Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 1307-1307

Abstract: Background: Trisomy 4 is a recurrent but rare cytogenetic abnormality reported in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The prognostic significance of this abnormality in AML patients is not clear. Prognosis of AML patients with trisomy 4 seems to be poor as compared to that of patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) may improve survival if applied early in first complete remission (CR). However, neither prospective clinical nor larger retrospective cohort studies are available to support these results from small series. Aims: To characterize AML patients with trisomy 4 and compare outcomes according to different treatment strategies. Methods: We retrospectively studied 123 AML patients with trisomy 4 (median age at diagnosis, 58 years; range, 16-76 years) treated between 2000 and 2019 within 2 large study groups. Standard statistical methods were applied. Results: Median white blood cell count at diagnosis was 4.8/nl (range, 0.4-255/nl) and platelets 46/nl (range, 2-330/nl). Type of AML was de novo in 97 (79%), secondary after myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasm in 18 (15%), and therapy-related in 8 (6%) patients. Sixty-two (50%) patients were female. Cytogenetic analysis revealed trisomy 4 as the sole abnormality in 28 (23%), additional abnormalities in 95 (77%) patients, most frequently ≥3 (n=66) abnormalities, trisomy 8 (n=41), karyotypes characterized by trisomies only (n=21) and t(8;21) or inv(16) (CBF; n=10). A total of 98 patients (80%) had NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutation testing. Of those, 21 (21%) and 15 (15%) harbored NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutations. Only 2 (3%) of 72 patients were CEBPA double mutated. Data on response to intensive anthracycline-based induction therapy were available in 117 patients. Early death rate was 5% (n=6). CR was achieved in 68% (n=79) with 22 (19%) requiring an intensive salvage treatment cycle. Notably, patients with trisomy 4 as sole abnormality had a CR rate of 89% (n=25/28). There was no difference in the CR rate in FLT3-ITD positive (n=10/15) as compared to FLT3 wild type (n=56/83) patients (67% each, P=0.99). Univariable analysis revealed trisomy 4 as sole abnormality (OR, 5.76; P=0.007) and NPM1 (OR, 12.08; P=0.02) as favorable factors. An allo-HCT was performed in 40 (34%) patients, of whom 19 patients were transplanted in first CR after induction therapy. Nine patients achieved CR after salvage chemotherapy and went on to allo-HCT; another 12 patients received allo-HCT with active disease. Type of donor was matched-related in 8, matched-unrelated in 30, and unknown in 2 of the 40 patients, respectively. Median follow-up of the intensively treated cohort was 73 months (95%-CI, 36-91 months). Five-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were 31% (95%-CI, 23-42%) and 27% (95%-CI, 18-42%). OS rates were significantly higher in patients with CBF leukemia or patients with trisomy 4 as compared to all other abnormalities (Figure 1; P & lt;0.001). Cox regression analysis on OS revealed CBF/CEBPA (HR, 0.75; P=0.02) and trisomy 4 as sole abnormality (HR, 0.63; P=0.04) as favorable factors; age with a difference of ten years was an in trend adverse factor (HR, 1.15; P=0.06; not significant: NPM1, FLT3-ITD, complex karyotype with ≥3 abnormalities). There was no difference on OS if patients proceeded to allo-HCT in CR1 or with active disease (P=0.8). Five-year RFS was 26% (95%-CI, 14-50%) in patients proceeding to allo-HCT after induction therapy (n=40), as compared to 28% (95%-CI, 17-46%; P=0.99) in those who received consolidation chemotherapy (n=49). Conclusions: Clinically, patients with trisomy 4 are very heterogeneous in particular with respect to cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities. In our cohort, patients with trisomy 4 as a sole abnormality had a high CR rate and favorable clinical outcome. In the total cohort, allo-HCT did not improve RFS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Krause: Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; art-tempi: Honoraria; Kosmas: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel support; Abbvie: Other: travel support. Schliemann: Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Haenel: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Crysandt: Incyte: Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fransecky: Medac: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Martinez-Lopez: Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Einsele: Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Platzbecker: AbbVie: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Baldus: Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Müller-Tidow: Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Levis: Astellas and FujiFilm: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, FujiFilm, and Menarini: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Montesinos: Stemline/Menarini: Consultancy; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Tolero Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Röllig: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyer-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schlenk: Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hexal: Honoraria; Neovio Biotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2021-150281

