Updated Results From a Phase 2 Study of Pracinostat in ... - AML Poster (EHA... · Updated Results...
Transcript of Updated Results From a Phase 2 Study of Pracinostat in ... - AML Poster (EHA... · Updated Results...
Updated Results From a Phase 2 Study of Pracinostat in Combination With Azacitidine in Elderly Patients With Acute Myeloid LeukemiaGuillermo Garcia-Manero, MD1; Ehab Atallah, MD2; Samer K. Khaled, MD3; Martha Arellano, MD4; Mrinal Patnaik, MD5; Vanessa Esquibel6; Katie Wood6; Bruno Medeiros, MD7 1Department of Leukemia, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; 2Department of Hematology/Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; 3Department of Hematology/Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; 4Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; 5Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; 6MEI Pharma, Inc., San Diego, CA; 7Division of Hematology/Oncology, Stanford Cancer Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
BACKGROUND• Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), deemed unsuitable for
intensive therapy, have limited treatment options.
• A phase 1 study of single-agent pracinostat demonstrated clinical activity in patients with AML.
• We previously reported a high initial response rate in the first stage of this phase 2 study of pracinostat plus azacitadine in this population (ASH 2014; Abstract 947). Presented here are updated results, which include additional patients.
METHODS
Treatment Regimen• Pracinostat 60 mg is administered orally 3 days a week (days 1, 3, and
5 of each week) for 21 days of each 28-day cycle.
• Azacitidine is administered subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1–7 or days 1–5 and 8–9 (per site preference) of each 28-day cycle.
• Dose modifications
§ Reductions
– Begin with azacitidine, which may be reduced to 75% of the starting dose
– Subsequent reduction to 45 mg of pracinostat is allowed
§ Delays (between or within cycles)
– Indicated for treatment-related grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity in the absence of disease
– Indicated for treatment-related grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity following maximal medical treatment
Eligibility Criteria• Key inclusion
§ Age ≥65 years
§ Newly diagnosed de novo, secondary, or treatment-related AML with intermediate or unfavorable-risk cytogenetics based on the Southwest Oncology Group classifications2
§ ≥20% bone marrow blasts
§ Adequate renal, cardiac, and liver function
§ QTcF ≤450 ms for males or ≤470 ms for females
• Key exclusion
§ Acute promyelocytic leukemia (FAB M3); t(15;17), t(8;21), t(16;16), del(16q), or inv(16) karyotype
§ Candidate for intensive chemotherapy (induction chemotherapy, bone marrow or stem cell transplant) within the next 4 months
§ Active central nervous system disease
Study Evaluations• Primary endpoint: complete response (CR) + complete response with
incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) + morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS)
• Secondary endpoints
§ Overall response rate (CR + CRi + partial response [PR] + PR with incomplete blood count recovery [PRi] + MLFS)
§ Complete cytogenetic response + molecular complete remission
§ Duration of response
§ Event-free survival
§ Overall survival (OS)
§ Tolerability and adverse event (AE) profile
• Response assessments were conducted at end of cycle 1 or 2, and then every other cycle until CR is achieved or as clinically indicated
RESULTS• 50 patients have been enrolled at 15 centers.
• First patient in: December 25, 2013; last patient in: November 24, 2014.
Table 1. Patient Disposition
N=50
Number of patients active, n (%) 25 (50.0)
Number of patients discontinued, n (%) 25 (50.0)
Reasons for discontinuation, n (%)
Death 2 (8.0)
Progressive disease 9 (36.0)
Adverse event 8 (32.0)
Othera 6 (24.0)aOther includes patient or physician decision.
Table 2. Baseline Characteristics
N=50
Age, years
Median 75
Range 66-84
Gender, n (%)
Male 29 (58.0)
Female 21 (42.0)
AML disease status, n (%)
Newly diagnosed de novo 33 (66.0)
Secondary (AHD and treatment related) 17 (34.0)
ECOG performance status, n (%)
0-1 43 (86.0)
2 7 (14.0)
Bone Marrow Blasts at Baseline
Median % (range) 40 (20-89)
20-29% range, n (%) 14 (28.0)
30-49% range, n (%) 21 (42.0)
≥50% range, n (%) 15 (30.0)
Cytogenetic risk category, n (%)
Intermediate 27 (54.0)
High 21 (42.0)
Not evaluable 2 (4.0)
AHD, antecedent hematologic disorder; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Table 3. Response
Response Assessment
Cytogenetic riska
All, n (%)N=50
Intermediate, n (%)n=27
High, n (%)n=21
CR/CRi/MLFS (primary endpoint) 27 (54.0) 17 (63.0) 10 (48.0)
CR 16 (32.0) 10 (37.0) 6 (28.0)
CRi 7 (14.0) 5 (19.0) 2 (10.0)
MLFS 4 (8.0) 2 (7.0) 2 (10.0)
PR/PRi 3 (6.0) 2 (7.0) 0a2 patients not evaluable for cytogenetic risk assessment. CR, complete response; CRi, complete response with incomplete blood count recovery; MLFS, morphologic leukemia-free state; PR, partial response; PRi, partial response with incomplete blood count recovery.
