Search

Abstract: The European LeukemiaNet (ELN) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) genetic risk classification systems are based on response to intensive chemotherapy; their ability to discriminate outcomes in older patients treated with venetoclax-azacitidine may be suboptimal. This pooled analysis of the phase 3 VIALE-A trial (NCT02993523) and phase 1b study (NCT02203773) examined prognostic stratification according to the 2017 and 2022 ELN risk classifications and derived new molecular signatures differentiating venetoclax-azacitidine-treated patients based on overall survival (OS). Overall, 279 patients treated with venetoclax-azacitidine and 113 patients treated with placebo-azacitidine were analyzed. The ELN 2017 or 2022 prognostic criteria classified most patients as adverse-risk AML (60.2% and 72.8% for venetoclax-azacitidine and 65.5% and 75.2% for placebo-azacitidine, respectively). Although outcomes with venetoclax-azacitidine improved across all ELN risk groups compared with placebo-azacitidine, ELN classification systems poorly discriminated venetoclax-azacitidine outcomes. By applying a bioinformatic algorithm, new molecular signatures were derived differentiating OS outcomes with venetoclax-azacitidine. The mutational status of TP53, FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD), NRAS, and KRAS categorized patients into higher-, intermediate-, and lower-benefit groups (52%, 25%, and 23% of patients, respectively), each associated with a distinct median OS (26.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 20.2-32.7]; 12.1 months [95% CI, 7.3-15.2]; and 5.5 months [95% CI, 2.8-7.6], respectively). ELN prognostic classifiers did not provide clinically meaningful risk stratification of OS outcomes in patients treated with venetoclax-azacitidine. TP53, FLT3-ITD, NRAS, and KRAS mutation status allows the classification of these patients into 3 risk groups with distinct differences in median OS. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02993523 and #NCT02203773., (© 2024 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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.)

Venetoclax, a highly selective BCL-2 inhibitor, combined with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine or decitabine, is approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND AML) in patients who are ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy. Previous clinical studies initiated venetoclax plus HMA in an inpatient setting owing to concerns of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). This study (NCT03941964) evaluated the efficacy and safety of venetoclax plus HMA in a United States community-based outpatient setting in patients with ND AML (N = 60) who were treatment naïve for AML, ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapy, had no evidence of spontaneous TLS at screening, and were deemed as appropriate candidates for outpatient initiation of venetoclax plus HMA by the investigator. Patients received venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (75 mg/m 2 ) or decitabine (20 mg/m 2 ) for up to 6 cycles during the study. With a median time on study of 18.3 weeks, the best response rate of composite complete remission was 66.7%, and the overall post-baseline red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusion independence rate was 55.0%, consistent with results of studies in which treatment was initiated in an inpatient setting. Key adverse events included nausea, anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and white blood cell count decrease of any grade (≥50% of patients). The observed safety profile was generally consistent with that of venetoclax plus HMA observed in inpatient AML studies. With close monitoring, 2 cases of TLS were identified, appropriately managed, and the patients were able to continue study treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The registration identification number is NCT03941964., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Venetoclax-azacitidine is approved for treatment of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy based on the interim overall survival (OS) analysis of the VIALE-A study (NCT02993523). Here, long-term follow-up is presented to address survival benefit and long-term outcomes with venetoclax-azacitidine. Patients with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive venetoclax-azacitidine or placebo-azacitidine. OS was the primary endpoint; complete remission with/without blood count recovery (CR/CRi) was a key secondary endpoint. This final analysis was conducted when 100% of the predefined 360 OS events occurred. In VIALE-A, 431 patients were enrolled to venetoclax-azacitidine (n = 286) or placebo-azacitidine (n = 145). At 43.2 months median follow-up, median OS was 14.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.1-18.7) with venetoclax-azacitidine, and 9.6 months (95% CI, 7.4-12.7) with placebo-azacitidine (hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.47-0.72], p < .001); the estimated 24-month OS rate was 37.5% and 16.9%, respectively. Median OS for patients with IDH1/2 mutations and those with measurable residual disease responses was reached in this final analysis. CR/CRi rate was similar to interim analysis. Any-grade hematologic and gastrointestinal adverse events were most common in venetoclax-azacitidine and placebo-azacitidine arms, including thrombocytopenia (47% and 42%) and neutropenia (43% and 29%). No new safety signals were identified. Long-term efficacy and safety confirm venetoclax-azacitidine is an improvement in standard-of-care for patients with AML who are not eligible for intensive chemotherapy because of advanced age or comorbidities., (© 2024 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) have a dismal median overall survival (OS) after failing hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment. There is no standard of care for patients after HMA therapy failure; hence, there is a critical need for effective therapeutic strategies. Herein, we present the safety and efficacy of venetoclax + azacitidine in patients with R/R MDS. This phase 1b, open-label, multicenter study enrolled patients ≥18 years. Patients were treated with escalating doses of oral venetoclax: 100, 200, or 400 mg daily for 14 days every 28-day cycle. Azacitidine was administered on Days 1-7 every cycle at 75 mg/m 2 /day intravenously/subcutaneously. Responses were assessed per modified 2006 International Working Group (IWG) criteria. Forty-four patients (male 86%, median age 74 years) received venetoclax + azacitidine treatment. Median follow-up was 21.2 months. Hematological adverse events of Grade ≥ 3 included febrile neutropenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (32%), neutropenia (27%), and anemia (18%). Pneumonia (23%) was the most common Grade ≥ 3 infection. Marrow responses were seen including complete remission (CR, n = 3, 7%) and marrow CR (mCR, n = 14, 32%); 36% (16/44) achieved transfusion independence (TI) for RBCs and/or platelets, and 43% (6/14) with mCR achieved hematological improvement (HI). The median time to CR/mCR was 1.2 months, and the median duration of response for CR + mCR was 8.6 months. Median OS was 12.6 months. Venetoclax + azacitidine shows activity in patients with R/R MDS following prior HMA therapy failure and provides clinically meaningful benefits, including HI and TI, and encouraging OS., (© 2022 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: To evaluate efficacy and safety of venetoclax + azacitidine in treatment-naïve patients with acute myeloid leukemia harboring poor-risk cytogenetics and TP53mut or TP53wt., Patients and Methods: We analyzed data from a phase III study (NCT02993523) comparing venetoclax (400 mg orally days 1-28) + azacitidine (75 mg/m2 days 1-7) or placebo + azacitidine, and from a phase Ib study (NCT02203773) of venetoclax + azacitidine. Patients were ineligible for intensive therapy. TP53 status was analyzed centrally; cytogenetic studies were performed locally., Results: Patients (n = 127) with poor-risk cytogenetics receiving venetoclax + azacitidine (TP53wt = 50; TP53mut = 54) were compared with patients with poor-risk cytogenetics (n = 56) receiving azacitidine alone (TP53wt = 22; TP53mut = 18).For poor-risk cytogenetics + TP53wt patients, venetoclax + azacitidine versus azacitidine alone resulted in composite remission rates (CRc) of 70% versus 23%, median duration of remission (DoR) of 18.4 versus 8.5 months, and median overall survival (OS) of 23.4 versus 11.3 months, respectively. Outcomes with venetoclax + azacitidine were comparable with similarly treated patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics and TP53wt.For poor-risk cytogenetics + TP53mut patients, venetoclax + azacitidine versus azacitidine alone resulted in CRc of 41% versus 17%, median DoR of 6.5 versus 6.7 months, and median OS of 5.2 versus 4.9 months, respectively.For poor-risk cytogenetics + TP53mut patients, predominant grade ≥3 adverse events (AE) for venetoclax + azacitidine versus azacitidine were febrile neutropenia (55%/39%), thrombocytopenia (28%/28%), neutropenia (26%/17%), anemia (13%/6%), and pneumonia (28%/33%). AEs were comparable between TP53mut and TP53wt patients., Conclusions: In poor-risk cytogenetics + TP53mut patients, venetoclax + azacitidine improved remission