Tag Archive for: American Society of Hematology

Combination AML Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Patients | What Are the Long-Term Effects?

Combination AML Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Patients | What Are the Long-Term Effects? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

A Patient Empowerment Network community member wants to know the length of time that patients can stay on the combined treatment of azacitidine (Vidaza) and venetoclax (Venclexta). AML specialist Dr. Jacqueline Garcia responds, sharing an update on the long-term follow-up data for this combination treatment.

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia is an oncologist and AML researcher at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Learn more about Dr. Garcia.

See More from Thrive AML

Related Resources:

Acute Myeloid Leukemia Care | Who Are the Essential Team Members

Understanding AML Treatment Categories

New and Emerging AML Therapies Being Studied in Clinical Trials

New and Emerging AML Therapies Being Studied in Clinical Trials


Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Jerry had this question. “How long can patients stay on azacitidine (Vidaza) and venetoclax (Venclexta) before relapse or toxicities force them to abandon treatment?”  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

So, this is a good question. I would say azacitidine and venetoclax just got FDA-approved just shy of five years now, and it’s totally changed our treatment paradigm in many great ways. It was initially approved for patients that could not get intensive chemotherapies or were above 75. We call these our older patients, our more vulnerable.   

And we demonstrated and compared to azacitidine alone. It was given with placebo. We saw that the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax not only was safe, well-tolerated, it led to two-and-a-half times higher complete remission rates and impressively longer survival. That’s all we care about, patients are living longer. So, one of the things that we are appreciating in 2023 now, now that we have more patients on azacitidine and venetoclax, is that we have many patients that are long-term responders.  

So, in the original clinical trial we’ve been reported – and we just submitted the update for the long-term follow-up that we presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting in 2022, in December.   

We presented the long-term follow-up data that shows that responses can be durable and even as long as two years or three years in some patients. The average amount of time the patients are on therapy is somewhere between one-and-a-half to two years. But not every patient performs like an average patient.  

We have some that respond for less time. We have some that respond for a longer time. So, I definitely have a few patients that have been on combination therapy, and we’ve gone to year three, then four, and two that got to year five. And that was using the original indication of older the 75, no intensive chemotherapy. Most of those patients in the original trial and led to the approval were not transplant candidates. But once those drugs got approved, more patients that were older started getting this therapy.  

And so, the durability of this treatment might be longer for people that don’t have competing health problems and for specific mutation subtypes. There are a couple of mutation subtypes that include IDH2 and NPM1, where we’ve seen some extreme long-term responders.  

And then, there are others that are much shorter. So, I would say it’s very individual. In terms of toxicities in general, the regimens very well-tolerated. And if it’s not, often it’s because there should be supportive care, prophylaxis, and adjustments to the dosing strategy, which has been well-published. Sometimes, if you have a treating oncologist that is less familiar, they won’t know the nuances of how to adjust the doses, so I would ask your local oncologist to reach out to anybody that was part of the original trials. Often, a lot of us are very responsive to helping out our colleagues to help patients to stay on treatment.   

But at the end of the day, if a patient loses response or has a bad toxicity that makes it very difficult, we have to move on to another therapy.   

Emerging CLL Research | Understanding the CAPTIVATE and MAJIC Studies

Emerging CLL Research | Understanding the CAPTIVATE and MAJIC Studies from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What’s the latest in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) research? Expert Dr. Ryan Jacobs shares updates about the CAPTIVATE study, MAJIC study, and potential treatment breakthroughs.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs is a hematologist/oncologist specializing in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia from Levine Cancer Institute. Learn more about Dr. Jacobs.

Download Resource Guide   |  Descargar Guía en Español

See More from START HERE CLL

Related Programs:

CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Start Here

CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Start Here

Diagnosed with CLL? Start Here

Diagnosed with CLL? Start Here

Is It Aging or My CLL?

Is It Aging or My CLL?


Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

I did a little research last night before I talked with you, and it sounds like that is something that the CAPTIVATE trial is investigating. A patient asked about that, what that trial is. And it’s music to my ears as a cancer patient to hear something like “fixed duration”, it’s also investigating a fixed duration so patients and have maybe a bit of a medication vacation. So can you speak to that trial a little bit and explain what it is a little bit on how that might benefit patients with CLL?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs: 

Yeah. So one of the best elements of treating with venetoclax (Venclexta) is that it produces a deep level of remission in many patients. In fact, when given with the monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab (Gazyva), to CLL patients receiving that treatment as a first line of therapy for their CLL, about three-quarters of CLL patients will get to so deep of a remission that we call them minimal residual disease negative.

Lisa Hatfield: 

And that’s a blood test or a bone marrow test, but more easily done as a blood test, where we can look to a sensitivity of one in 10,000 white cells and determine if there’s any CLL in those 10,000 cells. We can actually go deeper than that, but we say, we CLL patients are negative if they’re less than one in 10,000. And so 75 percent of patients will get to that depth of remission just with obinutuzumab for six months along with venetoclax for a year.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

So when researchers saw that, they recognized that we could probably stop treatment in those patients getting venetoclax because venetoclax yields these deep responses. And then the next kind of thought was, well, could we give a BTK inhibitor with venetoclax, but also over a defined treatment timeline and maybe get some of the remarkable benefits of treating with a BTK inhibitor but not get stuck being on therapy for years and years.

So the CAPTIVATE study was the first really to, in a large Phase II manner, look at that combination in a younger patient population, it was for patients 70 and younger. And it wasn’t in a high risk or anything, it was all comers. But they did have to be 70 and younger and getting treatment as a first-line therapy. So the combination was very effective. As of the last American Society of Hematology meeting in December, four years of data was reported and a large percentage of patients were still free of progression, over 80 percent still free of progression. And that’s three years off therapy at that point.

It was well-tolerated, not many patients had to come off due to toxicity. It was in fact, less than 10 percent had really significant toxicities requiring discontinuation. So it was a well-tolerated effective treatment.

