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.
Summary Background Internal tandem duplication mutations in FLT3 are common in acute myeloid leukaemia and are associated with rapid relapse and short overall survival. The clinical benefit of FLT3 ...inhibitors in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia has been limited by rapid generation of resistance mutations, particularly in codon Asp835 (D835). We aimed to assess the highly selective oral FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Methods In this phase 1–2 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia who either were refractory to induction therapy or had relapsed after achieving remission with previous treatment. Patients were enrolled into one of seven dose-escalation or dose-expansion cohorts assigned to receive once-daily doses of oral gilteritinib (20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg, 120 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, or 450 mg). Cohort expansion was based on safety and tolerability, FLT3 inhibition in correlative assays, and antileukaemic activity. Although the presence of an FLT3 mutation was not an inclusion criterion, we required ten or more patients with locally confirmed FLT3 mutations ( FLT3mut+ ) to be enrolled in expansion cohorts at each dose level. On the basis of emerging findings, we further expanded the 120 mg and 200 mg dose cohorts to include FLT3mut+ patients only. The primary endpoints were the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of gilteritinib. Safety and tolerability were assessed in the safety analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of gilteritinib). Responses were assessed in the full analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and who had at least one datapoint post-treatment). Pharmacokinetics were assessed in a subset of the safety analysis set for which sufficient data for concentrations of gilteritinib in plasma were available to enable derivation of one or more pharmacokinetic variables. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02014558 , and is ongoing. Findings Between Oct 15, 2013, and Aug 27, 2015, 252 adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia received oral gilteritinib once daily in one of seven dose-escalation (n=23) or dose-expansion (n=229) cohorts. Gilteritinib was well tolerated; the maximum tolerated dose was established as 300 mg/day when two of three patients enrolled in the 450 mg dose-escalation cohort had two dose-limiting toxicities (grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 elevated aspartate aminotransferase). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events irrespective of relation to treatment were febrile neutropenia (97 39% of 252), anaemia (61 24%), thrombocytopenia (33 13%), sepsis (28 11%), and pneumonia (27 11%). Commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (92 37% of 252), anaemia (86 34%), fatigue (83 33%), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (65 26%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (47 19%). Serious adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients were febrile neutropenia (98 39% of 252; five related to treatment), progressive disease (43 17%), sepsis (36 14%; two related to treatment), pneumonia (27 11%), acute renal failure (25 10%; five related to treatment), pyrexia (21 8%; three related to treatment), bacteraemia (14 6%; one related to treatment), and respiratory failure (14 6%). 95 people died in the safety analysis set, of which seven deaths were judged possibly or probably related to treatment (pulmonary embolism 200 mg/day, respiratory failure 120 mg/day, haemoptysis 80 mg/day, intracranial haemorrhage 20 mg/day, ventricular fibrillation 120 mg/day, septic shock 80 mg/day, and neutropenia 120 mg/day). An exposure-related increase in inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation was noted with increasing concentrations in plasma of gilteritinib. In-vivo inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation occurred at all dose levels. At least 90% of FLT3 phosphorylation inhibition was seen by day 8 in most patients receiving a daily dose of 80 mg or higher. 100 (40%) of 249 patients in the full analysis set achieved a response, with 19 (8%) achieving complete remission, ten (4%) complete remission with incomplete platelet recovery, 46 (18%) complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery, and 25 (10%) partial remission Interpretation Gilteritinib had a favourable safety profile and showed consistent FLT3 inhibition in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. These findings confirm that FLT3 is a high-value target for treatment of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia; based on activity data, gilteritinib at 120 mg/day is being tested in phase 3 trials. Funding Astellas Pharma, National Cancer Institute (Leukemia Specialized Program of Research Excellence grant), Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro.
Summary Background Pixantrone dimaleate (pixantrone)—a novel aza-anthracenedione—was synthesised to reduce anthracycline-related cardiotoxicity without compromising antitumour efficacy. We aimed to ...assess the efficacy and safety of pixantrone versus an investigator's choice of a single-agent therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods In this phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial at 66 hospitals in Europe, India, Russia, South America, the UK, and the USA, patients with histologically confirmed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had relapsed after two or more previous chemotherapy regimens were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to treatment with pixantrone dimaleate (85 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, for up to six cycles) or to a comparator (vinorelbine, oxaliplatin, ifosfamide, etoposide, mitoxantrone, or gemcitabine) given at prespecified standard doses and schedules. Patients were stratified by region, International Prognostic Index score, and previous stem-cell transplantation. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment; however, an independent assessment panel was masked. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete or unconfirmed complete response in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population at the end of treatment. Primary analyses of efficacy were based on the independent assessment panel's data review. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00088530. Findings The ITT population comprised 70 patients randomly assigned to the pixantrone group and 70 to the comparator. Five patients (two in the pixantrone group and three in the comparator group) dropped out before receiving their study drug. 14 patients (20·0% 95% CI 11·4–31·3) who received pixantrone achieved a complete or unconfirmed complete response at end of treatment compared with four patients (5·7% 1·6–14·0) in the comparator group (p = 0·021). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients given pixantrone were uncomplicated, non-cumulative neutropenia (28 41·2% of 68 patients vs 13 19·4% of 67 patients in the comparator group), leucopenia (16 23·5% vs five 7·5%), and thrombocytopenia (eight 11·8% vs seven 10·4%). Interpretation Pixantrone, given as a single-agent salvage therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is efficacious and tolerable. It could be a treatment option for patients whose aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma has failed to respond to at least two previous chemotherapy regimens. Funding Cell Therapeutics, Inc.