rates but not DoR or OS compared with azacitidine alone. However, in poor-risk cytogenetics + TP53wt patients, venetoclax + azacitidine resulted in higher remission rates and longer DoR and OS than azacitidine alone, with outcomes comparable with similarly treated patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics. Toxicities were similar in TP53mut and TP53wt patients. See related commentary by Green and Zeidner, p. 5235., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: To evaluate efficacy and safety of venetoclax + azacitidine among treatment-naïve patients with IDH1/2-mutant (mut) acute myeloid leukemia (AML)., Patients and Methods: Data were pooled from patients enrolled in a phase III study (NCT02993523) that compared patients treated with venetoclax + azacitidine or placebo + azacitidine and a prior phase Ib study (NCT02203773) where patients were treated with venetoclax + azacitidine. Enrolled patients were ineligible for intensive therapy due to age ≥75 years and/or comorbidities. Patients on venetoclax + azacitidine received venetoclax 400 mg orally (days 1-28) and azacitidine (75 mg/m2; days 1-7/28-day cycle)., Results: In the biomarker-evaluable population, IDH1/2mut was detected in 81 (26%) and 28 (22%) patients in the venetoclax + azacitidine and azacitidine groups. Composite complete remission [CRc, complete remission (CR)+CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi)] rates (venetoclax + azacitidine/azacitidine) among patients with IDH1/2mut were 79%/11%, median duration of remission (mDoR) was 29.5/9.5 months, and median overall survival (mOS) was 24.5/6.2 months. CRc rates among patients with IDH1/2 wild-type (WT) were 63%/31%, mDoR 17.5/10.3 months, and mOS 12.3/10.1 months. In patients with IDH1mut, CRc rates (venetoclax + azacitidine/azacitidine) were 66.7%/9.1% and mOS 15.2/2.2 months. In patients with IDH2mut, CRc rates were 86.0%/11.1% and mOS not reached (NR)/13.0 months. Patients with IDH1/2 WT AML treated with venetoclax + azacitidine with poor-risk cytogenetics had inferior outcomes compared with patients with IDH1/2mut, who had superior outcomes regardless of cytogenetic risk (mOS, IDH1/2mut: intermediate-risk, 24.5 months; poor-risk, NR; IDH1/2 WT: intermediate, 19.2 and poor, 7.4 months). There were no unexpected toxicities in the venetoclax + azacitidine group., Conclusions: Patients with IDH1/2mut who received venetoclax + azacitidine had high response rates, durable remissions, and significant OS; cytogenetic risk did not mitigate the favorable outcomes seen from this regimen for IDH1/2mut. See related commentary by Perl and Vyas, p. 2719., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: To evaluate efficacy and safety of venetoclax + azacitidine among treatment-naïve patients with FLT3-mutant acute myeloid leukemia., Patients and Methods: Data were pooled from patients enrolled in a phase III study (NCT02993523) that compared patients treated with venetoclax + azacitidine or placebo + azacitidine and a prior phase Ib study (NCT02203773) where patients were treated with venetoclax + azacitidine. Enrolled patients were ineligible for intensive therapy due to age ≥75 years and/or comorbidities. Patients on venetoclax + azacitidine received venetoclax 400 mg orally (days 1-28) and azacitidine (75 mg/m2; days 1-7/28-day cycle). FLT3 mutation was analyzed centrally on pretreatment bone marrow aspirates., Results: In the biomarker evaluable population, FLT3 mutation was detected in 42 (15%) and 22 (19%) patients in the venetoclax + azacitidine and azacitidine groups. Composite complete remission [CRc; complete remission (CR) + CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi)] rates (venetoclax + azacitidine/azacitidine) for FLT3-mutant patients were 67%/36%, median duration of remission (DoR) was 17.3/5.0 months, and median OS was 12.5/8.6 months. The CRc rates among FLT3 wild-type patients were 67%/25%, median DoR 18.4/13.4 months, and median OS 14.7/10.1 months. In patients treated with venetoclax + azacitidine, CRc in patients with FLT3-ITD and FLT3-TKD was 63% and 77% and median OS was 9.9 and 19.2 months, and in comutated FLT3-ITD + NPM1 patients, CRc was 70%, median DoR was not reached, and median OS was 9.1 months. There were no unexpected toxicities in the venetoclax + azacitidine group., Conclusions: When treated with venetoclax + azacitidine, patients with FLT3 mutations and FLT3 wild-type had similar outcomes. Future analyses in larger patient populations may further define the impact of venetoclax + azacitidine in patients harboring FLT3-ITD. See related commentary by Perl and Vyas, p. 2719., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Primary analyses of cohort 1a of the REFINE trial showed that addition of navitoclax to ruxolitinib induced a 35% or greater reduction in spleen volume (SVR 35 ) and reduced symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis no longer benefiting from ruxolitinib. Here, we report the exploratory post-hoc biomarker analyses from cohort 1a., Methods: REFINE is a phase 2, multicentre, open-label trial designed to assess the activity and safety of navitoclax alone or in combination with ruxolitinib in patients with primary or secondary (post-polycythaemia vera or post-essential thrombocythaemia) myelofibrosis. Cohort 1a of the study included patients who had disease progression or suboptimal response on stable ruxolitinib monotherapy. Patients in cohort 1a, who had previously received ruxolitinib for 12 weeks or more, continued their current stable dose, and navitoclax was orally administered at 50 mg per day and escalated weekly to a maximum of 300 mg per day, based on tolerability. The primary activity endpoint was SVR 35 at week 24 from baseline. Secondary endpoints were a 50% or greater reduction in total symptom score (TSS 50 ) at week 24 from baseline as measured by the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (version 4.0), anaemia response assessed according to International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and European LeukemiaNet criteria, and change in grade of bone marrow fibrosis according to the European consensus grading system; and exploratory endpoints included overall survival and changes in inflammatory cytokines. Exploratory analyses investigated potential prognostic biomarkers of the benefit of navitoclax-based combination treatment, including bone marrow fibrosis and variant allele frequency, in patients with a suboptimal response to ruxolitinib. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03222609) and is ongoing., Findings: Between Nov 14, 2017, and April 10, 2019, 34 patients in cohort 1a received at least one dose of navitoclax plus ruxolitinib. 23 (68%) patients were male, with 32 (94%) being White. At data cutoff (May 6, 2021), the median follow-up for survivors was 26·2 months (IQR 21·9-32·3). 33 patients were evaluable for biomarker analyses; 19 (58%) had high molecular risk mutations. Five (31%) of 16 patients had SVR 35 at week 24 in the high molecular risk group, as did four (31%) of 13 in the non-high molecular risk group. Four (36%) of 11 patients in the high molecular risk group had TSS 50 at week 24 compared with two (25%) of eight in the non-high molecular risk group; seven (39%) of 18 in the high molecular risk group had an improvement in fibrosis by at least one grade compared with five (36%) of 14 in the non-high molecular risk group; and four (28%) of 14 had reductions in variant allele frequency of 20% or greater in the high molecular risk group compared with two (17%) of 12 in the non-high molecular risk group. Patients with improvements in fibrosis of one grade or more and a reduction of 20% of more in variant allele frequency had improved overall survival (median overall survival not reached) compared with those who did not achieve fibrosis improvement or a reduction in variant allele frequency (median overall survival 28·5 months [95% CI 19·6-not estimable] for both), suggesting potential disease modification. Additionally, changes in concentrations of β-2-microglobulin (week 12: r=0·57; week 24: r=0·57), TIMP metallopeptidase inhibitor 1 (week 12: r=0·47; week 24: r=0·54), TNF receptor type II (r=0·55; week 24: r=0·40), and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (r=0·58; week 24: r=0·50) were positively associated with changes in spleen volume., Interpretation: These biomarker analyses reveal clinically meaningful splenic responses independent of high molecular risk mutation status in patients treated with navitoclax plus ruxolitinib who were not benefiting from ruxolitinib monotherapy. Furthermore, the overall survival benefit observed in those with an improvement in fibrosis or a reduction in variant allele frequency is suggestive of disease modification, implying the therapeutic potential of adding navitoclax to ruxolitinib for patients with myelofibrosis who had disease progression or suboptimal response to ruxolitinib monotherapy., Funding: AbbVie., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NP reports a consulting or advisory role with Celgene, Stemline, Incyte, Novartis, Mustang Bio, Roche Diagnostics, and LFB; honoraria from Celgene, Stemline, Incyte, Novartis, Mustang Bio, Roche Diagnostics, and LFB; grants and funding from Affymetrix and Sager Strong Foundation; and board memberships (non-compensated) from Dan's House of Hope (board of directors) and