I do have one of those studies to open at my institution, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination,  it’s called the MAJIC trial, and it is a large Phase III study that if it’s successful, I think would lead to the approval of giving those two drugs together. But then the extra credit question is, who should get the combination and who should get the drugs separately? And we don’t have an answer for that right now, and that’s a long topic of debate among CLL specialists. 

Lisa Hatfield:

Great. Well, thank you. So for that trial you spoke of that you’re conducting right now, is that… Is it only relapsed patients who are eligible for that? Or is that for front-line therapy.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

No, this is a first-line therapy that the MAJIC study is.

Lisa Hatfield: 

Oh good. That’s promising for patients too.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

And it has a really good comparator arm, so that won’t be a problem that the standard arm on that study is venetoclax (Venclexta) plus obinutuzumab, so it’s comparing against one of our best treatments, and so we really will get the answer of does it look better to use the BTK with the Bcl-2? Or is it not really that much better than just giving a venetoclax with obinutuzumab? And then the one obvious element that I didn’t mention that would be nice for most patients in addition to being efficacious and well-tolerated is if you could get an all-oral combination. Of course, venetoclax with obinutuzumab, you’re still getting quite a few infusions with the obinutuzumab over the first six months. So that’s a lot of time in the infusion center that you could avoid with just the combination of two oral targeted agents. So that would be a breakthrough for patients too, I think. 


Share Your Feedback

Create your own user feedback survey

DLBCL Treatment and Research Updates Patients Should Know About

DLBCL Treatment and Research Updates Patients Should Know About from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment and research updates should patients know about? Expert Dr. Amitkumar provides an overview of recent updates and shares credible resources to learn about emerging research.

Dr. Amitkumar Mehta is Director of the Lymphoma Program and CAR T Program and Medical Director of the Clinical Trials Office at O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at UAB. Learn more about Dr. Mehta.

See More from Thrive DLBCL

Related Resources:

DLBCL Treatment Approaches for Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed_Refractory Patients

DLBCL Treatment Approaches for Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed/Refractory Patients

How Can DLBCL Patients Benefit From Shared Decision-Making

How Can DLBCL Patients Benefit From Shared Decision-Making?

Why Should DLBCL Patients Feel Empowered to Speak Up

Why Should DLBCL Patients Feel Empowered to Speak Up?

Transcript:

Katherine:

The annual American Society of Hematology, or ASH, meeting happened recently, where DLBCL experts shared their research. Are there updates that patients should know about?

Dr. Mehta:

Absolutely. There are so many promising agents that were presented in a wide variety of different clinical trials, early phase or Phase I, Phase II, and also some of the advanced studies that were discussed. The promising right now, I say in a relapse setting, potentially curative is the CAR T. There was some long-term data, a newer platform of CAR T therapy, autologous, that means where patient’s own T cells have modified. There are quite many products already approved. Their long-term data, safety, and efficacy was discussed – very impressive. The new set of cellular therapy, which includes not only CAR T but other immune cell like NK cell therapy, which are also presented – very impressive. Now, remember, we need to auto our own CAR-T cells being processed. There is a time lag, about two or three weeks for preparing those cells compared to the others they’re over the shelf.

Of course, all of this data are early, but they are very promising going forward. The others are bispecific antibodies. So, so far what we have is the monoclonal antibodies targeting single antigen like CD20 or CD19. But now we have bispecific, which targets CD20 on one end but CD3, the T-cell antigen on the other end. And those antibodies have proven very effective in all B-cell lymphoma and large-cell lymphoma.

And there are so many other agents in early phase. As we go out more in-depth going forward, we will lower their efficacy and side effects and how they fare compared to the other approved agents. So, very exciting time for lymphoma patients. So, that even if it comes back, we have multiple options to have it back in remission and potentially a cure going forward.

Katherine:

Yeah. No, that’s great. How can patients learn more about emerging research?

Dr. Mehta:

Very important question. And currently, as we were discussing, Googling sometimes is not the right way because it is unfiltered information. And its sample size could be different. Somebody has a negative experience, and they would write that, and the person reading might have a different perception of the diagnosis and treatment. There are good websites, American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Lymphoma & Leukemia Society.

There are many other cancer societies. They have good information available. But the most important is actually the responsibility, in my opinion, lies on the provider. When the patient comes and sees me, I make sure that I share the information with the patient. And I direct them to the right source of information, and it should be interactive.

That means if they read something if they have any questions, they come back and ask me. At the end, it is our responsibility as a care team to be available, first of all, for any questions and provide right information. What I’ve learned through a period of time that that has helped patient quite a bit all across so that they don’t have to wander around for nonspecific information like on Google or other search platforms

How MPN Researchers Collaborate to Advance Patient Care

How MPN Researchers Collaborate to Advance Patient Care from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

MPN specialist and researcher Dr. Gabriela Hobbs discusses how collaboration and data sharing among researchers around the world impact MPN treatment advances.

Dr. Gabriela Hobbs is a hematology-oncology physician specializing in the care of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), chronic myeloid leukemia, and leukemia. Dr. Hobbs serves as clinical director of the adult leukemia service at Massachusetts General Hospital. Learn more about Dr. Hobbs.

See More From MPN Clinical Trials 201

Related Programs:

Advancing MPN Research: How Clinical Trials Work

Advancing MPN Research: How Clinical Trials Work

The Risks and Benefits of Participating in an MPN Clinical Trial

The Risks and Benefits of Participating in an MPN Clinical Trial

How Driver Mutation Research Is Advancing MPN Treatments

How Driver Mutation Research Is Advancing MPN Treatments


Transcript:

Katherine:

I’d like to start by discussing your role as an MPN researcher. You’re on the front lines for advancements in the field. What led you to there, and why is it so important to you?  

Dr. Hobbs:

Many things in my life led me to becoming an MPN clinician. First, I wanted to be a clinical investigator since I was very little, and I read a Louis Pasteur book about – you know. And I was fascinated by the fact that you could be both a scientist and a clinician. And after that, I had phenomenal teachers and mentors. And I was really always drawn to patients with hematologic malignancies. I thought that that interaction was very intense and intimate.  

