Michael Craig

Phase 2 trial of romidepsin in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma

Romidepsin (depsipeptide or FK228) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor, one of a new class of agents active in T-cell lymphoma. A phase 2 trial was conducted in cutaneous (CTCL) and peripheral (PTCL) T-cell lymphoma. Major and durable responses in CTCL supported the approval of romidepsin for CTCL. Forty-seven patients with PTCL of various subtypes including PTCL NOS, angioimmunoblastic, ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma were enrolled. All patients had received prior therapy with a median of 3 previous treatments (range 1-11); 18 (38%) had undergone stem-cell transplant. All patients were evaluated for toxicity; 2 patients discovered to be ineligible were excluded from response assessment. Common toxicities were nausea, fatigue, and transient thrombocytopenia and granulocytopenia. Complete responses were observed in 8 and partial responses in 9 of 45 patients, for an overall response rate of 38% (95% confidence interval 24%-53%). The median duration of overall response was 8.9 months (range 2-74). Responses were observed in various subtypes, with 6 responses among the 18 patients with prior stem-cell transplant. The histone deacetylase inhibitor romidepsin has single agent clinical activity associated with durable responses in patients with relapsed PTCL.

Randomized trial of bendamustine-rituximab or R-CHOP/R-CVP in first-line treatment of indolent NHL or MCL: the BRIGHT study

This randomized, noninferiority (NI), global, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) vs a standard rituximab-chemotherapy regimen (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone [R-CHOP] or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone [R-CVP]) for treatment-naive patients with indolent non-Hodgkins lymphoma or mantle cell lymphoma. Investigators preassigned the standard treatment regimen they considered most appropriate for each patient; patients were randomized to receive BR (n = 224) or standard therapy (R-CHOP/R-CVP, n = 223) for 6 cycles; 2 additional cycles were permitted at investigator discretion. Response was assessed by a blinded independent review committee. BR was noninferior to R-CHOP/R-CVP, as assessed by the primary end point of complete response rate (31% vs 25%, respectively; P = .0225 for NI [0.88 margin]). The overall response rates for BR and R-CHOP/R-CVP were 97% and 91%, respectively (P = .0102). Incidences of vomiting and drug-hypersensitivity reactions were significantly higher in patients treated with BR (P < .05), and incidences of peripheral neuropathy/paresthesia and alopecia were significantly higher in patients treated with standard-therapy regimens (P < .05). These data indicate BR is noninferior to standard therapy with regard to clinical response with an acceptable safety profile. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00877006.

Phase II Study of Clofarabine Monotherapy in Previously Untreated Older Adults With Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Unfavorable Prognostic Factors

PURPOSE This phase II study assessed clofarabine monotherapy in older adults (>or= 60 years of age) with untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and at least one unfavorable baseline prognostic factor. PATIENTS AND METHODS Clofarabine was administered intravenously for 5 days at 30 mg/m(2)/d during induction and 20 mg/m(2)/d during reinduction/consolidation (six cycles maximum). The primary end point was overall remission rate (ORR; ie, complete remission [CR] plus CR with incomplete platelet recovery [CRp]). RESULTS In 112 evaluable patients who were treated (median age, 71 years; range, 60 to 88 years), the ORR was 46% (38% CR, 8% CRp). ORR by unfavorable prognostic factor was 39% for patients >or= 70 years of age; 32% for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 2; 51% for antecedent hematologic disorder; 54% for intermediate karyotype; 42% for unfavorable karyotype; and 48%, 51%, and 38% for one, two, and three risk factors, respectively. The median disease-free survival was 37 weeks (95% CI, 26 to 56 weeks). Median duration of remission was 56 weeks (95% CI, 33 to not estimable). The estimated median overall survival was 41 weeks (95% CI, 28 to 53 weeks) for all patients, 59 weeks for patients with CR/CRp, and 72 weeks for patients with CR. The 30-day all-cause mortality was 9.8%. The most common non-laboratory drug-related toxicities (>or= 20% patients) were nausea, febrile neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, rash, and fatigue. CONCLUSION Clofarabine is an active agent with acceptable toxicity in patients age 60 years or older with untreated AML who have at least one unfavorable prognostic factor. ORR did not seem affected by the presence of multiple unfavorable prognostic factors.