HemOnc Times/Oncology Times (board member, editor-in-chief). JSG serves on the advisory board and steering committee for AbbVie and Astellas; and receives institutional funds from AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Prelude. JP, JGH, YS, PJ, and QQQ are AbbVie employee and might hold stock or options. SKT reports research funding from Karyopharm Therapeutics; and advisory board and consultancy roles with Karyopharm Therapeutics and Novartis. SV reports consulting and advisory roles with Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Novartis, Pragmatist, and Sierra; and research funding from Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, CTI BioPharma Corp, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Novartis, NS Pharma, Promedior, and Roche. CH reports speakers’ bureau fees from AbbVie, Celgene, CTI BioPharma Corp, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, and Shire; research funding (institutional) from Celgene, Constellation, and Novartis; and honoraria from AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, CTI BioPharma Corp, Galecto, Gilead Sciences, Keros, Novartis, Promedior, Roche, Shire, and Sierra Oncology., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Targeting the BCL-X L pathway has demonstrated the ability to overcome Janus kinase inhibitor resistance in preclinical models. This phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of adding BCL-X L /BCL-2 inhibitor navitoclax to ruxolitinib therapy in patients with myelofibrosis with progression or suboptimal response to ruxolitinib monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03222609)., Methods: Thirty-four adult patients with intermediate-/high-risk myelofibrosis who had progression or suboptimal response on stable ruxolitinib dose (≥ 10 mg twice daily) were administered navitoclax at 50 mg once daily starting dose, followed by escalation to a maximum of 300 mg once daily in once in weekly increments (if platelets were ≥ 75 × 10 9 /L). The primary end point was ≥ 35% spleen volume reduction (SVR 35 ) from baseline at week 24. Secondary end points included ≥ 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS 50 ) from baseline at week 24, hemoglobin improvement, change in bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) grade, and safety., Results: High molecular risk mutations were identified in 58% of patients, and 52% harbored ≥ 3 mutations. SVR 35 was achieved by 26.5% of patients at week 24, and by 41%, at any time on study, with an estimated median duration of SVR 35 of 13.8 months. TSS 50 was achieved by 30% (6 of 20) of patients at week 24, and BMF improved by 1-2 grades in 33% (11 of 33) of evaluable patients. Anemia response was achieved by 64% (7 of 11), including one patient with baseline transfusion dependence. Median overall survival was not reached with a median follow-up of 21.6 months. The most common adverse event was reversible thrombocytopenia without clinically significant bleeding (88%)., Conclusion: The addition of navitoclax to ruxolitinib in patients with persistent or progressive myelofibrosis resulted in durable SVR 35 , improved TSS, hemoglobin response, and BMF. Further investigation is underway to qualify the potential for disease modification., Competing Interests: Claire N. HarrisonHonoraria: Celgene, Novartis, CTI BioPharma Corp, Roche/Genentech, Geron, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, BMSi, Constellation PharmaceuticalsConsulting or Advisory Role: Promedior, Celgene, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Galectin Therapeutics, Sierra OncologySpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, CTI BioPharma Corp, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Celgene, Janssen OncologyResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Constellation Pharmaceuticals (Inst) Jacqueline S. GarciaConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Takeda, Astellas PharmaResearch Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Prelude Therapeutics (Inst) Tim C.P. SomervailleHonoraria: Novartis, Celgene/Bristol Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: NovartisResearch Funding: Imago Biosciences, Cellcentric James M. ForanConsulting or Advisory Role: SERVIER, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Stemline Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Certara Inc, Novartis, Pfizer, Revolution Medicines, Revolution MedicinesResearch Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Actinium Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Aprea Therapeutics (Inst), Aptose Biosciences (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), H3 Biomedicine (Inst), Kura Oncology (Inst), Sellas Life Sciences (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Trillium Therapeutics (Inst), Xencor (Inst) Srdan VerstovsekConsulting or Advisory Role: Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Sierra Oncology, Incyte, Novartis, CelgeneResearch Funding: Incyte (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Protagonist Therapeutics (Inst), Sierra Oncology (Inst), PharmaEssentia (Inst), Telios (Inst), Constellation Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Geron (Inst), Galecto Biotech (Inst), Kartos Therapeutics (Inst) Catriona JamiesonStock and Other Ownership Interests: Aspera Biomedicines, IncPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent Royalties—Methods for Manipulating Phagocytosis Mediated by CD47, Patent #US20090191202A1 Ruben MesaHonoraria: Novartis, shire, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Sierra Oncology, AbbVie, Geron, BMSConsulting or Advisory Role: Baxalta, Galena Biopharma, Incyte, NovartisResearch Funding: Incyte (Inst), Genentech (Inst), CTI (Inst), Promedior (Inst), NS Pharma (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), PharmaEssentia (Inst), Celgene (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Imago Pharma (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Incyte, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, PharmaEssentia Ellen K. RitchieConsulting or Advisory Role: Incyte, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers SquibbSpeakers' Bureau: Celgene, IncyteResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Jazz Pharmaceuticals (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Srinivas K. TantravahiHonoraria: Novartis, Karyopharm TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Karyopharm Therapeutics, NovartisResearch Funding: Karyopharm Therapeutics Pankit VachhaniConsulting or Advisory Role: Blueprint Medicines, Incyte, AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, CTI BioPharma Corp, Novartis, Amgen, PfizerSpeakers' Bureau: IncyteResearch Funding: Seattle Genetics (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Blueprint Medicines (Inst), Kartos Therapeutics (Inst), Gilead/Forty Seven (Inst), Constellation Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), CTI BioPharma Corp (Inst), Takeda (Inst) Casey L. O'ConnellResearch Funding: Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Genentech (Inst) Rami S. KomrokjiStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVieConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Geron, Acceleron PharmaSpeakers' Bureau: Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, AgiosTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Agios Jason HarbEmployment: AbbVieStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie Jessica E. HuttiEmployment: AbbVieStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie Leanne HolesEmployment: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene/JunoStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie Abdullah A. MasudEmployment: AbbVieStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie Silpa NuthalapatiEmployment: AbbVieStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie Jalaja PotluriEmployment: AbbVieStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie Naveen PemmarajuEmployment: MD Anderson Cancer CenterLeadership: ASH, ASCO.Honoraria: Incyte, Novartis, LFB Biotechnologies, Stemline Therapeutics, Celgene, AbbVie, MustangBio, Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Blueprint Medicines, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, Springer, Aptitude Health, Neopharm, CareDXConsulting or Advisory Role: Blueprint Medicines, Pacylex, Immunogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clearview Healthcare Partners, Astellas Pharma US Inc, Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc, Triptych Health Partners, CTI BioPharma CorpResearch Funding: Novartis, Stemline Therapeutics, Samus Therapeutics, AbbVie, Cellectis, Affymetrix/Thermo Fisher Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Plexxikon, MustangBioTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Stemline Therapeutics, Celgene, AbbVie, DAVA Oncology, MustangBio(OPTIONAL) Uncompensated Relationships: Dan's House of Hope(OPTIONAL) Uncompensated Relationships: Oncology TimesNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Phase 3 trials Viale-A and Viale-C evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with AML unfit for intensive chemotherapy who received venetoclax (VEN) + (AZA) (Viale-A) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) (Viale-C) or placebo (PBO) + AZA or LDAC. Patient-reported outcomes included: EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS/QoL) and physical functioning (PF), PROMIS Cancer Fatigue Short Form 7a (Fatigue), and EQ-5D-5L health status visual analog scale (HS-VAS). Time to deterioration (TTD), defined as worsening from baseline in meaningful change thresholds (MCT) of ≥10, 5, or 7 points for GHS/QoL or PF, fatigue, and HS-VAS, respectively, was assessed; differences between groups were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and unadjusted log-rank analyses. VEN + AZA vs PBO + AZA patients had longer TTD in GHS/QoL (P = 0.066) and fatigue (P = 0.189), and significantly longer TTD in PF (P = 0.028) and HS-VAS (P < 0.001). VEN + LDAC vs PBO + LDAC patients had significantly longer TTD in GHS/QoL (P = 0.011), PF (P = 0.020), and fatigue (P = 0.004), and a trend in HS-VAS (P = 0.057). Approximately 43%, 35%, 32%, and 18% of patients treated with VEN + AZA, AZA + PBO, VEN + LDAC, or LDAC + PBO, respectively, saw improvements >MCT in GHS/QoL. Overall, VEN may positively impact HRQoL in patients with AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, leading to longer preservation of functioning and overall health status., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