And I was honored to be a part of that interaction. And then from a research perspective and from a scientific perspective, I very clearly remember seeing when the first targeted therapy, Imatinib, was approved when I was an undergrad. And I just thought that was the most fascinating thing. And so, I’ve basically continued to feel that way as I’ve gone through my training, and I’m thrilled to be able to have actually become an MPN clinician so many years later.   

Katherine:

With the American Society of Hematology or ASH meeting taking place this month, it demonstrates how researchers work together around the world to advance care.  

Can you share with the audience how this collaboration works?  

Dr. Hobbs:

Yeah. So, the American Society of Hematology meeting – or the ASH meeting – is really one of my favorite events of the year.  

And it really highlights what you said. It is such a positive environment, and it’s so exciting to use that opportunity to talk to my collaborators from across the globe. And I really think that that’s where the scientific community shines because really all of us are actually trying to figure out how to work together and overcome sometimes a lot of obstacles – bureaucratic obstacles, regulatory obstacles – to make sure that we can share data, do it the right way. But really we always have one thing in mind.  

And that is to be able to advance the care that we give our patients. And so, that collaboration and really that collaborative environment is always very positive. And I always come back home very energized from that. And then just seeing all my colleagues presenting all the wonderful things that they are working on and getting updates on their research is just an exciting environment.   

 Katherine:

In your view, why is it essential to present and share data at these larger conferences like ASH? 

Dr. Hobbs:

So, for many different reasons. I mean, there are many different ways of presenting data that can be done through just publishing a paper. But the nice thing about conferences – and especially large conferences – is that you really get an opportunity to present work in progress. And some of these research projects may not end up turning into bigger projects or they may not become bigger trials. But all of them have at least an opportunity to learn something from them, whether or not they worked or they didn’t work.   

Oftentimes when things are published in journals, especially the high-impact journals, we are seeing trials that had positive results. But sometimes we don’t see those smaller trials that never went anywhere. And so, having a forum when we can discuss work that’s ongoing, discuss about projects that are maybe having issues, all those things actually really help us to change our research questions or develop new research questions based on what’s working and also really what’s not working. And so, having this large forum to present all of that data, I think, is really, really important to helping us design future clinical trials and projects. 

Updates in CAR T-Cell Therapy for Myeloma From ASH 2021

Updates in CAR T-Cell Therapy for Myeloma from ASH 2021 from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Myeloma specialist, Dr. Omar Nadeem, shares the latest updates in CAR T-cell therapy from the 2021 American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting. Dr. Nadeem discusses long-term study results and optimism for the future of CAR T-cell therapy.

Dr. Omar Nadeem is the Clinical Director of Myeloma Cellular Therapies Program and Director of Myeloma and Plasma Cell Pathways at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Learn more about Dr. Nadeem, here.

See More from Thrive Myeloma


Related Programs:

The Latest in Myeloma Research: Updates from ASH 2021

The Latest in Myeloma Research: Updates from ASH 2021

How Could Clinical Trials Fit Into Your Myeloma Treatment Plan?

How Could Clinical Trials Fit Into Your Myeloma Treatment Plan?

An Expert’s Hopeful Outlook on Myeloma Research and Treatment

An Expert’s Hopeful Outlook on Myeloma Research and Treatment 


Transcript:

Dr. Nadeem:

My name is Omar Nadeem, and I’m at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts. I’m an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and I direct the myeloma cellular therapies program at Dana Farber.

Katherine:

Dr. Nadeem, you’ve joined us from the American Society of Hematology Meeting in Atlanta. Can you share any highlights in myeloma from the meeting?

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah, it’s a very exciting time in myeloma therapeutics. We’re seeing a lot of new agents that are being reported at this meeting, showing very promising results.

Then we’re also fine tuning the way we treat myeloma patients by looking at different combinations in all lines of therapy, whether it be front-line or relapsed setting, to try to really understand which treatments are the best and then also more importantly, which treatments do we need to continue patients on, etcetera as they’re going through their myeloma journey. So, lots of updates with important trials at this meeting so far.

Katherine:

We’re hearing a lot about the promise of CAR T-cell therapy. Is there any research news in CAR T-cell for myeloma treatment?

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah. So, we’ll have a presentation later today, actually, updated results of the CARTITUDE-1 study, which is looking at cilta-cel, which is an anti-BCMA directed CAR-T cell product.

And this trial is a phase-1/2 study looking at some patients with relapse in refractory multiple myeloma that has been reported previously to have a very, very high response rate and very high rates of MRD negativity.

So at this meeting, with just longer follow-up, which is what we’re looking for in terms of how long these responses last, we’re starting to see that the median duration of response is now almost 22 months, which is very impressive looking at the data and comparing it to some of the other CAR-T products that are either under study or the one that’s currently approved.

So, that looks very promising. And also notably, we had some concerns initially about toxicity with this particular product. But that really hasn’t been seen with longer follow-up. So, we’re not seeing a toxicity signal, particularly as it relates to neurological toxicity, with the longer follow-up. So, that presentation will be later today. We look forward to seeing the updates, but so far this looks very encouraging and this is what we anticipate to be the next product that’s available in the market for myeloma.

Updates from ASH: How Biomarker Testing Has Changed MPN Care

Updates from ASH: How Biomarker Testing Has Changed MPN Care from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

MPN specialist, Dr. Andrew Kuykendall, discusses how the identification of specific biomarkers in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), such as the JAK2 mutation, have moved research forward. Dr. Kuykendall shares promising findings that were released at the 2021 American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting and how this may impact MPN care in the future.

Dr. Andrew Kuykendall is an Assistant Member at Moffitt Cancer Center in the Department of Malignant Hematology. Dr. Kuykendall’s clinical and research efforts focus on myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), MDS/MPN overlap syndromes and systemic mastocytosis (SM). Learn more about Dr. Kuykendall, here.

See More from INSIST! MPNs

Related Programs

The Latest in MPN Research: Updates from ASH 2021

The Latest in MPN Research: Updates from ASH 2021

Which Gene Mutations Impact Myelofibrosis Treatment Options?