Summary Background Available treatments for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) have limited durable activity and unsatisfactory safety profiles in most elderly patients. We assessed the efficacy and ...toxicity of sapacitabine, a novel oral cytosine nucleoside analogue, in elderly patients with AML. Methods In this randomised, phase 2 study, we recruited patients with AML who were either treatment naive or at first relapse and who were aged 70 years or older from 12 centres in the USA. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly allocate eligible patients to receive one of three schedules of oral sapacitabine (1:1:1; stratified by a history of AML treatment): 200 mg twice a day for 7 days (group A); 300 mg twice a day for 7 days (group B); and 400 mg twice a day for 3 days each week for 2 weeks (group C). All schedules were given in 28 day cycles. To confirm the safety and tolerability of dosing schedules, after 20 patients had been treated in a group we enrolled an expanded cohort of 20–25 patients to that group if at least four patients had achieved complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, and if the 30 day death rate was 20% or less. Our primary endpoint was 1-year overall survival, analysed by intention-to-treat (ie, patients who have received at least one dose of sapacitabine) in those patients who had been randomly allocated to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00590187. Results Between Dec 27, 2007, and April 21, 2009, we enrolled 105 patients: 86 patients were previously untreated and 19 were at first relapse. Of the 60 patients randomly allocated to treatment, 1-year overall survival was 35% (95% CI 16–59) in group A, 10% (2–33) in group B, and 30% (13–54) in group C. 14 (13%) of 105 patients died within 30 days and 27 (26%) died within 60 days. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were anaemia (eight of 40 patients in group A, 12 of 20 patients in group B, and 15 of 45 patients in group C), neutropenia (14 in group A, 10 in group B, 11 in group C), thrombocytopenia (24 in group A, 12 in group B, and 22 in group C), febrile neutropenia (16 in group A, nine in group B, and 22 in group C), and pneumonia (seven in group A, five in group B, and 10 in group C). The most common grade 5 events were pneumonia (two in group A, one in group B, and three in group C) and sepsis (six in group A, three in group B, and one in group C). Seven deaths were thought to be probably or possibly related to sapacitabine treatment. Interpretation Sapacitabine seems active and tolerable in elderly patients with AML. The 400 mg dose schedule had the best efficacy profile. Future investigations should aim to combine sapacitabine with other low-intensity therapies in elderly patients with AML. Funding Cyclacel Limited.
Summary Background There is some evidence to suggest that one or two doses of the HPV vaccine provides similar protection to the three-dose regimen. The main aim of the study was to ascertain ...HPV-16/18 vaccine efficacy in both full and naive cohorts and to explore protection conferred against non-vaccine HPV types, by number of doses received. Methods Summary data from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (CVT; NCT00128661 ) and ~the PATRICIA trial ( NCT001226810 ), two phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trials of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in young women, were combined in a post-hoc analysis (GlaxoSmithKline GSK e-track number 202142) to investigate the efficacy of fewer than three doses of the HPV-16/18 vaccine after 4 years of follow-up. Women were randomly assigned to receive three doses of the HPV-16/18 vaccine or to a control vaccine; yet, some received fewer doses. After exclusion of women with less than 12 months of follow-up or those who were HPV-16/18 DNA-positive at enrolment (for the HPV-16/18 endpoint), we calculated vaccine efficacy against one-time detection of incident HPV infections after three, two, and one dose(s). The primary study endpoint was one-time detection of first incident HPV-16/18 infections accumulated during the follow-up phase. Findings We assessed vaccine efficacy against incident HPV-16/18 infection in the modified total vaccinated cohort (22 327 received three doses, 1185 two doses, 543 one dose). Vaccine efficacy against incident HPV-16/18 infections for three doses was 77·0% (95% CI 74·7–79·1), two doses was 76·0% (62·0–85·3), and one dose was 85·7% (70·7–93·7). Vaccine efficacy against incident HPV-31/33/45 infections for three doses was 59·7% (56·0–63·0), two doses was 37·7% (12·4–55·9), and one dose was 36·6% (–5·4 to 62·2). Vaccine efficacy against incident HPV-16/18 infection for two-dose women who received their second dose at 1 month was 75·3% (54·2–87·5) and 82·6% (42·3–96·1) for those who received the second dose at 6 months (CVT data only). Vaccine efficacy against HPV-31/33/45 for two-dose women who received their second dose at 6 months (68·1%, 27·0–87·0; CVT data only), but not those receiving it at one month (10·1%, −42·0 to 43·3), was similar to the three-dose group. Interpretation 4 years after vaccination of women aged 15–25 years, one and two doses of the HPV-16/18 vaccine seem to protect against cervical HPV-16/18 infections, similar to the protection provided by the three-dose schedule. Two doses separated by 6 months additionally provided some cross-protection. These data argue for a direct assessment of one-dose efficacy of the HPV-16/18 vaccine. Funding US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health, and Ministry of Health of Costa Rica (CVT); GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (PATRICIA).
PDF