This study evaluated venetoclax population pharmacokinetics (popPK) in patients with treatment-naïve acute myeloid leukemia and assessed the relationship between venetoclax exposure and clinical response for venetoclax in combination with either a hypomethylating agent (HMA) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC). A total of 771 patients who received venetoclax from 5 Phase 1-3 studies were included in the popPK model. Exposure-response analyses included data from 575 patients for venetoclax/placebo plus HMA and 279 patients for venetoclax/placebo plus LDAC. The popPK model successfully characterized venetoclax plasma concentrations over time and confirmed venetoclax exposure did not vary significantly with age, weight, sex, mild to moderate hepatic impairment, or mild to severe renal impairment. Asian patients had 67% higher mean relative bioavailability than non-Asian patients, however the range of exposures in Asian patients was similar to non-Asian patients. For all efficacy endpoints with both treatment combinations, efficacy was higher in the venetoclax treatment groups compared with the respective control arm of placebo plus azacitidine or LDAC. Within patients who received venetoclax, no significant exposure-efficacy relationships were identified for either treatment combination, indicating that the beneficial effects of venetoclax were already maximized in the dose ranges studied. There was no apparent effect of venetoclax exposure on treatment-emergent Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia or infections for either combination. Rates of treatment-emergent Grade ≥3 neutropenia were higher in the venetoclax treatment arms compared with the respective control arms; however, within patients who received venetoclax, there was only a shallow relationship or no apparent relationship with venetoclax exposure for venetoclax plus HMA or LDAC, respectively. Along with the efficacy and safety data previously published, the exposure-response analyses support the venetoclax dose regimens of 400 mg once daily (QD) plus HMA and 600 mg QD plus LDAC in treatment-naïve AML patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy., (© 2022 AbbVie Inc. Hematological Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: There is limited evidence on the clinical utility of monitoring measurable residual disease (MRD) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with lower-intensity therapy. Herein, we explored the outcomes of patients treated with venetoclax and azacitidine who achieved composite complete remission (CRc; complete remission + complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery) and MRD < 10 -3 in the VIALE-A trial., Methods: The patients included in this report were treated with venetoclax and azacitidine. Bone marrow aspirate samples for multiparametric flow cytometry assessments were collected for central analysis at baseline, end of cycle 1, and every three cycles thereafter. MRD-negative response was defined as < 1 residual blast per 1,000 leukocytes (< 10 -3 or 0.1%) with an estimated analytic sensitivity of 0.0037%-0.0027%. CRc, duration of remission (DoR), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified prognostic factors associated with OS., Results: One hundred sixty-four of one hundred ninety (86%) patients with CRc were evaluable for MRD. MRD < 10 -3 was achieved by 67 of 164 (41%), and 97 of 164 (59%) had MRD ≥ 10 -3 . The median DoR, EFS, and OS were not reached in patients with CRc and MRD < 10 -3 , and the 12-month estimates for DoR, EFS, and OS in this group were 81.2%, 83.2%, and 94.0%. Among patients with CRc and MRD ≥ 10 -3 , the median DoR, EFS, and OS were 9.7, 10.6, and 18.7 months. Multivariate analysis showed that CRc with MRD < 10 -3 was a strong predictor of OS (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.285; 95% CI, 0.159 to 0.510; P < .001)., Conclusion: Patients who achieved CRc and MRD < 10 -3 with venetoclax and azacitidine had longer DoR, EFS, and OS, than responding patients with MRD ≥ 10 -3 ., Competing Interests: Keith W. PratzConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Boston Biomedical, AbbVieResearch Funding: Agios (Inst), Millennium (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst) Brian A. JonasConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, GlycoMimetics, Treadwell Therapeutics, Takeda, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, PfizerResearch Funding: Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Pharmacyclics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Glycomimetics (Inst), Celgene (Inst), FORMA Therapeutics (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Arog (Inst), Roche (Inst), Jazz Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sigma-Tau (Inst), Forty Seven¸ Amgen (Inst), Immune-Onc Therapeutics (Inst), Loxo (Inst), Gilead/Forty Seven (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AbbVie Vinod PullarkatConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie/GenentechSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Christian RecherConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Amgen, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, MacroGenics¸ Daiichi Sankyo, Otsuka, Novartis¸ Incyte, Pfizer¸ Roche, TakedaResearch Funding: Celgene (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Jazz Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Agios (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), MaaT Pharma (Inst), Roche (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), IQVIA (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Incyte, Celgene, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences Andre C. SchuhHonoraria: Celgene, Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Celgene, Amgen, Agios, Pfizer Michael J. ThirmanConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene¸ PharmacyclicsResearch Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Syndax (Inst), Merck (Inst), TG Therapeutics (Inst) Jacqueline S. GarciaConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Takeda, Astellas PharmaResearch Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Prelude Therapeutics (Inst) Courtney D. DiNardoThis author is a member of the Journal of Clinical Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Leadership: Notable LabsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Notable LabsHonoraria: Agios, Celgene, AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, TakedaConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Agios, AbbVieResearch Funding: AbbVie, Agios, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo Vladimir VorobyevConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi, Novartis, BeiGene, Roche, AbbVie, Takeda, Gilead SciencesSpeakers' Bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, BioCad, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda¸ Novartis, BeiGeneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Nicola S. FracchiollaConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, AbbVieTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Su-Peng YehHonoraria: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen¸ Takeda, AbbVie, Amgen, Sanofi, Bayer, Astellas PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Chugai Pharma Jun Ho JangSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis Muhit OzcanResearch Funding: Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Bayer, Merck, Archigen Biotech, Roche, AbbVie, Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca Kazuhito YamamotoHonoraria: Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Takeda¸ Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Sumitomo Dainippon, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharma, Novartis, Otsuka, Mundipharma, Eisai, MSD, Meiji Seika Kaisha, Sanofi, Nippon Shinyaku, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, SymBio Pharmaceuticals, Micron, Daiichi SankyoConsulting or Advisory Role: Ono Pharmaceutical, Meiji Seika Kaisha, Chugai Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Takeda, Celgene, HUYA Bioscience International, Stemline