Clofarabine Plus Cytarabine Compared With Cytarabine Alone in Older Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myelogenous Leukemia: Results From the CLASSIC I Trial

PURPOSE To compare the receipt of clofarabine plus cytarabine (Clo+Ara-C arm) with cytarabine (Ara-C arm) in patients ≥ 55 years old with refractory or relapsed acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive either clofarabine (Clo) 40 mg/m(2) or a placebo followed by Ara-C 1 g/m(2) for five consecutive days. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included event-free survival (EFS), 4-month EFS, overall remission rate (ORR; complete remission [CR] plus CR with incomplete peripheral blood count recovery), disease-free survival (DFS), duration of remission (DOR), and safety. RESULTS Among 320 patients with confirmed AML (median age, 67 years), the median OS was 6.6 months in the Clo+Ara-C arm and 6.3 months in the Ara-C arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.28; P = 1.00). The ORR was 46.9% in the Clo+Ara-C arm (35.2% CR) versus 22.9% in the Ara-C arm (17.8% CR; P < .01). EFS (HR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.80; P < .01) and 4-month EFS (37.7% v 16.6%; P < .01) favored the Clo+Ara-C arm compared with Ara-C arm, respectively. DFS and DOR were similar in both arms. Overall 30-day mortality was 16% and 5% for CLO+Ara-C and Ara-C arms, respectively. In the Clo+Ara-C and Ara-C arms, the most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities were febrile neutropenia (47% v 35%, respectively), hypokalemia (18% v 11%, respectively), thrombocytopenia (16% v 17%, respectively), pneumonia (14% v 10%, respectively), anemia (13% v 0%, respectively), neutropenia (11% v 9%, respectively), increased AST (11% v 2%, respectively), and increased ALT (10% v 3%, respectively). CONCLUSION Although the primary end point of OS did not differ between arms, Clo+Ara-C significantly improved response rates and EFS. Study follow-up continues, and the role of clofarabine in the treatment of adult patients with AML continues to be investigated.

Control of Plasma Uric Acid in Adults at Risk for Tumor Lysis Syndrome: Efficacy and Safety of Rasburicase Alone and Rasburicase Followed by Allopurinol Compared With Allopurinol Alone—Results of a Multicenter Phase III Study

PURPOSE Rasburicase is effective in controlling plasma uric acid in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies. This study in adults evaluated safety of and compared efficacy of rasburicase alone with rasburicase followed by oral allopurinol and with allopurinol alone in controlling plasma uric acid. PATIENTS AND METHODS Adults with hematologic malignancies at risk for hyperuricemia and tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) were randomly assigned to rasburicase (0.20 mg/kg/d intravenously days 1-5), rasburicase plus allopurinol (rasburicase 0.20 mg/kg/d days 1 to 3 followed by oral allopurinol 300 mg/d days 3 to 5), or allopurinol (300 mg/d orally days 1 to 5). Primary efficacy variable was plasma uric acid response rate defined as percentage of patients achieving or maintaining plasma uric acid ≤ 7.5 mg/dL during days 3 to 7. RESULTS Ninety-two patients received rasburicase, 92 rasburicase plus allopurinol, and 91 allopurinol. Plasma uric acid response rate was 87% with rasburicase, 78% with rasburicase plus allopurinol, and 66% with allopurinol. It was significantly greater for rasburicase than for allopurinol (P = .001) in the overall study population, in patients at high risk for TLS (89% v 68%; P = .012), and in those with baseline hyperuricemia (90% v 53%; P = .015). Time to plasma uric acid control in hyperuricemic patients was 4 hours for rasburicase, 4 hours for rasburicase plus allopurinol, and 27 hours for allopurinol. CONCLUSION In adults with hyperuricemia or at high risk for TLS, rasburicase provided control of plasma uric acid more rapidly than allopurinol. Rasburicase was well tolerated as a single agent and in sequential combination with allopurinol.

Vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia (VALOR): a randomised, controlled, double-blind, multinational, phase 3 study.

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/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m(2) in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m(2) 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.

How we approach patient evaluation for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

The evaluation of patients for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is a complex process. The decision to recommend transplantation is not simply dependent on patient diagnosis; instead it is a specialized analytic decision process intricately dependent on a number of variables including patient age, performance status, medical comorbidities, family support structure, socioeconomic viability and motivation to participate in self-care, to name a few. The process of pre-transplant patient evaluation has substantial variability across different transplant centers, owing to lack of formal published guidelines. This review summarizes the process of pre-transplant patient evaluation and workup, and aims to describe components of a well-organized and evidenced-based patient selection process for SCT

The clinical impact of antibacterial prophylaxis and cycling antibiotics for febrile neutropenia in a hematological malignancy and transplantation unit