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 4418-4418

Abstract: Background Venetoclax (VEN)-based combination therapy with hypomethylating agents (HMA) has been approved for first-line treatment in patients ineligible for intensive treatment based on two randomized trials. There is some evidence for efficacy also in the in relapsed/ refractory setting (R/R), but comparative controlled data is lacking. Here, we report our experience of VEN-Azacitidine (AZA) in R/R AML salvage treatment and bridge to allogeneic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in fit patients compared to historical data from the Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188874). Design/Methods We analyzed all patients with R/R AML after initial intensive therapy, who started VEN-AZA salvage treatment at the University Hospital Heidelberg, between October 2018 and October 2020. Patients, who were bridged to allo-HCT were compared in a multivariable analysis to data of R/R AML patients from the SAL registry receiving an allo-HCT. Results: A total of 26 patients (median age 60 years, range 23 to 79) were included. All patients initially received intensive therapy, 16 patients (62%) had been refractory to intensive induction therapy with DA (daunorubicin, cytarabine) (11 patients)/ CPX-351 (2 patients) or to an intensive salvage therapy regime with HAM (2 patients)/ Cytarabin-Bortezomib (1 patient). Ten patients (38%) had morphologic (7 patients) or molecular relapse (3 patients) after intensive first line therapy. The distribution of AML according to WHO-2016 classification was n=10 recurrent genetic abnormalities (n= 7, mutated NPM1; n=1, biallelic CEBPA mutations; n=1, mutated RUNX1; n=1, CBFB-MYH11), n=10 AML with MRC, n=6 AML NOS. According to the 2017 ELN classification, 9 patients (34,5%) had low risk, 8 (31%) intermediate risk and 9 (34,5%) adverse risk disease. All patients received AZA 75mg/m² for 7 days combined with VEN 400mg/day after initial ramp up or a reduced dose of 100mg/day in case of co-medication with azoles in 28 days cycles. Best response was CR/CRi in 58% (n=15), PR in 23% (n=6) patients. Day 30-mortality was 0%, day 60-mortality was 4% (n=1). Allo-HCT was performed in 20 patients (77%). Pre-Allo-HCT remission status was CR/CRi in 11 (55%), PR in 4 (20%) patients and MLFS in 1 patient and 4 patients had active disease (n=3, relapse after achieving CR/CRi on VEN-AZA, n=1 refractory to VEN-AZA.). At the time of analysis 15 (75%) of the 20 bridged patients were alive and 11 (55%) are still in CR resulting in a median relapse-free survival in bridged patients of 406 days, whereas all patients not proceeding to allo-HCT died after a median of 139 days. In total, 63 patients with R/R AML were identified in the SAL-registry proceeding to allo-HCT with non VEN-based salvage attempt. Pre-Allo-HCT remission status was CR/CRi in 18 (28%), PR in 15 (24%), unknown in 13 patients (21%) and 17 (27%) patients had active disease (n=9 relapsed, n=8 refractory). Patients of the SAL registry were younger (median, 55 years; range, 22-75 years) and more patients were ELN-int (low risk, 32%, n=20; int, 52%, n=33, adv, 16%, n=10). Median follow-up in the VEN-AZA and the SAL cohorts were 1.4 years and 4.6 years, respectively. Cox-regression modeling of survival measured from the date of being refractory/relapsed revealed a non-significant effect of the cohorts favoring the VEN-AZA salvage therapy (HR, 0.87, p=0.73). However, stratified univariable survival analysis revealed in trend better survival (p=0.10) in the VEN-AZA compared to the SAL cohort with 77% (95%-CI, 62-95%) and 74% (95%-CI, 57-97%) as well as 84% (95%-CI, 76-94%) and 52% (95-CI, 41-68%) 1- and 2-years survival, respectively. Conclusion: Our data confirms the efficacy of VEN-AZA in patients with R/R AML and underlines its potential as an effective strategy for bridging to successful allo-HCT. Disclosures Unglaub: JazzPharma: Consultancy, Other: travel costs/ conference fee; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: travel costs/ conference fee. Schlenk: Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Neovio Biotech: Honoraria; Hexal: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria. Middeke: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Glycostem: Consultancy; UCB: Honoraria. Krause: Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; art-tempi: Honoraria; Kosmas: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel support; Abbvie: Other: travel support. Schliemann: Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Haenel: GSK: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Crysandt: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria. Fransecky: Medac: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Einsele: Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Seggewiss-Bernhardt: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ipsen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EusaPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Platzbecker: AbbVie: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Baldus: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Dreger: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Müller-Tidow: Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Sauer: Takeda: Consultancy, Other: DSMB/SAB Member; Matterhorn Biosciences AG: Consultancy, Other: DSMB/SAB Member; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: off-label use of Venetoclax-based combination therapy in relapsed or refractory AML

