Tag Archive for: azacitidine
Challenges in Treating TP53-Mutated AML, Hope on the Horizon
Challenges in Treating TP53-Mutated AML, Hope on the Horizon from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
TP53-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment has some challenges. Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center shares his perspective. Learn about promising treatments on the horizon for this AML subgroup.
[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “The TP53 mutation remains the most difficult subset of acute myeloid leukemia, there is hope on the horizon with new treatments such as CD47 antibodies and targeted therapies like APR that are being looked at, and also a strong consideration for allogeneic transplant in TP53, because this seems to be the only modality associated with a good chance of cure after achieving remission with one of the frontline therapies.”
Related Resources:
|
|
|
Transcript:
Art:
Dr. Daver, what have we learned about TP53-mutated AML? And what is the takeaway for these patients?
Dr. Naval Daver:
TP53-mutated AML remains the most difficult molecular subset of all acute myeloid leukemia. Patients who have this mutation, unfortunately, do not respond well to any of the established standard care therapies, including intensive chemotherapy, the HMA alone, such as azacitidine (Onureg or Vidaza), decitabine (Dacogen) alone, or even HMA venetoclax (Venclexta) with all of these, we do see responses, especially with HMA venetoclax or intensive chemotherapy, we can see 15 to 55 percent remission rate, but the remission, very short lived, early relapses and the median overall survival across all of these currently available standards of cares are between six to 10 months.
So there has been an intense effort in the last six, seven years to develop TP53-directed therapies or therapies that will work regardless of TP53 mutation, and there are two drugs this time that are very promising and being evaluated as ongoing Phase II and Phase III studies.
One of them is an immunotherapy drug called magrolimab which seems to have very similar activity and probability with good response rates in TP53-mutated AML. This has been completed in a single arm phase 1B study in front line TP53-mutated AML where we saw close to 50 percent CR, CRI complete permission rates. And median survival was above 11 months in older unfit TP53, which is better than any survival we have seen in the past in this population.
The other study was with the oral care targeted therapy towards TP53, called APR, and this therapy was specifically designed to target the TP53 mutation, and this is being evaluated in the frontline setting in combination with a society in venetoclax. We hope that these regimens are these novel therapies, one or both of them will be able to at least incrementally improve their current outcomes in TP53.
The other area where we have really been doing a lot of research, and I think the data is suggesting, is that allogeneic transplant may work for separate, and we are routinely considering transplant in these patients in the frontline setting, once they are able to achieve remission.
My activation tip is the TP53 mutation remains the most difficult subset of acute myeloid leukemia, there is hope on the horizon with new treatments such as CD47 antibodies and targeted therapies like APR that are being looked at, and also a strong consideration for allogeneic transplant in TP53, because this seems to be the only modality associated with a good chance of cure after achieving remission with one of the frontline therapies.
Share Your Feedback
What Does Triplet Therapy in AML Mean for the Future?
What Does Triplet Therapy in AML Mean for the Future? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
What do acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients need to know about triplet therapy? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center shares his perspective. Learn about the meaning, progress, and outlook for triplet therapy.
[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “Some of the early data with the FLT3 inhibitor as well as the CD47 antibody triplets are showing very, very promising activity and are now moving into larger multi-center and randomized studies.”
Related Resources:
What Are Some Clinical Predictors for Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia? |
|
|
Transcript:
Art:
Dr. Daver, what does triplet therapy in AML mean for the future?
Dr. Naval Daver:
So when we say triplet therapy, what we’re really thinking about is building on the existing FDA-approved combination of HMA venetoclax (Venclexta), so as a background venetoclax, showed a CR, CRI which is a complete remission rate of about 70 to 75 percent with the median survival in 15 months.
This was in older patients, about 75 years in age, those who were not considered fit for intensive chemotherapy, although this was a major step forward in comparison to what we have seen with traditional low intensities with azacitidine (Onureg or Vidaza), decitabine (Dacogen) alone, we do see the three-year survival is about 25 to 30 percent.
So this is progress compared to 10 percent long-term survival, we used to get a decade ago, but, of course, we want to improve on that. Also, a molecular analysis of data has shown that there are certain molecular subsets that don’t respond as well to azacitidine, venetoclax or if they respond they relapse quickly these include FLT3 mutated and the TP53 mutated as well as potentially MLL rearranged.