Therapeutics, Eisai, Janssen, AstraZeneca¸ Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie,Research Funding: Chugai Pharma (Inst), Novartis (Inst), ARIAD (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Solasia Pharma (Inst), MSD (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Zenyaku Kogyo (Inst), Bayer (Inst), SymBio Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Mundipharma (Inst), Yakult Pharmaceutical (Inst) Arpad IllesConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, CelgeneResearch Funding: Takeda, Seattle GeneticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche Ying ZhouStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie Monique DailEmployment: Genentech/RocheStock and Other Ownership Interests: Roche/Genentech Brenda ChylaEmployment: AbbVieStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie Jalaja PotluriEmployment: AbbVieStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie Hartmut DöhnerConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Agios¸ Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Celgene, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie, GEMoaB, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead Sciences, SyndaxResearch Funding: Arog, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Kronos BioNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: The phase 3 VIALE-A trial (NCT02993523) reported that venetoclax-azacitidine significantly prolonged overall survival compared with placebo-azacitidine in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Herein, efficacy and safety of venetoclax-azacitidine are analyzed in the Japanese subgroup of VIALE-A patients., Methods: Eligible Japanese patients were randomized 2:1 to venetoclax-azacitidine (N = 24) or placebo-azacitidine (N = 13). Primary endpoints for Japan were overall survival and complete response (CR) + CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi). Venetoclax (target dose 400 mg) was given orally once daily. Azacitidine (75 mg/m2) was administered subcutaneously or intravenously on Days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle., Results: Median follow-up was 16.3 months (range, 1.0-20.3). Median overall survival was not reached with venetoclax-azacitidine (hazard ratio 0.409 and 95% confidence interval: 0.151, 1.109); overall survival estimate was higher with venetoclax-azacitidine than placebo-azacitidine at 12 (67 and 46%) and 18 months (57 and 31%), respectively. CR and CRi rates were 67% with venetoclax-azacitidine and 15% with placebo-azacitidine. Most common any-grade adverse events were febrile neutropenia (79 and 39%), thrombocytopenia (54 and 77%), constipation (54 and 54%) and decreased appetite (54 and 38%) in the venetoclax-azacitidine and placebo-azacitidine arms, respectively. Only 1 patient in the venetoclax-azacitidine arm, and no patients in the placebo-azacitidine arm, had grade 4 febrile neutropenia that led to treatment discontinuation., Conclusions: This Japanese subgroup analysis of VIALE-A demonstrates comparable safety and efficacy outcomes compared with the global study and supports venetoclax-azacitidine as first-line standard-of-care for Japanese treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukemia who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Venetoclax plus azacitidine is indicated in the USA for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia in older patients (≥75 years) or those ineligible for induction chemotherapy due to co-morbidities., Methods: In this phase 1/2 study (NCT02265731), Japanese patients (≥60 years) with untreated (ineligible for induction chemotherapy) or relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukaemia received oral venetoclax 400 mg/day (3-day ramp up in cycle 1) plus subcutaneous or intravenous azacitidine 75 mg/m2 on days 1-7 per 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity., Results: As of 10 December 2019, six patients were enrolled (median age: 75 years; untreated: n = 5; relapsed/refractory: n = 1); median treatment duration: 10.3 months (range, 0.7-29.4). Most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were lymphopaenia and febrile neutropaenia (n = 4 each). Four patients reported serious adverse events; only an event of grade 3 fungal pneumonia was considered possibly related to both study drugs, requiring dose interruption of venetoclax and delay of azacitidine. Five (83%) patients had responses (complete remission: n = 3). Median time to first response of complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery was 1.0 month (range, 0.8-5.5); median overall survival: 15.7 months (95% confidence interval: 6.2, not reached)., Conclusions: Venetoclax plus azacitidine was well tolerated and showed high response rates in Japanese patients with acute myeloid leukaemia., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

This analysis represents the longest-term follow-up for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated with 400 mg of venetoclax plus azacitidine or decitabine. Adults with newly diagnosed AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were enrolled in an open-label, non-randomized, multicenter phase 1b trial of venetoclax with azacitidine (AZA; 75 mg/m 2 ; days 1-7) or decitabine (DEC; 20 mg/m 2 ; days 1-5). Endpoints included safety, response rates (complete remission [CR], CR with incomplete blood count recovery [CRi]), response duration and overall survival (OS). The median follow-up time was 29 and 40 months for patients treated with venetoclax plus AZA and DEC combinations, respectively. Key Grade ≥ 3 AEs (AZA and DEC) were febrile neutropenia (39% and 65%), anemia (30% and 26%), thrombocytopenia (25% and 23%), and neutropenia (20% and 10%). The CR/CRi rate was 71% for venetoclax plus AZA and 74% for venetoclax plus DEC. The median duration of CR/CRi was 21.9 months and 15.0 months, and the median OS was 16.4 months and 16.2 months, for venetoclax plus AZA and DEC, respectively. These results support venetoclax plus hypomethylating agents as highly effective frontline AML therapies for patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have a dismal prognosis, even after treatment with a hypomethylating agent. Azacitidine added to venetoclax had promising efficacy in a previous phase 1b study., Methods: We randomly assigned previously untreated patients with confirmed AML who were ineligible for standard induction therapy because of coexisting conditions, because they were 75 years of age or older, or both to azacitidine plus either venetoclax or placebo. All patients received a standard dose of azacitidine (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1 through 7 every 28-day cycle); venetoclax (target dose, 400 mg) or matching placebo was administered orally, once daily, in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: The intention-to-treat population included 431 patients (286 in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 145 in the azacitidine-placebo [control] group). The median age was 76 years in both groups (range, 49 to 91). At a median follow-up of 20.5 months, the median overall survival was 14.7 months in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 9.6 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.85; P<0.001). The incidence of complete remission was higher with azacitidine-venetoclax than with the control regimen (36.7% vs. 17.9%; P<0.001), as was the composite complete remission (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery) (66.4% vs. 28.3%; P<0.001). Key adverse events included nausea of any grade (in 44% of the patients in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 35% of those in the control group) and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia (in 45% and 38%, respectively), neutropenia (in 42% and 28%), and febrile neutropenia (in 42% and 19%). Infections of any grade occurred in 85% of the patients in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 67% of those in the control group, and serious adverse events occurred in 83% and 73%, respectively., Conclusions: 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. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was higher in the venetoclax-azacitidine group than in the control group. (Funded by AbbVie and Genentech; VIALE-A ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02993523.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

The utility of positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) in distinguishing Richter's transformation versus chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) progression after ibrutinib and/or idelalisib was assessed in a post hoc analysis of a phase II study of venetoclax. Patients underwent PET-CT at screening and were not enrolled/treated if Richter's transformation was confirmed pathologically. Of 167 patients screened, 57 met criteria for biopsy after PET-CT. Of 35 patients who underwent biopsy, eight had Richter's transformation, two had another malignancy, and 25 had CLL. A PET-CT maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) ≥10 had 71% sensitivity and 50% specificity for detecting Richter's transformation [Odds Ratio (OR): 2.5, 95%CI: 0.4-15; P =0.318]. Response rate to venetoclax was similar for screening SUVmax <10 versus ≥10 (65% vs. 62%) (n=127 enrolled), though median progression-free survival was longer at <10 months (24.7 vs. 15.4 months; P =0.0335). Six patients developed Richter's transformation on venetoclax, of whom two had screening biopsy demonstrating CLL (others did not have a biopsy) and five had screening SUVmax <10. We have defined the test characteristics for PET-CT to distinguish progression of CLL as compared to Richter's transformation when biopsied in patients treated with B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors. Overall diminished sensitivity and specificity as compared to prior reports of patients treated with chemotherapy/chemoimmunotherapy suggest it has diminished ability to discriminate these two diagnoses using a SUVmax ≥10 cutoff. This cutoff did not identify venetoclax-treated patients with an inferior response but may be predictive of inferior progression-free survival. (Registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 02141282 )., (Copyright© 2019 Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