Which Gene Mutations Impact Myelofibrosis Treatment Options?

Which Tests Do You Need Following an MPN Diagnosis

Which Tests Do You Need Following an MPN Diagnosis? 


Transcript

Katherine:

How has molecular or biomarker testing changed the field of MPN care and treatment?

Dr. Kuykendall:

Well, I think, first and foremost just understanding – going back to 2005 and knowing that we have JAK2 mutations. I think that gave really a lot of clarity to the diagnosis and really understanding the biology of how the disease acted through the JAK-STAT pathway. And certainly, that led to the understanding of MPL mutations and then calreticulin mutations.

We’re still figuring out exactly how calreticulin mutations work. There was a great abstract, a preclinical abstract, this year talking about the impact of interferon on calreticulin mutations and how that may differ from what we see in the impact of interferon on diseases that are driven by JAK2 mutations.

Clinically, we see a little bit of difference in how those diseases respond and we may understand a little bit better about why that happens. Additionally, that’s kind of gone down to looking at these big next generation sequencing panels where we identify high-risk mutations and that can certainly change our understanding of the prognosis of these diseases.

We’re starting to get, at least in the AML world, we’re getting targeted agents that can potentially target some of these mutations such as IDH1 and IDH2 mutations that have specific inhibitors.

Those are mutations that occur in myeloproliferative neoplasm patients and convey a worse prognosis, so there are ongoing trials looking to see if we can use those IDH inhibitors in myeloproliferative neoplasms either in the chronic phase or maybe in the more accelerated advanced phase.

You know the big thing, this meeting, was actually looking at polycythemia vera patients and what’s the relevance of the JAK2 mutant allele burden. I think this is something we’ve talked about a lot as far as how significant this is. We know in chronic phase myeloproliferative neoplasms that that JAK2 mutation tends to be associated with more thrombotic complications.

There are more blood clots in the veins and the arteries. There were a couple great abstracts that looked at the really the implications of the JAK2 mutation and the fact that it is associated with more thrombosis, but maybe more venous thrombosis. That might be a big risk factor for venous thrombosis and it may be that cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes, hyperlipidemia that’s really what’s driving the arteriole thrombosis. It also looked at the variant allele fraction, the number of cells that have that JAK2 mutation.

One abstract showed that if you have over a 50 percent allele fraction, if more than 50 percent of the alleles have the mutation – a higher burden of that mutation that’s associated with an increased thrombotic risk even in low-risk polycythemia vera patients. Whether or not that’s enough evidence to really change the paradigm of how we treat low-risk patients is to be determined, but I think very interesting and provocative work. 

Expert Advice for Finding an MPN Clinical Trial

Expert Advice for Finding an MPN Clinical Trial from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Dr. Andrew Kuykendall, an MPN specialist and researcher, shares tips for learning about available clinical trials. Dr. Kuykendall emphasizes the importance of seeking a consultation with a specialist and suggests questions to ask your provider about clinical trials.

Dr. Andrew Kuykendall is an Assistant Member at Moffitt Cancer Center in the Department of Malignant Hematology. Dr. Kuykendall’s clinical and research efforts focus on myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), MDS/MPN overlap syndromes and systemic mastocytosis (SM). Learn more about Dr. Kuykendall, here.

See More from INSIST! MPNs

Related Programs

The Latest in MPN Research: Updates from ASH 2021

The Latest in MPN Research: Updates from ASH 2021

Updates from ASH: How Biomarker Testing Has Changed MPN Care

MPN Research and Optimism About Curative Therapies-2

MPN Research and Optimism About Curative Therapies

 


Transcript

Katherine:

How can patients find out about clinical trials? Are there specific questions that they should be asking their doctors about to participate in a trial?

Dr. Kuykendall:

Yeah. I think it’s tough. One way – there are a few different tools that I would recommend. One, if you’re very interested in just what trials are going on you can go to this national cancer trials, or NCT, network and try to understand online what trials are available. Clinicaltrials.gov is the actual website but that’ll show you the ongoing clinical trials that are there.

You can type in a disease state, so you can type in polycythemia vera or myelofibrosis or essential thrombocythemia, and it’ll give you a huge list of all the trials that are there. It can be kind of overwhelming because it’ll list all of the trials that have ever been done, but there are different ways that you can stratify those results and look for trials that are just recruiting that are active and that’ll taper down that list. And when you click on those trials there usually is at the bottom a list of participating centers that are there. So, you can see the different centers that are there. Overall, I think that that is a very broad way of doing it and somewhat complicated.

What I would ask is – and one of the things that we always push for is – while most of these myeloproliferative neoplasms can be treated quite easily in the community, meaning that the actual mechanisms of what’s being provided is not something that requires a specialized center. I think the understanding of the disease really does. We always recommend having someone in your corner who’s an expert. They don’t have to be the one who is most involved in your care but having someone in your corner who’s an expert.

That’s the person who’s going to know what trials are going on, what trials may be coming down the pipeline, where those trials may be occurring, and they might also tell you “Okay, here are the things that would prompt you to maybe want a trial.” I had a lot of patients that were surprised to realize there were trials available just because they had – they were getting six or seven phlebotomies a year. They were complaining about that but they figured that was just the ways things were. Lo and behold, there was actually a trial that was ongoing that was trying to reduce the need for those phlebotomies in otherwise low-risk patients.

You can always go to clinicaltrials.gov but also try to ask your doctor about hey is there, if you haven’t seen an expert, is there someone close by an expert that I can see for a second opinion just to understand the disease and ask about trials. Usually everyone’s okay with that and when you do see an expert, say “Hey, first of all what trials are right for me now and what in the future might be reasonable and how am I going to know and how often should I check in to see what things are available?” 

The Latest in MPN Research: Updates from ASH 2021

The Latest in MPN Research: Updates from ASH 2021 from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

MPN specialist, Dr. Andrew Kuykendall, shares the latest news from the 2021 American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting. Dr. Kuykendall discusses the latest findings in MPN research, including an update on JAK inhibitors, advances in BET inhibitors, as well as a new therapy in development aimed at reducing phlebotomy in patients with polycythemia vera (PV).

