the final analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00893373, and the EU Clinical Trials Register (2008-004968-40). Findings Between March 27, 2009, and Nov 28, 2011, 276 patients were enrolled and randomised, of whom nine did not receive study medication. 267 patients were included in the primary analysis (placebo, n=133; sorafenib, n=134). With a median follow-up of 36 months (IQR 35·5–38·1), median event-free survival was 9 months (95% CI 4–15) in the placebo group versus 21 months (9–32) in the sorafenib group, corresponding to a 3-year event-free survival of 22% (95% CI 13–32) in the placebo group versus 40% (29–51) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 95% CI; 0·45–0·91; p=0·013). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in both groups were fever (71 [53%] in the placebo group vs 73 [54%] in the sorafenib group), infections (55 [41%] vs 46 [34%]), pneumonia (21 [16%] vs 20 [14%]), and pain (13 [10%] vs 15 [11%]). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were significantly more common in the sorafenib group than the placebo group were fever (relative risk [RR] 1·54, 95% CI 1·04–2·28), diarrhoea (RR 7·89, 2·94–25·2), bleeding (RR 3·75, 1·5–10·0), cardiac events (RR 3·46, 1·15–11·8), hand-foot-skin reaction (only in sorafenib group), and rash (RR 4·06, 1·25–15·7). Interpretation In patients with acute myeloid leukaemia aged 60 years or younger, the addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy has antileukaemic efficacy but also increased toxicity. Our findings suggest that kinase inhibitors could be a useful addition to curative treatment for acute myeloid leukaemia. Overall survival after long-term follow-up and strategies to reduce toxicity are needed to determine the future role of sorafenib in treatment of this disease. Funding Bayer HealthCare.

Background: We recently showed that the combination of ATRA and arsenic trioxide (ATO) is at least not inferior and possibly superior to standard ATRA and chemotherapy (CHT) in the front-line management of low/intermediate risk APL (Italian-German APL 0406 trial; Lo-Coco et al., NEJM 2013). We report herein on the extended and final series of 276 patients (162 were in the previous report) with the last case being enrolled into the study in January 2013. Methods: The APL0406 study was a prospective, open-label, randomized intergroup trial conducted by the Italian GIMEMA and the German SAL and AMLSG study groups. Eligible patients were adults aged 18- Results: A total of 254 patients were evaluable for response to induction. CR was achieved in 122/122 (100%) in the ATRA-ATO versus 128/132 (97%) in the ATRA-CHT arm (P=0.12). Four patients died during induction in the ATRA-CHT arm. After a median follow-up of 36 months (range 1-75 months), the 2-year EFS was 98% and 84.9% in the ATRA-ATO and ATRA-CHT groups respectively (P= 0.0002), The 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) rate was 1.1% and 9.4%, respectively (P=0.005) and, finally, the 2-year overall survival (OS) rate was 99.1% vs. 94.4% (P=0.01) for ATRA-ATO vs ATRA-CHT, respectively. Conclusions: The data on this extended cohort demonstrate a significantly augmented survival benefit coupled to a higher antileukemic efficacy provided by ATRA-ATO as compared to ATRA-CHT, in low/intermediate risk APL. These results further support ATRA-ATO as the new standard of care in this clinical setting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Platzbecker: Teva: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Presentation includes off-label use of arsenic trioxide (ATO) in front-line management of APL. ATO is currently approved in treatment of relapsed APL in the US and Europe. Breccia:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Fiedler:TEVA: Travel reimbursement for meeting attendance Other. Lübbert:Cephalon / TEVA: Travel support Other. Link:TEVA: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Radsak:Celgene: Research Funding. Döhner:TEVA: Research Funding. Schlenk:TEVA: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Lo-Coco:TEVA: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria.

Background: Most patients (pts) diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) are older than 60 years. Although intensive induction chemotherapy in medically fit pts is still the standard practice and a prerequisite for long-term survival, elderly pts have a higher risk of treatment related morbidity and lower remission rates than younger AML pts. An optimized induction treatment would combine high complete remission (CR) rates with tolerable toxicity. The combination of intermediate-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone (IMA) has been reported to result in high CR rates (73.5%) with acceptable toxicity in 86 elderly AML pts (Niederwieser et al., Blood 2002, abstr. 1337). We present the mature final results of a randomized-controlled trial comparing efficacy and tolerability of IMA with the standard 7+3 induction regimen consisting of daunorubicin plus cytarabine (DA). Patients and Methods: In the 60+ trial of the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL), AML pts >60 years and medically fit for chemotherapy were randomized to receive either intermediate-dose cytarabine (1000 mg/m2 BID days 1,3,5,7) plus mitoxantrone (10 mg/m2 days 1-3) (IMA) or standard induction therapy with cytarabine (100 mg/m2 continuously days 1-7) plus daunorubicin (45 mg/m2 days 3-5) (DA). All pts in CR after DA received intermediate-dose cytarabine plus amsacrine (MAMAC) as consolidation treatment, whereas pts in CR after IMA were consolidated with standard-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone (2+5). Primary study endpoint was the CR rate with an expected difference of 15% in favor of IMA. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), time to relapse (TTR), relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Between February 2005 and October 2009, 852 pts were screened for study inclusion and 485 pts started study treatment, of which 241 pts were randomized for treatment arm A (DA) and 244 for treatment arm B (IMA). The median age was 69 years. Pt characteristics were equally distributed between the two arms. According to a strict definition, all patients with early death, study drop-out, or failed remission assessment were categorized as being not in CR. The CR rate amongst all 485 pts treated in the study was 47%. The CR rate after DA was 39% (95%-CI; 33-45) versus 55% (95%-CI; 49-61) after IMA (OR 1.89, p=0.001). If all first CRs were taken into account including those achieved after trial discontinuation, the CR rates after DA versus IMA induction were 55% versus 64% (p=0.043). Separate analyses addressing age, cytogenetics, de novo AML, NPM1 and FLT3-ITD confirmed higher CR rates after IMA induction throughout these subgroups. Six-week mortality was 14% in both arms. The median duration of ≥ grade 3 neutropenia was 23 days after DA I and 25 days after IMA (p=0.031). The median duration of thrombocytopenia ≥ grade 3 was 16 versus 20 days after DA I and IMA I, respectively (p In the course of treatment, 11 pts in each arm (5%) received allogeneic stem cell transplantation. After a median follow-up of 66 months, RFS curves are superimposable in the first year with a similar median RFS of 11 months and 10 months after DA and IMA, respectively. However, a separation of RFS curves developed with longer follow up, resulting in 1-year RFS rates of 45% versus 46%, but 3-year RFS rates of 29% versus 14% in the DA versus IMA arms, respectively (p=0.042). The median OS for all randomized pts was 10 months in both arms; 1-year and 3-year OS rates were 45% and 19% after DA versus 44% and 19% after IMA (p=0.513). Conclusion: The results indicate that elderly AML pts benefit from a dose escalation of cytarabine in induction therapy by significantly higher CR rates and similar toxicity compared to a standard 7+3 approach. In our trial, this did not translate into a survival advantage, most likely due to differences in consolidation treatment of the respective treatment arms. In combination with an effective consolidation strategy such as high-dose cytarabine or allogeneic transplantation, our current results favor the use of intermediate dose cytarabine in induction for pts with a curative AML treatment approach. Figure 1. CR rates depending on induction treatment Figure 1. CR rates depending on induction treatment Disclosures Einsele: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Thiede:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AgenDix GmBH: Equity Ownership. Platzbecker:Amgen, Inc.: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Ehninger:Cellex GmbH: Equity Ownership.