The objective of this research was to characterize the venetoclax exposure-efficacy and exposure-safety relationships and determine its optimal dose in elderly patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving venetoclax in combination with low intensity therapies (hypomethylating agent [HMA; azacitidine or decitabine] or low-dose cytarabine [LDAC]). A total of 212 patients from the HMA study and 92 patients from the LDAC study were included in the exposure-safety analyses. Those who received at least one dose of venetoclax and had at least one measurable response (201 and 83 in the HMA and LDAC studies, respectively) were included in the exposure-efficacy analyses. The probability of response based on International Working Group (IWG) for AML response criteria, adverse events of grade 3 or worse neutropenia or infection or a serious adverse event was modeled using logistic regression analyses to characterize the venetoclax exposure-response relationships. In combination with an HMA, increasing concentrations of venetoclax, up to those associated with a less than or equal to 400-mg once daily (QD) dose, were associated with a higher probability of response, with a trend for flat or decreasing probabilities of response thereafter. In combination with LDAC, increasing concentrations of venetoclax were associated with higher probabilities of response, with no plateau observed. Increasing concentrations of venetoclax were not associated with increasing probability of any safety event except for a slight increase in grade 3 or worse infections with HMAs; however, tolerability issues were observed at doses of greater than or equal to 800 mg QD in each study. Exposure-response analyses support the use of venetoclax 400 mg QD in combination with an HMA and 600 mg QD in combination with LDAC (ie, the next highest dose evaluated below 800 mg in each combination) to safely maximize the probability of response in elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

To define the efficacy of venetoclax with extended follow-up and identify clinical or biological treatment effect modifiers, updated data for previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) enrolled in 4 early-phase trials were pooled. Rates of response, complete remission (CR/CRi), and undetectable minimal residual disease (U-MRD) were analyzed for all patients (n = 436) and for those patients who were planned to receive 400 mg/day monotherapy (n = 347). Univariate and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify the pretreatment factors associated with response rates and duration of response (DoR). Objective responses were documented in 75% of all patients, including 22% CR/CRi. Overall, 27% and 16% of the patients achieved U-MRD in blood and marrow, respectively. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS), DoR, and time to progression were 30.2, 38.4, and 36.9 months, respectively. Similar efficacy outcomes were observed within the 400 mg/day monotherapy subset. For those who achieved CR/CRi, the 3-year PFS estimate was 83%. DoR was superior for patients achieving CR/CRi or U-MRD in landmark analyses. In multiple regression analyses, bulky lymphadenopathy (≥5 cm) and refractoriness to B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi) therapy were significantly associated with lower CR rate and shorter DoR. Fewer prior therapies were associated with higher CR rate, but not DoR. Chromosome 17p deletion and/or TP53 mutation and NOTCH1 mutation were consistently associated with shorter DoR, but not probability of response. Thus, both pretreatment factors and depth of response correlated with DoR with venetoclax. Patients without bulky lymphadenopathy, BCRi-refractory CLL, or an adverse mutation profile had the most durable benefit., (© 2019 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) respond poorly to standard induction therapy. B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) overexpression is implicated in survival of AML cells and treatment resistance. We report safety and efficacy of venetoclax with decitabine or azacitidine from a large, multicenter, phase 1b dose-escalation and expansion study. Patients (N = 145) were at least 65 years old with treatment-naive AML and were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. During dose escalation, oral venetoclax was administered at 400, 800, or 1200 mg daily in combination with either decitabine (20 mg/m 2 , days 1-5, intravenously [IV]) or azacitidine (75 mg/m 2 , days 1-7, IV or subcutaneously). In the expansion, 400 or 800 mg venetoclax with either hypomethylating agent (HMA) was given. Median age was 74 years, with poor-risk cytogenetics in 49% of patients. Common adverse events (>30%) included nausea, diarrhea, constipation, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, hypokalemia, decreased appetite, and decreased white blood cell count. No tumor lysis syndrome was observed. With a median time on study of 8.9 months, 67% of patients (all doses) achieved complete remission (CR) + CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi), with a CR + CRi rate of 73% in the venetoclax 400 mg + HMA cohort. Patients with poor-risk cytogenetics and those at least 75 years old had CR + CRi rates of 60% and 65%, respectively. The median duration of CR + CRi (all patients) was 11.3 months, and median overall survival (mOS) was 17.5 months; mOS has not been reached for the 400-mg venetoclax cohort. The novel combination of venetoclax with decitabine or azacitidine was effective and well tolerated in elderly patients with AML (This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02203773)., (© 2019 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Purpose: The oral BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax is an effective therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including disease with high-risk genomic features such as chromosome 17p deletion [del(17p)] or progressive disease following B-cell receptor pathway inhibitors. Patients and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive analysis of the safety of 400 mg daily venetoclax monotherapy in 350 patients with CLL using an integrated dataset from three phase I/II studies. Results: Median age was 66 years and 60% had del(17p). Patients had received a median of three prior therapies (range: 0-15); 42% previously received ibrutinib or idelalisib. Median duration of exposure to venetoclax was 16 months (0-56). In the pooled analysis, the most common adverse events (AE) of any grade were diarrhea (41%), neutropenia (40%), nausea (39%), anemia (31%), fatigue (28%), and upper respiratory tract infection (25%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (37%), anemia (17%), and thrombocytopenia (14%). With the current 5-week ramp-up dosing, the incidence of laboratory TLS was 1.4% (2/166), none had clinical sequelae, and all of these patients were able to ramp-up to a daily dose of 400 mg. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was manageable with growth factor support and dose adjustments; the incidence of serious infections in these patients was 15%. Ten percent of patients discontinued venetoclax due to AEs and 8% died while on study, with the majority of deaths in the setting of disease progression. Conclusions: Venetoclax as a long-term continuous therapy is generally well tolerated in patients with R/R CLL when initiated with the current treatment algorithm. Clin Cancer Res; 24(18); 4371-9. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