Dr. Andrew Kuykendall is an Assistant Member at Moffitt Cancer Center in the Department of Malignant Hematology. Dr. Kuykendall’s clinical and research efforts focus on myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), MDS/MPN overlap syndromes and systemic mastocytosis (SM). Learn more about Dr. Kuykendall, here.

See More from INSIST! MPNs

Related Programs

MPN Research and Optimism About Curative Therapies-2

MPN Research and Optimism About Curative Therapies

Expert Advice for Finding an MPN Clinical Trial

Expert Advice for Finding an MPN Clinical Trial

An Overview of ET, PV and MF Treatment Options

An Overview of ET, PV and MF Treatment Options 


Transcript

Katherine:

You’re joining us following the American Society of Hematology Meeting where cancer researchers came together to share their findings. Are there highlights from the meeting that patients should know about?

Dr. Kuykendall:

Yeah, absolutely. So, the meeting we just came from, the so-called ASH meeting, is really an annual meeting. Happens every December.

It’s really a chance for researchers to share their most exciting findings and really what they’ve been working on for the past few years, and certainly in the past year.

As a clinical researcher, I think I have always a keen interest in clinical trials that are going to give us some new data so we can see how things are working, but I think this is also a big meeting for pre-clinical studies for basic scientists who get to share what’s exciting in their labs. A lot of times that’ll give a preview of what’s to come maybe four, five years down the road what we’ll see on the clinical side. From the clinical side, which is more in my realm, there is certainly a few specific things to get excited about. Within the field of myeloproliferative neoplasms, we have polycythemia vera, ET – essential thrombocythemia, myelofibrosis.

And on the myelofibrosis side of things, I think we continue to get excited about just really the proliferation of drugs that are in late-stage clinical trials. This meeting was no different from that.

We started to get a little bit more clarity as far as this agent, pelabresib, which is a BET inhibitor which is being looked at really in a variety of different settings as a single agent in combination with ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and as an add-on to ruxolitinib as well.

This was another exciting need to get an update on where the data looks to be with pelabresib. Certainly, there’s an ongoing Phase III study in the up-front setting with that agent. We’re anxiously awaiting results too. Additionally, we’ve got more information regarding other JAK inhibitors that may be coming down the pipeline in the coming months to years with momelotinib and pacritinib.

Certainly, that’s always exciting to see the data come from there, especially when we get kind of further along in their trials, we start to get very isolated assessments of their data. Looking specifically at transfusion rates and the efficacy within the subpopulations that have unmet need. And so, I think that that’s always exciting.

I think polycythemia vera – this is a really big meeting for polycythemia vera. We obviously know that ropeginterferon (Besremi) just got FDA-approved in November.

We also started to see the updated data with rusfertide, or PTG-300, which is a hepcidin memetic that aims to reduce phlebotomy rates in patients that are requiring a ton of phlebotomies which, as we know, can be very impactful on quality of life having to get recurrent phlebotomies.

I think that those were the really big highlights, and the take-aways from this is really we are starting to see these agents move into the late-stage clinical trials.

AML Research Updates: News from ASH 2020

AML expert Dr. Jeffrey Lancet shares news from the 2020 American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting. Dr. Lancet sheds light on headlines from the meeting including FLT3 inhibitor research, combination therapies with venetoclax, a promising inhibitor therapy, and shares his optimism about the future of AML treatment.

About the Guest:
Dr. Jeffrey Lancet is Chair and Program Lead in the Department of Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, FL. He is nationally and internationally recognized for his clinical research in the field of acute leukemias. Learn more about Dr. Lancet, here.

See More From INSIST! AML


Transcript

Katherine:

Hello and welcome, I’m Katherine Banwell. Today we’ll discuss the latest news from ASH 2020 and how AML patients can advocate for personalized care. Joining me is Dr. Jeffrey Lancet. Welcome, would you please introduce yourself?

Dr. Lancet:

Hi, sure. My name is Dr. Jeff Lancet. I’m at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida where I am the Chair of the Malignant Hematology Department. We spend a lot of time treating patients and conducting clinical trials of Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

Katherine:

Dr. Lancet, the American Society of Hematology annual meeting just closed. What are the AML headlines from this year’s meeting?

Dr. Lancet:

Yeah, so as usual AML was a very busy area for clinical presentations this year at the ASH meeting focusing largely on novel and targeted therapies. I don’t believe that there were many practice changing delevelopments, per se, but rather discussions about many promising therapeutic strategies that are still under development and moving forward rapidly largely in the areas of targeted therapy, low intensity therapy, measurable residual disease, and things of that nature.

Katherine:

What does this research news mean for patients?

Dr. Lancet:

Well, I think that there is a lot to be encouraged about and maybe I’ll take the time to review some of the highlights in what was presented with respect to some of the novel therapeutic approaches that many of our patients can look forward to receiving in the not-too-distant future.

So we often talk about targeted therapy instead of, of course, one of the major targets over the years has been that of a mutated FLT3, which is one of the most common mutations in AML.

And at this meeting, we saw several presentations on clinical trials results utilizing Inhibitors of FLT3 with some emphasis on the most recently approved 2nd generation drug called gilteritinib.

There were, I thought, three major presentations focusing on gilteritinib. One was an update on a randomized phase 3 trial comparing gilteritinib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in newly diagnosed unfit for induction chemotherapy patients with FLT3 mutations. Preliminary showing good tolerability and high composite complete response rates in the combination arm. 

There was another trial of gilteritinib plus venetoclax in relapsed refractory FLT3 mutated AML and what was interesting was that a very high percentage of patients achieved response with this combination of gilteritinib plus venetoclax. Many of whom were heavily pre-treated previously and many of whom had also got prior FLT3 inhibitor therapy during an earlier stage of the disease, so the combination of gilteritinib plus venetoclax in this more refractory setting was encouraging to see these promising responses.