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2021-151287

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 140, No. Supplement 1 ( 2022-11-15), p. 3317-3319

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2022-167677

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Haematologica, Ferrata Storti Foundation (Haematologica), Vol. 108, No. 1 ( 2022-06-09), p. 34-41

Abstract: We retrospectively studied 125 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and trisomy 4 (median age at diagnosis, 58 years; range, 16-77 years) treated between 2000 and 2019 within a multicenter study. Trisomy 4 was the sole abnormality in 28 (22%) patients and additional abnormalities were present in 97 (78%) patients. Twenty-two (22%) and 15 (15%) of 101 tested patients harbored NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutations. Two (3%) of 72 tested patients had double CEBPA mutations. Data on response to intensive anthracycline-based induction therapy were available for 119 patients. Complete remission was achieved in 67% (n=80) and the early death rate was 5% (n=6). Notably, patients with trisomy 4 as sole abnormality had a complete remission rate of 89%. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation was performed in 40 (34%) patients, of whom 19 were transplanted in first complete remission. The median follow-up of the intensively treated cohort was 5.76 years (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.99-7.61 years). The 5-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates were 30% (95% CI: 22-41%) and 27% (95% CI: 18-41%), respectively. An Andersen-Gill regression model on overall survival revealed that favorable-risk according to the European LeukemiaNet classification (hazard ratio [HR] =0.34; P=0.006) and trisomy 4 as sole abnormality (HR=0.41; P=0.01) were favorable factors, whereas age with a difference of 10 years (HR=1.15; P=0.11), female gender (HR=0.74; P=0.20) and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HR=0.64; P=0.14) did not have an significant impact. In our cohort, patients with trisomy 4 as their sole abnormality had a high complete remission rate and favorable clinical outcome. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation did not seem to improve overall survival.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1592-8721 , 0390-6078

URL: Article

DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2022.281137

Language: Unknown

Publisher: Ferrata Storti Foundation (Haematologica)

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2186022-1

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2030158-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2805244-4

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 31, No. 15_suppl ( 2013-05-20), p. 7051-7051