B-cell receptor pathway inhibitors (BCRis) have transformed treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); however, the efficacy of therapies for patients whose disease is refractory to/relapses after (R/R) BCRis is unknown. Venetoclax is a selective, orally bioavailable BCL-2 inhibitor with activity in patients with CLL, including those who are heavily pretreated or have 17p deletion. This phase 2 study prospectively evaluated venetoclax in patients with R/R CLL after ibrutinib or idelalisib; here we report on patients who received idelalisib as the last BCRi before enrollment. Venetoclax was initiated at 20 mg daily, followed by intrapatient ramp-up to 400 mg daily. Primary objectives included efficacy (objective response rate [ORR]) and safety of venetoclax. The study enrolled 36 patients who previously received idelalisib (ORR, 67% [24/36]); 2 patients achieved complete remission, and 1 had complete remission with incomplete bone marrow recovery. Median progression-free survival (PFS) has not yet been reached; estimated 12-month PFS was 79%. The most common adverse events (AEs; all grades) were neutropenia (56%), diarrhea (42%), upper respiratory tract infection (39%), thrombocytopenia (36%), nausea (31%), fatigue (28%), cough (22%), rash (22%), and anemia (22%). Grade 3 or 4 AEs were primarily hematologic (neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [25%], and anemia [17%]). No patients experienced tumor lysis syndrome. Venetoclax demonstrated promising clinical activity and favorable tolerability in patients with CLL whose disease progressed during or after idelalisib therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02141282., (© 2018 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Elderly patients (aged ≥65 years) with acute myeloid leukaemia have poor outcomes and no effective standard-of-care therapy exists. Treatment with hypomethylating agents such as azacitidine and decitabine is common, but responses are modest and typically short-lived. The oral anti-apoptotic B-cell lymphoma 2 protein inhibitor, venetoclax, has shown promising single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia and preclinical data suggested synergy between hypomethylating agents and venetoclax, which led to this combination phase 1b study., Methods: Previously untreated patients aged 65 years and over with acute myeloid leukaemia who were ineligible for standard induction therapy were enrolled into this non-randomised, open-label, phase 1b study. Patients were required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and either intermediate-risk or poor-risk cytogenetics. Patients were enrolled into one of three groups for the dose-escalation phase of this study: group A (venetoclax and intravenous decitabine 20 mg/m 2 [days 1-5 of each 28-day cycle]), group B (venetoclax and subcutaneous or intravenous azacitidine 75 mg/m 2 [days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle]), and group C (a venetoclax and decitabine substudy with the oral CYP3A inhibitor posaconazole, 300 mg twice on cycle 1, day 21, and 300 mg once daily from cycle 1, days 22-28, to assess its effect on venetoclax pharmacokinetics). Dose escalation followed a standard 3 + 3 design with at least three evaluable patients enrolled per cohort; daily target doses of venetoclax for groups A and B were 400 mg (cohort 1), 800 mg (cohorts 2 and 3), and 1200 mg (cohort 4), and 400 mg for group C. The primary endpoints were the safety and pharmacokinetics of venetoclax plus decitabine or azacitidine, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. Secondary endpoints included the preliminary anti-leukaemic activity of venetoclax with decitabine or azacitidine through the analysis of overall response, duration of response, and overall survival. We analysed safety, pharmacokinetics, and anti-leukaemic activity in all patients who received one or more venetoclax doses. The expansion phase of the study is ongoing but is closed to accrual. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02203773., Findings: 57 patients were enrolled in the study. 23 patients in group A and 22 patients in group B were enrolled between Nov 19, 2014, and Dec 15, 2015, and 12 patients in group C were enrolled between June 14, 2015, and Jan 16, 2016. As of data cutoff on June 15, 2016, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (27 [47%] of 57 patients; nine in group A, 13 in group B, and five in group C), febrile neutropenia (24 [42%] of 57; 11 in group A, ten in group B, and three in group C), and neutropenia (23 [40%] of 57; 12 in group A, eight in group B, and three in group C). The most common serious treatment-emergent adverse event in groups A and B was febrile neutropenia (seven [30%] of 23 patients vs seven [32%] of 22), whereas in group C it was lung infection (four [33%] of 12 patients). 49 (86%) of 57 patients had treatment-related adverse events; the most common in groups A and B included nausea (12 [52%] patients vs seven [32%] patients), fatigue (six [26%] patients vs seven [32%]), and decreased neutrophil count (six [26%] patients vs six [27%]), whereas in group C the most common were nausea (seven [58%] of 12 patients), leucopenia (six [50%]), vomiting (five [42%]), and decreased platelet count (five [42%]). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The recommended phase 2 dose was 400 mg once a day or 800 mg with an interrupted dosing schedule (safety expansion). In total, four (7%) of 57 patients had died within 30 days of the first venetoclax dose caused by sepsis (group B), bacteraemia (group A), lung infection (group C), and respiratory failure (group A). Tumour lysis syndrome was not observed. Decitabine and azacitidine did not substantially affect venetoclax exposures. Overall, 35 (61%; 95% CI 47·6-74·0) of 57 patients achieved complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery. In groups A and B, 27 (60%; 95% CI 44·3-74·3) of 45 patients had complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery., Interpretation: Venetoclax plus hypomethylating agent therapy seems to be a novel, well-tolerated regimen with promising activity in this underserved patient population. Evaluation of expansion cohorts is ongoing at 400 mg and 800 mg doses using both hypomethylating agent combinations., Funding: AbbVie and Genentech., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Therapy targeting Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) with ibrutinib has transformed the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. However, patients who are refractory to or relapse after ibrutinib therapy have poor outcomes. Venetoclax is a selective, orally bioavailable inhibitor of BCL-2 active in previously treated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. In this study, we assessed the activity and safety of venetoclax in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who are refractory to or relapse during or after ibrutinib therapy., Methods: In this interim analysis of a multicentre, open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with a documented diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia according to the 2008 International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (IWCLL) criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 2 or lower. All patients had relapsed or refractory disease after previous treatment with a BCR signalling pathway inhibitor. All patients were screened for Richter's transformation and cases confirmed by biopsy were excluded. Eligible patients received oral venetoclax, starting at 20 mg per day with stepwise dose ramp-up over 5 weeks to 400 mg per day. Patients with rapidly progressing disease received an accelerated dosing schedule (to 400 mg per day by week 3). The primary endpoint was overall response, defined as the proportion of patients with an overall response per investigator's assessment according to IWCLL criteria. All patients who received at least one dose of venetoclax were included in the activity and safety analyses. This study is ongoing; data for this interim analysis were collected per regulatory agencies' request as of June 30, 2017. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02141282., Findings: Between September, 2014, and November, 2016, 127 previously treated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia were enrolled from 15 sites across the USA. 91 patients had received ibrutinib as the last BCR inhibitor therapy before enrolment, 43 of whom were enrolled in the main cohort and 48 in the expansion cohort recruited later after a protocol amendment. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up was 14 months (IQR 8-18) for all 91 patients, 19 months (9-27) for the main cohort, and 12 months (8-15) for the expansion cohort. 59 (65%, 95% CI 53-74) of 91 patients had an overall response, including 30 (70%, 54-83) of 43 patients in the main cohort and 29 (60%, 43-72) of 48 patients in the expansion cohort. The most common treatment-emergent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (46 [51%] of 91 patients), thrombocytopenia (26 [29%]), anaemia (26 [29%]), decreased white blood cell count (17 [19%]), and decreased lymphocyte count (14 [15%]). 