And then we say some data reporting the effects of gilteritinib in combination with more traditional chemotherapy induction with a couple of studies demonstrating both high complete response rates, as well as high rates of mutation clearance of the FLT3 mutation. So those are very encouraging data that were presented with respect to the FLT3 mutated AML population. 

So another very important drug that reached the marketplace for AML recently is a drug called venetoclax, which is an inhibitor of a protein called BCL2. And this drug was recently FDA approved for use in combination with low-intensity chemotherapy drugs such as azacitidine or decitabine. And it seems as though the combination of venetoclax plus one of these hypomethylating agent drugs, azacitidine or decitabine, has resulted in very strong efficacy signals as recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine paper that reported on the results of the Phase 3 trial of venetoclax plus azacitidine.

So that has now become standard of care for older, less fit adults with newly diagnosed AML. The combination of venetoclax plus hypomethylating agent such as azacitidine. And naturally there’s been interest in really kind of taking it several steps further to advance the role of these combinations and to also look at additional drugs in combination with venetoclax plus hypomethylating agent therapy. So, we saw some of that at the ASH meeting this year.

One approach would be to take venetoclax and then to combine it with more intensive chemotherapy for perhaps more fit patients or younger patients that could undergo a more intensive program. So we saw presentations of venetoclax being combined with a drug called CPX-351 which is a novel liposomal formulation of two common chemotherapy drugs that had been approved a few years ago for secondary AML. And we also saw a combination strategy with venetoclax and a regimen known as FLAG-IDA, which is a commonly used induction regimen in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

I think it’s important to recognize that although these trials they combine venetoclax with more intensive chemotherapy show signs of good efficacy with good response rates, there are definitely signals of increased toxicity, hematologic toxicity, primarily. Which is not really unexpected with venetoclax knowing that it can cause significant lowering of white blood cells, platelets, and hemoglobin.

Then finally, there is a lot of interest in doing these types of combinations with venetoclax in different subsets of AML. And one subset of AML that has been very important recently is that of the IDH-mutated AML population of patients. IDH is a fairly common mutation that occurs in either in the form of IDH1 or IDH2, and there’s about a 15-20% incidence of IDH mutations in AML. Though we do have an inhibitor for both of these types of mutations, ivosidenib for IDH1 and enasidenib for IDH2, but there also appears to be a strong role for venetoclax plus azacitidine in IDH mutated AML. We saw from a series of patients presented by a physician at MD Anderson looking at outcomes with venetoclax plus azacitidine in IDH mutated AML. The response rates were very high when you give HMA plus venetoclax to these patients with IDH mutated AML. But, I think more importantly, is that there were what we call high intra-patient response rates when switching between venetoclax and HMA therapy with IDH inhibitor continued regimen. In other words, a patient would have a good chance of responding to the initial therapy, then, if or when that therapy stops working, having a good effect from the salvage therapy with the other regiment, So if you received initially azacitidine plus venetoclax, and then had a relapse, the IDH inhibitors worked well and vice-versa if have received an IDH inhibitor, then subsequently received HMA/venetoclax at a later time point, that also worked well.

So it’s encouraging to see that you can potentially sequence these drugs and get continued responses along the way that ultimately we think that will help survival and keep patients in a better state of health for longer.

So I just wanted to take a few minutes also and discuss some of the newer more novel therapies that are really hitting or approaching the landscape right now. One of these is called CC-486, also known as oral azacitidine or onureg, and this drug was shown in a recent literature to prolong overall survival in patients who are in first remission from their AML who had received induction chemotherapy. So this drug was used as maintenance therapy after a variable number of consolidation regimens and people who got this onureg or azacitidine drug as maintenance therapy, it resulted in longer survival compared to those who had received placebo. This was presented at last year’s ASH meeting, but this year’s ASH meeting provided an update, a very important update, showing that the overall survival advantage from this drug, this oral azacitidine drug, when used as maintenance was independent of whether a patient had measurable residual disease at the time that they went on to the maintenance therapy. In other words, whether you had MRD (measurable residual disease) or not at the time of the study entry, your responses were still more favorable, your outcomes were more favorable if you received this oral azacitidine drug. So this was FDA approved earlier this year for patients in the maintenance phase of therapy for AML who had got prior induction chemotherapy. 

And importantly, this drug was also shown to be able to convert about 25% of patients who were positive for measurable residual disease, to convert them from positive to negative. So even though they were in remission, they had measurable residual disease and this drug in about 25% of the cases converted them from positive to negative. So that’s a very important finding as well. 

Another important drug that I think you should keep your eye on is a drug called magrolimab. This is an antibody against a certain type of protein that is present on an immune system cell called the macrophage. And when this magrolimab drug is combined with azacitidine in a recent clinical trial, it was demonstrated very high response rates of over 65%, and in particular in patients with P53 mutation, which is a very bad mutation to have in most cancers including AML. In patients with this high-risk mutation, the combination magrolimab with azacitidine appears to be effective based on the early data that we have with high response rates.

And then finally, I just wanted to make mention of another important area in, not really just AML, but all cancer, and that’s outcomes disparities between different races and ethnic groups. And we saw a very important presentation at the plenary session this year where the authors reported outcomes amongst younger patients with AML who are African American compared with caucasion. And the data clearly indicated a worse overall survival amongst black patients compared to white patients under age 60. And this included patients who are enrolled in clinical trials. So that, it appeared that African American patients had a worse outcome than Causian patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Highlighting the need to better understand various risk factors and other factors that play into these disparate outcomes between our black American population and our white American population, which I think could shed light on additional disease characteristics that many help everybody.

Katherine:

Dr. Lancet, thanks so much for joining us today

Dr. Lancet:

Thank you very much for having me. It was good to be with you.

Katherine:

And thank you to our audience, I’m Katherine Banwell.


Don’t miss an episode and subscribe to PEN’s Empowered! Podcast wherever podcasts are available.

Staying Updated on AML Research News: Advice From an Expert

Staying Updated on AML Research News: Advice from an Expert from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Dr. Jeffrey Lancet, an AML expert from Moffitt Cancer Center, shares tips for sifting through research news and encourages communication with your healthcare team about what you’ve learned.