Febrile neutropenia is an expected complication during treatment of aggressive hematological malignancies and hematopoietic cell transplantation. We conducted a prospective cohort trial to determine the effects and safety of prophylactic fluoroquinolone administration, and rotation of empiric antibiotics for neutropenic fever in this patient population. From March 2002 through 2004, patients were treated with prophylactic levofloxacin during prolonged neutropenia, and a cycling schedule of empiric antibiotic therapy for neutropenic fever was initiated. The rates of bacteremia, resistance and complications were compared to a retrospective cohort of previously treated patients. The rate of gram-negative bacteremia decreased after the initiation of prophylactic levofloxacin (4.7 vs 1.8 episodes/1000 patient days, P<0.05). Gram-positive bacteremia rates remained unchanged, but more isolates of Enterococcus faecium were resistant to vancomycin after the intervention began. Resistance to the antibiotic agents used in the rotation did not emerge. There was no change in mortality during the intervention period. A prophylactic and cycling antibiotic schedule was successfully implemented on a hematological malignancy and hematopoietic cell transplant unit. gram-negative bacteremia was significantly decreased, without emergence of resistance. Concerns with Gram-positive resistance will require further observation.

Can Positron Emission Tomography Be Used as a Staging Tool for Small-Cell Lung Cancer?

PURPOSE Positron emission tomography (PET) is widely used for the staging evaluation of non-small-cell lung cancer; however, its use in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains investigational. PATIENTS AND METHODS We did a retrospective study of 137 patients to evaluate the role of PET in SCLC. Fifty-one of 137 patients had computed tomography (CT) and PET scans during initial evaluation of a lung mass. RESULTS All 51 patients had PET-positive results for malignancy (100% sensitivity). In 40 of 51 cases (78%), the PET staging correlated with that on CT. Two of 51 patients (4%) had disease that was accurately upstaged by PET. Positron emission tomography accurately downstaged disease in 6 of 51 patients (12%). Positron emission tomography detected additional sites of disease in 13 of 42 patients (32%). Of the 13 additional sites of disease, PET detected supraclavicular nodes in 4 of 13 patients (30%) and bone lesions in 4 of 13 patients (30%). The sensitivity to detect brain lesions was 5 of 11 patients (45%) in this series. In this series, the PET results from 8 of 51 patients (16%) resulted in a change in disease management. Because of PET results, 6 of 51 patients (12%) who otherwise would not have been treated, were treated with radiation. CONCLUSION Positron emission tomography is potentially useful for accurate initial staging of SCLC and can ensure that a patients disease is not overstaged by CT scan, which might result in denied potentially curative treatment for limited-stage SCLC. It can identify the occult adrenal metastasis and metastasis to supraclavicular lymph nodes that are missed by CT; however, brain lesions are difficult to assess by PET.

Neurotrophins Regulate Bone Marrow Stromal Cell IL-6 Expression through the MAPK Pathway

Background The hosts response to infection is characterized by altered levels of neurotrophins and an influx of inflammatory cells to sites of injured tissue. Progenitor cells that give rise to the differentiated cellular mediators of inflammation are derived from bone marrow progenitor cells where their development is regulated, in part, by cues from bone marrow stromal cells (BMSC). As such, alteration of BMSC function in response to elevated systemic mediators has the potential to alter their function in biologically relevant ways, including downstream alteration of cytokine production that influences hematopoietic development. Methodology/Principal Findings In the current study we investigated BMSC neurotrophin receptor expression by flow cytometric analysis to determine differences in expression as well as potential to respond to NGF or BDNF. Intracellular signaling subsequent to neurotrophin stimulation of BMSC was analyzed by western blot, microarray analysis, confocal microscopy and real-time PCR. Analysis of BMSC Interleukin-6 (IL-6) expression was completed using ELISA and real-time PCR. Conclusion BMSC established from different individuals had distinct expression profiles of the neurotrophin receptors, TrkA, TrkB, TrkC, and p75NTR. These receptors were functional, demonstrated by an increase in Akt-phosphorylation following BMSC exposure to recombinant NGF or BDNF. Neurotrophin stimulation of BMSC resulted in increased IL-6 gene and protein expression which required activation of ERK and p38 MAPK signaling, but was not mediated by the NFκB pathway. BMSC response to neurotrophins, including the up-regulation of IL-6, may alter their support of hematopoiesis and regulate the availability of inflammatory cells for migration to sites of injury or infection. As such, these studies are relevant to the growing appreciation of the interplay between neurotropic mediators and the regulation of hematopoiesis.