Back to Search Start Over

Enasidenib vs conventional care in older patients with late-stage mutant-IDH2 relapsed/refractory AML: a randomized phase 3 trial

Authors :
de Botton, Stéphane
Montesinos, Pau
Schuh, Andre C.
Papayannidis, Cristina
Vyas, Paresh
Wei, Andrew H.
Ommen, Hans
Semochkin, Sergey
Kim, Hee-Je
Larson, Richard A.
Koprivnikar, Jaime
Frankfurt, Olga
Thol, Felicitas
Chromik, Jörg
Byrne, Jenny
Pigneux, Arnaud
Thomas, Xavier
Salamero, Olga
Vidriales, Maria Belen
Doronin, Vadim
Döhner, Hartmut
Fathi, Amir T.
Laille, Eric
Yu, Xin
Hasan, Maroof
Martin-Regueira, Patricia
DiNardo, Courtney D.
Source :
Blood; January 2023, Vol. 141 Issue: 2 p156-167, 12p
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

This open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 (isocitrate dehydrogenase 2) inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCRs) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care) and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg per day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n = 158) or CCR (n = 161). The median age was 71 years, median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3 to 1270), and CCR was 36 days (1 to 1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. The median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio], 0.86; P = .23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median, 4.9 vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR, 0.68; P = .008), TTF (median, 4.9 vs 1.9 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001), ORR (40.5% vs 9.9%; P <.001), HI (42.4% vs 11.2%), and red blood cell (RBC)-TI (31.7% vs 9.3%). Enasidenib safety was consistent with prior reports. The primary study endpoint was not met, but OS was confounded by early dropout and subsequent AML-directed therapies. Enasidenib provided meaningful benefits in EFS, TTF, ORR, HI, and RBC-TI in this heavily pretreated older mutant-IDH2 R/R AML population.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
00064971 and 15280020
Volume :
141
Issue :
2
Database :
Supplemental Index
Journal :
Blood
Publication Type :
Periodical
Accession number :
ejs61641519
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2021014901