Dr. Jeffrey Lancet is Chair and Program Lead in the Department of Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, FL. He is nationally and internationally recognized for his clinical research in the field of acute leukemias. Learn more about Dr. Lancet, here.

Download Program Resource Guide

See More From INSIST! AML

Related Resources:

Essential Testing in AML: How Results Impact Care & Treatment Choices

Navigating AML Treatment Decisions

Key AML Testing for Better Care: Understanding Prognosis and Treatment Choices

Transcript:

Katherine:      

Well, patients are often educating themselves about developing research and new treatment options. Do you have advice for patients who, when it comes to talking with their doctors about what they’ve learned?

Dr. Lancet:                   

I think it’s important for patients to speak to their doctors directly and as soon as possible as opposed to going on the internet and doing a Google search for this drug or that because every patient’s situation is unique and how to apply these new drugs is very different amongst patients.

And some patients may qualify for certain approaches and others do not. So, it’s very important to talk to your doctor about how you can individualize your treatment based upon your specific scenario. What type of mutation does a patient have, what is their level of fitness, are they potentially candidates for bone marrow transplant? Those are some of the basic questions that come up all the time to determine what is the best treatment approach.

And as we’re developing new therapies, and more of them, there will be more options for patients and a more personalized approach that can be taken that really can only be decided based upon that individual patient’s unique profile. So, it’s very important to really recognize that one size does not fit all when it comes to treatment of this disease and that certain drugs may be helpful and certain drugs may be unhelpful in that particular site.

Katherine:                   

What would you like to leave patients with today? Are you hopeful about the future of AML treatment and research?

Dr. Lancet:                   

Yes, I’m very hopeful. I think AML is a disease that is really a very diverse and complex one. It doesn’t lend itself well to huge immediate breakthrough therapies that will immediately change the landscape by double digit percentages for example. This is a disease that, again is very complex, and in which advances are made slowly but steadily. And I think we’ve seen that over the past to 5 to 10 years is that we are gradually incorporating new drugs into our treatment regimens with gradually increasing levels of success as we learn more about these drugs starting out as single agents and then beginning to combine them.

I think that we’re learning an awful lot about the molecular landscape about AML and how it impacts treatments and treatment decisions and prognoses. I think our ability now to detect what we recall measurable residual disease is very important. Also, because now we can get a grasp of how well our treatments are working and are we knocking out enough bad cells to expect good outcomes, and if we’re not, then hopefully we can intervene and kind of hit it while it’s down so to speak and use some of these new therapies to knock out what might be left over to give patients better overall long term responses and results.

So, definitely reason to be hopeful, but we have to stay patient as well. It’s difficult because it’s a, it’s a terrible disease but we have to recognize that it’s something that requires very careful research to develop the appropriate clinical trials that will have the highest chance of success.

Katherine:                   

Dr. Lancet, thanks so much for joining us today.

Dr. Lancet:                   

Thank you very much for having me. It was good to be with you and I appreciate the opportunity.

Katherine:

And thank you to our audience. I’m Katherine Banwell.

 

 

 

AML Research Updates: News From ASH 2020

AML Research Updates: News from ASH 2020 from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

AML expert Dr. Jeffrey Lancet shares the latest news from the 2020 American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting. Dr. Lancet sheds light on headlines from the meeting including FLT3 inhibitor research, combination therapies with venetoclax, a promising inhibitor therapy, and shares his optimism about the future of AML treatment.

Dr. Jeffrey Lancet is Chair and Program Lead in the Department of Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, FL. He is nationally and internationally recognized for his clinical research in the field of acute leukemias. Learn more about Dr. Lancet, here.

Download Program Resource Guide

See More From INSIST! AML

Related Resources:

Navigating AML Treatment Decisions

New AML Therapies vs. Traditional Chemotherapy: What’s the Difference?

Transcript:

Katherine:      

Hello, and welcome. I’m Katherine Banwell. Today we’ll discuss the latest news from ASH 2020 and how AML patients can advocate for personalized care. Joining me is Dr. Jeffrey Lancet. Welcome. Would you please introduce yourself?

Dr. Lancet:                   

Hi, sure. My name is Dr. Jeff Lancet. I’m at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, where I am the Chair of the Malignant Hematology Department. We spend a lot of time treating patients and conducting clinical trials of Acute Myelogenous Leukemia.

Katherine:                   

Okay. Thank you. Dr. Lancet, the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting just closed. What are the AML headlines from this year’s meeting?

Dr. Lancet:                   

Yeah, so as usual, AML was a very busy area for clinical presentations this year at the ASH meeting focusing largely on novel and targeted therapies.

I don’t believe that there were many practice changing developments per se, but rather discussions about many promising therapeutic strategies that are still under development and moving forward rapidly largely in the areas of targeted therapy, low intensity therapy, measurable residual disease and things of that nature.

Katherine:                   

What does this research news mean for patients?

Dr. Lancet:                   

Well, I think that there’s a lot to be encouraged about and maybe I’ll take the time to review some of the highlights in what was presented with respect to some of the novel therapeutic approaches that many of our patients can look forward to receiving in the not too distant future.

So, we often talk about you know, targeted therapies and, of course, one of the major targets over the years has been that of mutated FLT3 which is one of the most common mutations in AML.

And at this meeting we saw several presentations on clinical trials resolved to utilizing inhibitors of FLT3, with some emphasis on the most recently approved second generation drug called gilteritinib.

There were I thought three major presentations focusing on gilteritinib and one was an update on a randomized Phase III trial comparing gilteritinib plus azacitidine versus azacitidine alone in newly diagnosed unfit for induction chemotherapy patients with FLT3 mutations, preliminarily showing good tolerability and high composite complete response rates in the combination on.

There was another trial of gilteritinib plus venetoclax in relapsed and refractory FLT3 mutated AML.