Abstract: 7051 Background: Since complete molecular remission (CMR 4.5) defines a subgroup of patients who may stay in remission even after discontinuation of treatment, we analysed whether CMR 4.5 is reached faster with dose optimized IM 800 mg and whether the achievement of CMR 4.5 at specified points in time results in better survival than the achievement of less deep remissions. Methods: Confirmed CMR 4 and CMR 4.5 are defined as ≤ 0.01% BCR-ABL IS or ≥ 4 log reduction and ≤ 0.0032% BCR-ABL IS or ≥ 4.5 log reduction, respectively, from standardized baseline as determined by real-time PCR in 2 independent analyses. Details on CML-Study IV have been published (Hehlmann et al., JCO 2011). Cumulative incidences were estimated under consideration of competing risks. Landmark analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic impact of different remissions at 4 years on survival. Results: Of 1551 randomized patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML 1525 were evaluable. Median age was 52 years, 88% were EUTOS low risk, 12% high risk. 113 patients were transplanted (73 in first chronic phase), 246 received 2nd generation TKI. 152 patients have died. After a median observation time of 67.5 months, 6-year OS was 88.2%.CMR 4.5 was reached after a median of about 76.1 months with IM 800 and 107.3 months with IM 400. EUTOS low-risk patients reached all remissions faster than high-risk patients. Independent of treatment approach CMR 4.5 at 4 years predicted OS significantly better than complete cytogenetic remission (p=0.043), but not significantly better than major molecular remission (MMR) or CMR4. After a median observation of 3.9 years 1 of 626 patients with CMR 4 has progressed. Only six of the 394 patients with CMR 4.5 have died after a median observation time of 3.0 years, no patient has progressed. An additional finding was that achieving MMR at 3 and at 6 months predicts faster achievement of CMR 4.5. Conclusions: We conclude that dose optimized IM 800 induces CMR 4.5 faster than IM 400 and that CMR 4.5 at 4 years is associated with a survival advantage. Dose optimized IM 800 may provide an improved therapeutic basis for treatment discontinuation in patients with CML. Clinical trial information: NCT00055874.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.7051

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Publication Date: 2013

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 32, No. 5 ( 2014-02-10), p. 415-423

Abstract: Deep molecular response (MR 4.5 ) defines a subgroup of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who may stay in unmaintained remission after treatment discontinuation. It is unclear how many patients achieve MR 4.5 under different treatment modalities and whether MR 4.5 predicts survival. Patients and Methods Patients from the randomized CML-Study IV were analyzed for confirmed MR 4.5 which was defined as ≥ 4.5 log reduction of BCR-ABL on the international scale (IS) and determined by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction in two consecutive analyses. Landmark analyses were performed to assess the impact of MR 4.5 on survival. Results Of 1,551 randomly assigned patients, 1,524 were assessable. After a median observation time of 67.5 months, 5-year overall survival (OS) was 90%, 5-year progression-free-survival was 87.5%, and 8-year OS was 86%. The cumulative incidence of MR 4.5 after 9 years was 70% (median, 4.9 years); confirmed MR 4.5 was 54%. MR 4.5 was reached more quickly with optimized high-dose imatinib than with imatinib 400 mg/day (P = .016). Independent of treatment approach, confirmed MR 4.5 at 4 years predicted significantly higher survival probabilities than 0.1% to 1% IS, which corresponds to complete cytogenetic remission (8-year OS, 92% v 83%; P = .047). High-dose imatinib and early major molecular remission predicted MR 4.5 . No patient with confirmed MR 4.5 has experienced progression. Conclusion MR 4.5 is a new molecular predictor of long-term outcome, is reached by a majority of patients treated with imatinib, and is achieved more quickly with optimized high-dose imatinib, which may provide an improved therapeutic basis for treatment discontinuation in CML.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.9020

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Publication Date: 2014

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5

In: Leukemia, Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0887-6924 , 1476-5551

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1038/s41375-023-02016-6

Language: English

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Publication Date: 2023

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2008023-2

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 139, No. 1 ( 2022-01-06), p. 87-103