17 (19%) of 91 patients died, including seven because of disease progression. No treatment-related deaths occurred., Interpretation: The results of this interim analysis show that venetoclax has durable clinical activity and favourable tolerability in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia whose disease progressed during or after discontinutation of ibrutinib therapy. The durability of response to venetoclax will be assessed in the final analysis in 2019., Funding: AbbVie, Genentech., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is an uncommon but potentially life-threatening complication associated with the treatment of some cancers. If left untreated, TLS may result in acute renal failure, cardiac dysrhythmia, neurologic complications, seizures, or death. Tumor lysis syndrome is most commonly observed in patients with hematologic malignancies with a high proliferation rate undergoing treatment with very effective therapies. In chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), historically, TLS has been observed less often, owing to a low proliferation rate and slow response to chemotherapy. New targeted therapies have recently been approved in the treatment of CLL, including the oral kinase inhibitors, idelalisib and ibrutinib, and the B-cell lymphoma-2 protein inhibitor, venetoclax. Several others are also under development, and combination strategies of these agents are being explored. This review examines the diagnosis, prevention, and management of TLS and summarizes the TLS experience in CLL clinical trials with newer targeted agents. Overall, the risk of TLS is small, but the consequences may be fatal; therefore, patients should be monitored carefully. Therapies capable of eliciting rapid response and combination regimens are increasingly being evaluated for treatment of CLL, which may pose a higher risk of TLS. For optimal management, patients at risk for TLS require prophylaxis and close monitoring with appropriate tests and appropriate management to correct laboratory abnormalities, which allows for safe and effective disease control., Implications for Practice: Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is a potentially fatal condition observed with hematologic malignancies, caused by release of cellular components in the bloodstream from rapidly dying tumor cells. The frequency and severity of TLS is partly dependent upon the biology of the disease and type of therapy administered. Novel targeted agents highly effective at inducing rapid cell death in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may pose a risk for TLS in patients with tumors characterized by rapid growth, high tumor burden, and/or high sensitivity to treatment. In this review, prevention strategies and management of patients with CLL who develop TLS are described., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© 2017 The Authors The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Purpose: The effect of posaconazole, a strong cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) inhibitor and commonly used antifungal agent, on the pharmacokinetic properties of venetoclax, a CYP3A substrate, was evaluated in patients with acute myeloid leukemia to determine the dose adjustments needed to manage this potential interaction., Methods: Twelve patients received 20- to 200-mg ramp-up treatment with oral venetoclax and 20 mg/m 2 of intravenous decitabine on days 1 through 5, followed by 400 mg of venetoclax alone on days 6 through 20. On days 21 through 28, patients received 300 mg of posaconazole plus reduced doses of venetoclax (50 or 100 mg) to account for expected increases in venetoclax plasma concentrations. Blood samples were collected before dosing and up to 24 hours after the venetoclax dose on days 20 and 28., Findings: Compared with a venetoclax dose of 400 mg when administered alone (day 20), coadministration of venetoclax at a 50-mg dose with multiple doses of posaconazole increased mean venetoclax C max and AUC 0-24 by 53% and 76%, respectively, whereas coadministration of venetoclax at a 100-mg dose with posaconazole increased mean venetoclax C max and AUC 0-24 by 93% and 155%, respectively. When adjusted for different doses and nonlinearity, posaconazole was estimated to increase venetoclax C max and AUC 0-24 by 7.1- and 8.8-fold, respectively. Both the 50- and 100-mg venetoclax doses administered with posaconazole were well tolerated., Implications: The results are consistent with inhibition of CYP3A-mediated metabolism of venetoclax. Posaconazole can be used for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving venetoclax after reducing the venetoclax dose by at least 75%. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02203773., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

We present a phase II, single-arm study evaluating 800 mg daily venetoclax, a highly selective, oral small-molecule B-cell leukemia/lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor in patients with high-risk relapsed/refractory acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or unfit for intensive chemotherapy. Responses were evaluated following revised International Working Group (IWG) criteria. The overall response rate was 19%; an additional 19% of patients demonstrated antileukemic activity not meeting IWG criteria (partial bone marrow response and incomplete hematologic recovery). Twelve (38%) patients had isocitrate dehydrogenase 1/2 mutations, of whom 4 (33%) achieved complete response or complete response with incomplete blood count recovery. Six (19%) patients had BCL2-sensitive protein index at screening, which correlated with time on study. BH3 profiling was consistent with on-target BCL2 inhibition and identified potential resistance mechanisms. Common adverse events included nausea, diarrhea and vomiting (all grades), and febrile neutropenia and hypokalemia (grade 3/4). Venetoclax demonstrated activity and acceptable tolerability in patients with AML and adverse features., Significance: Venetoclax monotherapy demonstrated clinical activity in patients with AML (relapsed/refractory or unfit for intensive chemotherapy) with a tolerable safety profile in this phase II study. Predictive markers of response consistent with BCL2 dependence were identified. Clinical and preclinical findings provide a compelling rationale to evaluate venetoclax combined with other agents in AML. Cancer Discov; 6(10); 1106-17. ©2016 AACRSee related commentary by Pullarkat and Newman, p. 1082This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1069., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: To develop a mathematical formula that assists in determining the number of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) needed at sites of mass gatherings., Methods: Twenty (10 male, 10 female) healthy volunteers (equally divided between age groups 21-30 and 31-40 years) responded to mock cardiac arrests in a sports stadium. Seven different first-responder scenarios were simulated (ascending and descending three separate stairway slopes (22 degrees, 39 degrees, and 69 degrees ), as well as a response across a horizontal (0 degrees ) surface. To assess the impact of spectator congestion, the same volunteers conducted each scenario in an empty and full stadium. The quantitative relationship between time and distance was then plotted for each situation. Using the quantitative relationship, the area a first responder can cover in a specified time was calculated., Results: The formula for the total number of AEDs needed in a stadium (or other mass gathering site) can be expressed as follows: Total AEDs=[A(1)/(Ds(1)xDh(1))]+[A(2)/(Ds(2)xDh(2))]+[A(3)/(Ds(3)xDh(3))] where A(1), A(2), and A(3) represent the total areas of a stadium with a slight, moderate, or steep stairway slope, respectively; Ds(1), Ds(2), and Ds(3) represent the stairway distance a first responder must ascend or descend for each slope; and Dh(1), Dh(2), and Dh(3) are the horizontal distances a responder can run in the time remaining., Conclusion: Given a medical director's targeted response times and goals, the optimal number of AEDs required at a mass gathering can be calculated using time versus distance relationships. Future studies should evaluate the impact of the mathematically derived optimal number of AEDs at mass gatherings.

The development of immune-mediated hemolytic anemia is a well-recognized complication after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT). The majority of reported cases, however, have been alloimmune in origin due to ABO or minor red blood cell antigen incompatibilities between the donor and recipient. In this study, we report seven adult patients who developed autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) between June 1985 and January 1993. These patients were identified from a total of 236 adult patients who received T cell-depleted (TCD) grafts as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. The onset of AIHA was at a median of 10 months (range 7-25 months) post-transplant and occurred in 5% of all patients transplanted with TCD grafts who survived at least 6 months. Six patients had a warm reacting autoantibody, while one patient had a cold-reacting antibody with a thermal amplitude up to 30 degrees C. All were receiving immunosuppressive treatment for GVHD at the time of diagnosis. Initial treatment in all patients consisted of steroids. Three of the seven had a partial response while the four remaining patients failed to respond to corticosteroids. Splenectomy was performed in three patients with two partial responses. Four patients were treated with additional therapeutic interventions, including plasmapheresis, immunoglobulin infusions, staphylococcus protein A column, or other immunosuppressive agents. In five cases, erythropoietin was administered as adjunctive treatment to maintain adequate hematocrit levels. Two patients are presently in complete remission after prolonged courses of steroids, while a third patient has compensated hemolysis requiring low-dose steroids. Four patients died due to either infectious complications or disseminated intravascular coagulation secondary to cold agglutinin disease. These data indicate that AIHA is a clinically significant and not infrequent complication in allogeneic marrow transplant recipients. The response to conventional treatment is generally unsatisfactory as even patients who ultimately remit require prolonged courses of immunosuppressive therapy.