And what was interesting was that a very high percentage of patients achieved response with this combination of gilteritinib plus venetoclax, many of whom were heavily pretreated previously and many of whom had also gotten prior FLT3 inhibitor therapy during an early stage of the disease. So, the combination of gilteritinib and venetoclax and this more refractive study, it was encouraging to see these promising responses.

And then we saw some data reporting the effects of gilteritinib in combination with more traditional chemotherapy induction with a couple of studies demonstrating both a high complete response rates as well as high rates of mutation clearance of the FLT3 mutation.

So, those were very encouraging data that were presented with respect to the FLT3 mutated AML population.      

So, another very important drug that reached the marketplace for AML recently is a drug called venetoclax, which is an inhibitor of a protein called BCL2.

And this drug was recently FDA approved for use in combination with low intensity chemotherapy drugs such as azacitidine or decitabine.

And it seems as though the combination of venetoclax plus one of these hypomethylating agent drugs, azacitidine or decitabine has resulted in very, very strong efficacy signals as recently published in a New England Journal of Medicine paper that reported on the results of the Phase III trial of venetoclax plus azacitidine.

So, that has now become standard of care for older less fit adults with newly diagnosed AML; the combination of venetoclax plus a hypomethylating agent such as azacitidine.

And naturally, there’s been interest in really kind of taking it several steps further to advance the role of these combinations and to also look at additional drugs in combination with venetoclax plus hypomethylating agent therapy.

So, we saw some of that at the ASH meeting this year. One approach would be to take venetoclax and then to combine it with more intensive chemotherapy for perhaps more fit patients or younger patients that could undergo a more intensive program.

So, we saw presentations of venetoclax being combined with a drug called CPX-351, which is a novel liposome formulation of two common chemotherapy drugs that had been approved a few years ago for secondary AML. And we also saw a combination strategy with venetoclax, and a regimen known as FLAG-IDA, which is a commonly used induction regimen in acute myeloid leukemia.

And I think it’s important to recognize that although these trials that combine the venetoclax with more intensive chemotherapy showed signs of good efficacy with good response rates, there were definitely signals of increased toxicity, hematologic toxicity primarily, which is not completely unexpected with venetoclax knowing that it can cause significant lowering of white blood cells and platelets and hemoglobin.

And then finally, there is a lot of interest in, you know, doing these types of combinations with venetoclax in different subsets of AML and one subset of AML that has been very important recently is that of the IDH mutated AML population of patients.

IDH is a fairly common mutation that occurs either in the Isoform of IDH1 or IDH2 and there’s about a 15 to 20 percent incidence of IDH mutations in AML.

Now we do have an inhibitor for both of these types of mutations: ivosidenib for IDH1 and enasidenib for IDH2, but there also appears to be a strong role for venetoclax plus azacitidine in IDH mutated AML.

We saw from a series of patients presented by a physician at MD Anderson looking at outcomes with venetoclax plus azacitidine in IDH mutated AML. And the response rates were very high when you give HMA plus venetoclax to these patients with IDH mutated AML.

But I think more importantly was that there were what we call high intro patient response rates when switching between venetoclax and HMA therapy with an IDH inhibitor containing regimen.

In other words, a patient would have a good chance of responding to the initial therapy and then if or when that therapy stops working, having a good effect from a salvage therapy with the other regimen. So, when you see initially azacitidine plus venetoclax and then had a relapse, the IDH inhibitors worked well and vice versa if you had received an IDH inhibitor and then subsequently received HMA-venetoclax at a later time point that also worked well.

So, it’s encouraging to see that you can potentially sequence these drugs and get continued responses along the way and ultimately we think will help a survivor and keep patients in a better state of health even longer.               

So, I just wanted to take a few minutes also and discuss some of the newer more novel therapies that are really hitting or approaching the landscape right now. One of these is called CC486, also known as oral azacitidine or ONUREG. And this drug was shown in recent literature to prolong overall survival in patients who are in first remission from their AML who had received induction chemotherapy.

So, this drug was used as maintenance therapy after a variable number of consolidation regimens. And people who got this ONUREG or oral azacitidine drug as maintenance therapy, it resulted in longer survival compared to those who had received placebo.

And this was presented at last year’s ASH meeting, but this year’s ASH meeting provided an update, a very important update, showing that the overall survival advantage from this drug, this oral azacitidine drug, when used as maintenance was independent of whether a patient had measurable residual disease at the time that they went onto the maintenance therapy.

In other words, whether you had MRD, measurable residual disease or not at the time of the study entry, your responses were still more favorable, your outcomes were more favorable, if you received this oral azacitidine drug.

So, this was FDA approved earlier this year for patients in the maintenance phase of therapy for AML who had gotten prior reduction chemotherapy.

And importantly, this drug was also shown to be able to convert about 25% of patients who were positive for measurable residual disease; convert them from positive to negative. So, even though they were in remission, they had measurable residual disease and this drug in about 25 percent of the cases converted that from positive to negative. So, that’s a very important finding as well.

Another important drug that I think you should keep your eye on is a drug called magrolimab. This is an antibody against a certain type of protein that is present on the immune system cell called the macrophage, and when this magrolimab drug was combined with azacitidine in a recent clinical trial, it was demonstrated very high response rates of over 65 percent.

And, in particular, in patients with P53 mutations, which is a very bad mutation to have in most cancers, including AML, in patients with this high-risk mutation, the combination of magrolimab with azacitidine appears to be effective based upon the early data that we have with high response rates.

And then finally, I just wanted to make mention of another important area in, not really just AML, but in all cancer and that’s  outcomes disparities between different races and ethnic groups. And we saw a very important presentation at the plenary session this year where the authors reported outcomes amongst younger patients with AML who were African American compared with Caucasian.

And the data clearly indicated a worse overall survival amongst Black patients compared with white patients under age 60. And this included patients who were enrolled in clinical trials. So, that it appeared that African American patients have a worse outcome than Caucasian patients with acute myeloid leukemia highlighting the need to better understand various risk factors and other factors that play into these disparate outcomes between our Black American population and a white American population, which I think could shed light on additional disease characteristics that may help everybody as well.