Abstract: Biallelic mutations of the CEBPA gene (CEBPAbi) define a distinct entity associated with favorable prognosis; however, the role of monoallelic mutations (CEBPAsm) is poorly understood. We retrospectively analyzed 4708 adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who had been recruited into the Study Alliance Leukemia trials, to investigate the prognostic impact of CEBPAsm. CEBPA mutations were identified in 240 patients (5.1%): 131 CEBPAbi and 109 CEBPAsm (60 affecting the N-terminal transactivation domains [CEBPAsmTAD] and 49 the C-terminal DNA-binding or basic leucine zipper region [CEBPAsmbZIP] ). Interestingly, patients carrying CEBPAbi or CEBPAsmbZIP shared several clinical factors: they were significantly younger (median, 46 and 50 years, respectively) and had higher white blood cell (WBC) counts at diagnosis (median, 23.7 × 109/L and 35.7 × 109/L) than patients with CEBPAsmTAD (median age, 63 years, median WBC 13.1 × 109/L; P & lt; .001). Co-mutations were similar in both groups: GATA2 mutations (35.1% CEBPAbi; 36.7% CEBPAsmbZIP vs 6.7% CEBPAsmTAD; P & lt; .001) or NPM1 mutations (3.1% CEBPAbi; 8.2% CEBPAsmbZIP vs 38.3% CEBPAsmTAD; P & lt; .001). CEBPAbi and CEBPAsmbZIP, but not CEBPAsmTAD were associated with significantly improved overall (OS; median 103 and 63 vs 13 months) and event-free survival (EFS; median, 20.7 and 17.1 months vs 5.7 months), in univariate and multivariable analyses. Additional analyses revealed that the clinical and molecular features as well as the favorable survival were confined to patients with in-frame mutations in bZIP (CEBPAbZIP-inf). When patients were classified according to CEBPAbZIP-inf and CEBPAother (including CEBPAsmTAD and non-CEBPAbZIP-inf), only patients bearing CEBPAbZIP-inf showed superior complete remission rates and the longest median OS and EFS, arguing for a previously undefined prognostic role of this type of mutation.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.2020009680

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 1242-1242

Abstract: Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is characterized by a high relapse rate, indicating insufficient clearance of leukemia-initiating cells. Depending on genetic risk stratification, consolidating chemotherapy proves to significantly reduce the risk of relapse. In particular, in younger AML patients higher dosage of cytarabine appears to improve long-term outcome, while there is no apparent benefit of multiagent combination, compared to cytarabine monotherapy. However, to this end the optimal dosage of single agent cytarabine in consolidation therapy after 7+3 remission induction remains elusive. Methods: Here, we retrospectively assessed the impact of different dosages of cytarabine consolidation on outcome in a large real-world data set from the German Study Alliance Leukemia-Acute Myeloid Leukemia (SAL-AML) registry. Patients below 65 years of age, registered between April 2005 and September 2020 with non-acute promyelocytic leukemia, who attained complete remission after intensive induction and received at least one consolidation cycle with intermediate (IDAC) or high dose cytarabine (HiDAC) were selected. To account for differences in patient and disease characteristics between both groups, the average treatment effect was estimated by propensity score weighting. Results: 642 patients received HiDAC consolidation with a median dosage of 5794.88 (IQR, 4745.48-5971.56) mg/m 2/d with a median number of 3 cycles (IQR, 2-3), whereas 178 patients received IDAC consolidation with 1946.16 (IQR, 1869.51-2469.15) mg/m 2/d with a median of 2 cycles (IQR, 1-3). IDAC-treated patients showed in average a higher age (median (IQR) 58.5 (49-62) years vs. 50 (41-56) years) and more comorbidities with 43.8% having an HCT-CI score of 2-4, compared to 22.3% among HiDAC-treated patients. Alongside, significantly more secondary (5.1% vs. 3.1%) and therapy-related (12.4% vs. 4.1%) AML as well as more adverse (14.5% vs. 6.5%) and less favorable (40.6% vs. 56%) genetic risk features according to ELN 2017 risk classification were found among IDAC-treated patients. After propensity score weighting for differences in patient and disease characteristics, overall survival after 5 years was comparable between HiDAC-treated (71.1 %) and IDAC-treated (67.7%) patients. Moreover, no significant differences in relapse-free survival were observed after 5 years (47.4 vs. 45.2%). Notably, more patients treated with IDAC received allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first remission (37.6 vs. 19.8%) while significantly more HiDAC-treated patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation in relapse (30.8 vs. 20.2%). Censoring for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first remission revealed no significant survival difference with regard to cytarabine dosage. Considering only ELN favorable risk AML patients, there was no difference in 5-years overall (80.5% vs. 83.9%) nor relapse-free (57.7% vs. 56.8%) survival. Of note, significantly more patients treated with HiDAC suffered from ≥3 CTCAE infectious complications (56.7 vs. 44.1%), which was more striking in patients above 50 years of age. The rate of other ≥3 CTCAE non-hematological toxicities and secondary malignancies was comparable in both treatment groups. Conclusion: This retrospective analysis suggests no significant benefit of high dose cytarabine compared to intermediate dosages in consolidation for AML patients under 65 years of age, independent of ELN risk group. Disclosures Krause: Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; art-tempi: Honoraria; Kosmas: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel support; Abbvie: Other: travel support. Schliemann: Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Haenel: Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Brummendorf: Takepart Media: Honoraria; Repeat Diagnostics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers: Research Funding. Fransecky: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Einsele: Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Held: MSD: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Acortech Biopharma: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Platzbecker: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Baldus: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Mueller-Tidow: Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2021-146606