Figure 1. Duration on Study and Best Response
1st
-Lin
e Eld
erly
AM
L Pat
ients
(N
=50)
151398
Months on Study
540 1410 11 126 7321
CR
Response Based on Clinical Review of Ef�cacy Data
CRi
MLFS
PR/PRi
Stable Disease
Progressive Disease
No On-StudyAssessmentTime to 1st Bone Marrow Assessmentfor RespondersOngoing
Data as of 5 May 2015
AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CR, complete response; CRi, complete response with incomplete blood count recovery; MLFS, morphologic leukemia-free state; PR, partial response; PRi, partial response with incomplete blood count recovery.
Figure 2. Overall Survival (OS) by Risk GroupPro
port
ion o
f Pat
ients
Aliv
e
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Time (months)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1615
Intermediate Risk
Intermediate (CNSR)
High Risk
High Risk (CNSR)
Overall
Overall (CNSR)
Patients are censored as of the date of last contact to determine survival status on or after 15 May 2015. CNSR, censored.
Table 4. Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events in ≥20% of Patients (All Causality)
All Grades, n (%) N=50
Grades 3/4, n (%) N=50
Hematologic
Febrile neutropenia 20 (40.0) 16 (32.0)
Thrombocytopenia 16 (32.0) 16 (32.0)
Anemia 13 (26.0) 7 (14.0)
Neutropenia 12 (24.0) 11 (22.0)
Nonhematologic
Nausea 33 (66.0) 2 (4.0)
Constipation 29 (58.0) 0
Fatigue 24 (48.0) 8 (16.0)
Diarrhea 15 (30.0) 1 (2.0)
Vomiting 14 (28.0) 1 (2.0)
Decreased appetite 14 (28.0) 2 (4.0)
Hypokalemia 13 (26.0) 0
Pyrexia 12 (24.0) 0
Dizziness 12 (24.0) 0
Dyspnea 12 (24.0) 0
Rash 10 (20.0) 0
Table 5. Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events Leading to Drug Discontinuation (n=8)
AE Term GradeDiscontinuation
(Cycle/Day) Outcome
Peripheral motor neuropathy 3 3/35 Resolved
Parainfluenza 3 3/9 Resolved with sequelae
Prolonged QTc/AF 3 2/4 Resolved
Failure to thrive 2 2/39 Not recovered
Mucositis 3 3/9 Not recovered
Sepsis 5 1/6 Fatal
Sepsis 5 1/17 Fatal
Fatigue 2 4/28 Not recoveredAE, adverse event; AF, atrial fibrillation; QTc, corrected QT interval.
CONCLUSIONS• Pracinostat in combination with azacitidine demonstrates significant
clinical activity in elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML. § To date, 27 of 50 patients (54%) achieved the primary endpoint of
CR + CRi + MLFS. § The CR rate was 32% (16/50 patients). § Most clinical responses occur within the first 2 cycles and continue to
improve with ongoing therapy. § Median overall survival has not been reached in the study population.
The 60-day mortality rate is 10% (5/50 patients). § Survival of patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetic abnormalities
appears greater than that for patients with high-risk cytogenetics.• Pracinostat in combination with azacitidine was well tolerated in this
population of elderly AML patients. § The most common treatment-emergent AEs included febrile
neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, and fatigue. § AEs resulting in dose reductions were uncommon and frequently due
to the disease under study. § Five patients to date have received the study drug beyond 1 year,
reflecting long-term tolerability.• The response rate for the combination of pracinostat + azacitidine
compares favorably with previous studies of azacitidine alone in elderly AML patients (Dombret H et al. Blood. 2015).
• While overall survival is encouraging, longer follow-up is necessary to get an accurate survival estimate of the combination.
DisclosuresG. Garcia-Manero receives consultancy fees from MEI Pharma; E. Atallah reports nothing to disclose; S.K. Khaled reports nothing to disclose; M. Arellano reports nothing to disclose; M. Patnaik reports nothing to disclose; V. Esquibel is an employee of MEI Pharma; K. Wood is an employee of MEI Pharma; B. Medeiros receives research funding from MEI Pharma.
Presented at the 20th Congress of the European Hematology Association, June 11–14, 2015, Vienna, Austria
http://goo.gl/ayk16L