Paul Cahalin

A randomized comparison of daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 vs 60 mg/m2 in AML induction: results from the UK NCRI AML17 trial in 1206 patients

Modifying induction therapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may improve the remission rate and reduce the risk of relapse, thereby improving survival. Escalation of the daunorubicin dose to 90 mg/m(2) has shown benefit for some patient subgroups when compared with a dose of 45 mg/m(2), and has been recommended as a standard of care. However, 60 mg/m(2) is widely used and has never been directly compared with 90 mg/m(2). As part of the UK National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) AML17 trial, 1206 adults with untreated AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, mostly younger than 60 years of age, were randomized to a first-induction course of chemotherapy, which delivered either 90 mg/m(2) or 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 3, and 5 combined with cytosine arabinoside. All patients then received a second course that included daunorubicin 50 mg/m(2) on days 1, 3, and 5. There was no overall difference in complete remission rate (73% vs 75%; odds ratio, 1.07 [0.83-1.39]; P = .6) or in any recognized subgroup. The 60-day mortality was increased in the 90 mg/m(2) arm (10% vs 5% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.98 [1.30-3.02]; P = .001), which resulted in no difference in overall 2-year survival (59% vs 60%; HR, 1.16 [0.95-1.43]; P = .15). In an exploratory subgroup analysis, there was no subgroup that showed significant benefit, although there was a significant interaction by FLT3 ITD mutation. This trial is registered at http://www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN55675535.

The addition of arsenic trioxide to low-dose Ara-C in older patients with AML does not improve outcome

Most patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) are older, with many unsuitable for conventional chemotherapy. Low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) is superior to best supportive care but is still inadequate. The combination of arsenic trioxide (ATO) and LDAC showed promise in an unrandomised study. We report a randomised trial of LDAC versus LDAC+ATO. Patients with AML according to WHO criteria or myelodysplastic syndrome with >10% blasts, considered as unfit for conventional chemotherapy, were randomised between subcutaneous Ara-C (20 mg b.d. for 10 days) and the same LDAC schedule with ATO (0.25 mg/kg) on days 1–5, 9 and 11, for at least four courses every 4 to 6 weeks. Overall 166 patients were entered; the trial was terminated on the advice of the DMC, as the projected benefit was not observed. Overall 14% of patients achieved complete remission (CR) and 7% CRi. Median survival was 5.5 months and 19 months for responders (CR: not reached; CRi: 14 months; non-responders: 4 months). There were no differences in response or survival between the arms. Grade 3/4 cardiac and liver toxicity, and supportive care requirements were greater in the ATO arm. This randomised comparison demonstrates that adding ATO to LDAC provides no benefit for older patients with AML.

A randomised comparison of the novel nucleoside analogue sapacitabine with low-dose cytarabine in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia

The development of new treatments for older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is an active area, but has met with limited success. Sapacitabine is a novel orally administered nucleoside analogue that has shown encouraging activity in unrandomised early-stage trials. We randomised 143 untreated patients with AML or with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (>10% marrow blasts) between sapacitibine and low-dose ara-C (LDAC) in our ‘Pick a Winner’ trial design. At the planned interim analysis there was no difference between LDAC and sapacitibine in terms of remission rate (CR/CRi, 27% vs 16% hazard ratio (HR) 1.98(0.90–4.39) P=0.09), relapse-free survival (10% vs 14% at 2 years, HR 0.73(0.33–1.61) P=0.4) or overall survival (OS; 12% vs 11% at 2 years, HR 1.24(0.86–1.78) P=0.2). Sapacitibine was well tolerated, apart from more grade 3/4 diarrhoea. On the basis of these findings sapacitibine did not show sufficient evidence of benefit over LDAC for the trial to be continued.

A comparison of clofarabine with ara-C, each in combination with daunorubicin as induction treatment in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia

The study was designed to compare clofarabine plus daunorubicin vs daunorubicin/ara-C in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Eight hundred and six untreated patients in the UK NCRI AML16 trial with AML/high-risk MDS (median age, 67 years; range 56–84) and normal serum creatinine were randomised to two courses of induction chemotherapy with either daunorubicin/ara-C (DA) or daunorubicin/clofarabine (DClo). Patients were also included in additional randomisations; ± one dose of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in course 1; 2v3 courses and ± azacitidine maintenance. The primary end point was overall survival. The overall response rate was 69% (complete remission (CR) 60%; CRi 9%), with no difference between DA (71%) and DClo (66%). There was no difference in 30-/60-day mortality or toxicity: significantly more supportive care was required in the DA arm even though platelet and neutrophil recovery was significantly slower with DClo. There were no differences in cumulative incidence of relapse (74% vs 68%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 (0.77–1.14), P=0.5); survival from relapse (7% vs 9%; HR 0.96 (0.77–1.19), P=0.7); relapse-free (31% vs 32%; HR 1.02 (0.83–1.24), P=0.9) or overall survival (23% vs 22%; HR 1.08 (0.93–1.26), P=0.3). Clofarabine 20 mg/m2 given for 5 days with daunorubicin is not superior to ara-C+daunorubicin as induction for older patients with AML/high-risk MDS.