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 122, No. 21 ( 2013-11-15), p. 4008-4008

Abstract: Depth of molecular remission on tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment is of rising importance for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients (pts) with regard to possible treatment discontinuation and competing TKIs available to improve molecular response. At present, it is unknown which level of deep molecular response is necessary for optimal prognosis and for successfully stopping therapy. The aim of this work is both to evaluate the technical feasibility of molecular monitoring at the mentioned level and to search for factors allowing to predict MR5.0 in pts on imatinib (IM)-based treatment. Methods Real-time quantitative PCR on mRNA BCR-ABL transcripts in addition to total ABL transcripts as internal control has been performed on a LightCycler platform in 1,442 pts within the randomized CML-Study IV and adapted according to the International Scale (IS). In order to qualify for MR5.0 the BCR-ABLIS expression should meet one of the following criteria: a positive result ≤0.001% or a negative result with a minimum sample quality of 100,000 ABL copies (Cross et al., Leukemia 2012). Calculating cumulative incidences of remission or progression, the competing risks progression and/or death before possible progression were considered. Cox models were estimated for the multivariate analysis. Results In 1,198 of the 1,442 molecularly examined pts at least one sample fulfilled the sensitivity criteria for a MR5.0 (8,266 of 24,101 samples, 34.3%). Cumulative incidence of MR5.0 was 51% at 8 years. The median time to MR5.0 according to randomized treatment arms differed as follows: IM 800mg 79.7 months (mos), IM 400mg 95.0 mos, IM 400mg + IFNα 98.0 mos, IM 400mg + AraC 103.3 mos, IM 400mg after IFN failure 112.9 mos. A Cox model examining the different treatment arms compared to IM 400mg revealed a significantly higher chance for MR5.0 in the IM 800mg arm (HR 1.305, 95% CI 1.003-1.698, p=0.048). Baseline factors like thrombocytosis 〉 450/nl were associated with better responses (HR 1.701 compared to 〈 450/nl, 95% CI 1.405-2.059, p 〈 0.001) and higher leukocyte counts 〉 100/nl (HR 0.503 compared to 〈 50/nl, 95% CI 0.400-0.632, p 〈 0.001) and 50-100/nl (HR 0.746 compared to 〈 50/nl, 95% CI 0.591-0.942, p=0.014) with unfavorable responses. Other upfront factors like age, gender, blasts, eosinophils, hemoglobin, and EUTOS score did not significantly influence the probability for MR5.0. Taken all treatment arms together, our analyses have shown that the chance of achieving a MR5.0 by 8 years was considerably reduced if the pts had a BCR-ABLIS 〉 10% at 3 mos (40.2% vs 58.0%), 〉 1% at 6 mos (40.3% vs 68.7%), 〉 0.1% at 12 mos (37.7% vs 72.0%), and 〉 0.1% at 24 mos (21.5% vs 60.5%). Conclusion This evaluation of a large randomized trial reveals feasibility of MR5.0 detection in the majority of pts underlining the benefits of standardized molecular monitoring on the IS with optimized highly sensitive technologies. Baseline low leukocyte count, high thrombocyte count and high dose IM treatment are predictors of future MR5.0. Further, early molecular landmarks qualify for excellent outcome giving hope to a rising number of pts to successfully discontinue treatment and avoid possible side effects or comorbidities. Disclosures: Müller: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hehlmann:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Hochhaus:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel Other; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria. Saussele:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel Other; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel, Travel Other; Pfizer: Honoraria.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V122.21.4008.4008

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2013

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7