Summary Background Clonal haemopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is an age-associated genetic event linked to increased risk of primary haematological malignancies and increased all-cause ...mortality, but the prevalence of CHIP in patients who develop therapy-related myeloid neoplasms is unknown. We did this study to investigate whether chemotherapy-treated patients with cancer who have CHIP are at increased risk of developing therapy-related myeloid neoplasms. Methods We did a nested, case-control, proof-of-concept study to compare the prevalence of CHIP between patients with cancer who later developed therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (cases) and patients who did not develop these neoplasms (controls). We identified cases from our internal biorepository of 123 357 patients who consented to participate in the Total Cancer Care biobanking protocol at Moffitt Cancer Center (Tampa, FL, USA) between Jan 1, 2006, and June 1, 2016. We included all individuals who were diagnosed with a primary malignancy, were treated with chemotherapy, subsequently developed a therapy-related myeloid neoplasm, and were 70 years or older at either diagnosis. For inclusion in this study, individuals must have had a peripheral blood or mononuclear cell sample collected before the diagnosis of therapy-related myeloid neoplasm. Controls were individuals who were diagnosed with a primary malignancy at age 70 years or older and were treated with chemotherapy but did not develop therapy-related myeloid neoplasms. Controls were matched to cases in at least a 4:1 ratio on the basis of sex, primary tumour type, age at diagnosis, smoking status, chemotherapy drug class, and duration of follow-up. We used sequential targeted and whole-exome sequencing and described clonal evolution in cases for whom paired CHIP and therapy-related myeloid neoplasm samples were available. The primary endpoint of this study was the development of therapy-related myeloid neoplasm and the primary exposure was CHIP. Findings We identified 13 cases and 56 case-matched controls. The prevalence of CHIP in all patients (23 33% of 69 patients) was higher than has previously been reported in elderly individuals without cancer (about 10%). Cases had a significantly higher prevalence of CHIP than did matched controls (eight 62% of 13 cases vs 15 27% of 56 controls, p=0·024; odds ratio 5·75, 95% CI 1·52–25·09, p=0·013). The most commonly mutated genes in cases with CHIP were TET2 (three 38% of eight patients) and TP53 (three 38% of eight patients), whereas controls most often had TET2 mutations (six 40% of 15 patients). In most (four 67% of six patients) cases for whom paired CHIP and therapy-related myeloid neoplasm samples were available, the mean allele frequency of CHIP mutations had expanded by the time of the therapy-related myeloid neoplasm diagnosis. However, a subset of paired samples (two 33% of six patients) had CHIP mutations that decreased in allele frequency, giving way to expansion of a distinct mutant clone. Interpretation Patients with cancer who have CHIP are at increased risk of developing therapy-related myeloid neoplasms. The distribution of CHIP-related gene mutations differs between individuals with therapy-related myeloid neoplasm and those without, suggesting that mutation-specific differences might exist in therapy-related myeloid neoplasm risk. Funding Moffitt Cancer Center.
Summary Background Safe and effective treatments are urgently needed for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vosaroxin, a ...first-in-class anticancer quinolone derivative, plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Methods This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken at 101 international sites. Eligible patients with acute myeloid leukaemia were aged 18 years of age or older and had refractory disease or were in first relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle of anthracycline (or anthracenedione) plus cytarabine. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m2 intravenously on days 1–5) or placebo plus cytarabine through a central interactive voice system with a permuted block procedure stratified by disease status, age, and geographical location. All participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival and the primary safety endpoint was 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01191801. Findings Between Dec 17, 2010, and Sept 25, 2013, 711 patients were randomly assigned to vosaroxin plus cytarabine (n=356) or placebo plus cytarabine (n=355). At the final analysis, median overall survival was 7·5 months (95% CI 6·4–8·5) in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group and 6·1 months (5·2–7·1) in the placebo plus cytarabine group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·73–1·02; unstratified log-rank p=0·061; stratified p=0·024). A higher proportion of patients achieved complete remission in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group (107 30% of 356 patients vs 58 16% of 355 patients, p<0·0001). Early mortality was similar between treatment groups (30-day: 28 8% of 355 patients in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group vs 23 7% of 350 in the placebo plus cytarabine group; 60-day: 70 20% vs 68 19%). Treatment-related deaths occurred at any time in 20 (6%) of 355 patients given vosaroxin plus cytarabine and in eight (2%) of 350 patients given placebo plus cytarabine. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 116 (33%) and 58 (17%) patients in each group, respectively. Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more frequent in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 47% vs 117 33%), neutropenia (66 19% vs 49 14%), stomatitis (54 15% vs 10 3%), hypokalaemia (52 15% vs 21 6%), bacteraemia (43 12% vs 16 5%), sepsis (42 12% vs 18 5%), and pneumonia (39 11% vs 26 7%). Interpretation Although there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups, the prespecified secondary analysis stratified by randomisation factors suggests that the addition of vosaroxin to cytarabine might be of clinical benefit to some patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Funding Sunesis Pharmaceuticals.
PDF