Measurable Residual Disease at Induction Redefines Partial Response in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Stratifies Outcomes in Patients at Standard Risk Without NPM1 Mutations

Purpose We investigated the effect on outcome of measurable or minimal residual disease (MRD) status after each induction course to evaluate the extent of its predictive value for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) risk groups, including NPM1 wild-type (wt) standard risk, when incorporated with other induction response criteria. Methods As part of the NCRI AML17 trial, 2,450 younger adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome had prospective multiparameter flow cytometric MRD (MFC-MRD) assessment. After course 1 (C1), responses were categorized as resistant disease (RD), partial remission (PR), and complete remission (CR) or complete remission with absolute neutrophil count < 1,000/µL or thrombocytopenia < 100,000/μL (CRi) by clinicians, with CR/CRi subdivided by MFC-MRD assay into MRD+ and MRD-. Patients without high-risk factors, including Flt3 internal tandem duplication wt/- NPM1-wt subgroup, received a second daunorubicin/cytosine arabinoside induction; course 2 (C2) was intensified for patients with high-risk factors. Results Survival outcomes from PR and MRD+ responses after C1 were similar, particularly for good- to standard-risk subgroups (5-year overall survival [OS], 27% RD v 46% PR v 51% MRD+ v 70% MRD-; P < .001). Adjusted analyses confirmed significant OS differences between C1 RD versus PR/MRD+ but not PR versus MRD+. CRi after C1 reduced OS in MRD+ (19% CRi v 45% CR; P = .001) patients, with a smaller effect after C2. The prognostic effect of C2 MFC-MRD status (relapse: hazard ratio [HR], 1.88 [95% CI, 1.50 to 2.36], P < .001; survival: HR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.22], P < .001) remained significant when adjusting for C1 response. MRD positivity appeared less discriminatory in poor-risk patients by stratified analyses. For the NPM1-wt standard-risk subgroup, C2 MRD+ was significantly associated with poorer outcomes (OS, 33% v 63% MRD-, P = .003; relapse incidence, 89% when MRD+ ≥ 0.1%); transplant benefit was more apparent in patients with MRD+ (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.69) than those with MRD- (HR, 1.68 [95% CI, 0.75 to 3.85]; P = .16 for interaction). Conclusion MFC-MRD can improve outcome stratification by extending the definition of partial response after first induction and may help predict NPM1-wt standard-risk patients with poor outcome who benefit from transplant in the first CR.

The addition of the mTORr inhibitor, Everolimus, to consolidation therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia: experience from the UK NCRI AML17 trial

As part of the UK NCRI AML17 trial, adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia in remission could be randomized to receive the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus, sequentially with post-induction chemotherapy. Three hundred and thirty-nine patients were randomised (2:1) to receive everolimus or not for a maximum of 84 days between chemotherapy courses. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival. At 5 years there was no difference in relapse-free survival [29% versus 40%; odds ratio 1.19 (0.9-1.59) P=0.2], cumulative incidence of relapse [60% versus 54%: odds ratio 1.12 (0.82-1.52): P=0.5] or overall survival [45% versus 58%: odds ratio 1.3 (0.94-1.81): P=0.11]. The independent Data Monitoring Committee advised study termination after randomization of 339 of the intended 600 patients because of excess mortality in the everolimus arm without any evidence of beneficial disease control. The delivery of the everolimus dose was variable, but there was no evidence of clinical benefit in patients with adequate dose delivery compared with no treatment. This study suggests that the addition of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition to chemotherapy provides no benefit.

A comparison of FLAG-Ida and daunorubicin combined with clofarabine in high-risk acute myeloid leukaemia: data from the UK NCRI AML17 Trial

Gradual but definite progress has been made in the treatment of younger adults with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) [1–3], except those 25–30% with high-risk disease. For them the best approach is a myeloablative allogeneic transplant; however, even the transplant option provides only a 30% chance of cure, and has been limited to younger patients who have a donor. The point at which a patient is recognised to be at high risk is usually after the first course of induction treatment has been given when the most useful prognostic data is to hand. These patients represent an important unmet therapeutic need for which there is no specific standard of care. The challenge is three-fold. First, for those who will go forward to transplant improving the pre-transplant chemotherapy could reduce the post-transplant relapse rate. Second, better treatment could deliver more patients to transplant who otherwise might relapse before reaching transplant. Third, better treatment is needed for patients for whom a transplant is not available. For relapsed patients the FLAG-Ida (fludarabine/cytosine arabinoside (ara-C)/granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and idarubicin) is widely used, although it has not been subjected to a randomised assessment. In our Medical Research Council (MRC) AML15 Trial, FLAG-Ida given for the first two treatment courses had a significantly superior anti-leukaemia effect [4]. It therefore appeared logical to continue with FLAG-Ida as consolidation for patients who were identified as high risk. We chose as the comparative treatment to replace ara-C, in a daunorubicin/ ara-C combination, with an alternative nucleoside, clofarabine, which has demonstrated activity in adverse risk patients [5–9]. Following a successful feasibility study combining daunorubicin with clofarabine, we decided to prospectively compare this combination with FLAG-Ida in high-risk patients. The AML17 protocol (ISRCTN55675535) was designed to include untreated de novo or secondary AML and highrisk myelodysplastic syndrome (defined as >10% marrow blasts at diagnosis). The overall treatment plan has been described elsewhere [10] and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, sponsored by the Cardiff University, and approved by the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3. The age range was between 16 and 61 years, although older patients were permitted if deemed suitable for the potential randomisations. Three hundred and eleven patients were randomised after having received the first induction course, which could have been ADE (Ara-C/ daunorubicin/etoposide) alone (N= 39) or with gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) 3 mg/m (n= 29) or 6 mg/m (n= 30) or daunorubicin/Ara-C (DA) with GO 3mg/m (N= 35) or 6 mg/m (N= 22) with the daunorubicin dose being 60 mg/m (n= 78) or 90 mg/m (n= 78). GO was given on * R K Hills hillsrk@cf.ac.uk