And so here we have started incorporating the targeted therapies like inhibitors like the menin inhibitors like CD47 antibodies to target those specific high-risk or bad molecular cytogenetic groups, and we are seeing that with the combinations of these three drugs, especially for those particular molecular subsets.
So azacitidine and venetoclax for FLT3 inhibitor for FLT3 mutator, azacitidine, and venetoclax, magrolimab for TP53 mutated, the response rates that we’re getting, as well as the depth of response and the early trends towards survival are looking very, very promising compared to what we have seen with azacitidine venetoclax alone.
So we believe, and I personally believe that these three drug combinations, the so-called triplets will actually be eventually the way to go forward now, that means that one has to realize that when you add a third drug, there is a cumulative myelosuppression, azacitidine-venetoclax is already a myelosuppressive regimen.
Yes, it’s manageable, but it is myelosuppressive. And the third drug, this can become more cumulative, so we have been working for the last three, four years and continue to work on those optimization because since we are seeing true synergy but pre-clinically and what we think in the clinic, we are not needing to give full doses and we’re doing reduced durations of venetoclax and those with FLT3 inhibitor, and now we feel that some of those triplets are actually giving very, very, very good efficacy.
There’s a lot of discussion in the community of whether we need to combine all two drugs up front or can be sequence these drugs or can we introduce a targeted therapy based on a molecular escape, and I think a lot of these will have to be evaluated and many of these are being looked at in various trials, but I do think the bottom line is that bringing in your targeted therapy or immunotherapies early on in the frontline setting and some way or the other is probably where you’re going to get the most bang for the buck and the most benefit in curing patients long-term rather than trying to reserve them for the salvage, because in salvage AML historically, nothing has really been able to improve the long-term cure rate significantly.
So the activation tip for this question is that now with the identification of certain molecular subsets that have poorer outcomes with the HMA venetoclax, we have started incorporating targeted and immunotherapies in the earlier settings, either up front in the three drug combination or an early sequential approach.
And we believe that with such combinations, we may be able to achieve deeper remission and longer responses. Some of the early data with the FLT3 inhibitor as well as the CD47 antibody triplets are showing very, very promising activity and are now moving into larger multi-center and randomized studies.
Share Your Feedback
A Look at Lower Intensity Chemotherapy in Untreated AML
A Look at Lower Intensity Chemotherapy in Untreated AML from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center discusses whether untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) can be treated with lower intensity chemotherapy.
[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “Ask your physician and your oncologist when you’re talking with them about what all the newest therapies are and what would be specifically the best treatment for their specific leukemia with respect to the different mutations.”
Related Resources:
|
|
What Does Transfusion Burden Mean in Acute Myeloid Leukemia? |
|
Transcript:
Art:
Dr. Daver, what are we learning about patients with untreated AML who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy? Will intensive chemotherapy, a thing of the past, in the near future?
Dr. Naval Daver:
There has been a major shift over the last four or five years towards using lower intensity combinations, such as azacitidine (Onureg or Vidaza) and venetoclax (Venclexta) and patients who are definitely about 75 and not fit for intensive induction. I don’t think anybody debates in that population, but even in patients 60 to 75 years away, you are borderline, and maybe we could give intensive induction chemotherapy and get patients to through it with support of care, antifungals, antibiotics by close monitoring, but we’re seeing similar remission rates with azacitidine (Vidaza), venetoclax (Venclexta), much less toxicity, less mortality, and especially the goal is to get a number of these patients to allogeneic stem cell transplant, which it is.
Then we feel that the lower intensity, better tolerated, smoother remission getting patients in a good condition an allogeneic transplant may be the way to go now, of course, to really make the standard of care, we have to look at this in a randomized fashion to make sure that what we believe is actually what the data is going to confirm, so there is an ongoing randomized study looking at the azacitidine and venetoclax intensity versus the traditional intensive chemotherapy called three plus seven in patients 18 to 65 years of age, and that…then you will, I think, give us a lot of information and data as for whether we can start for placing intensive chemotherapy for a large proportion or majority of AML patients, even those who are younger.
Today, I don’t think that in terms of chemotherapies are a thing of the past, I think those patients who are below 60 or even those who are 60 to 65, who are routinely doing intensive induction chemotherapy, one has to realize that the five-year survival for many molecular subsets are close to 50 to 60 percent with intensive induction chemotherapy, whereas with HMA venetoclax in the older unit, we’re looking at three to five-year survival rates of about 30 percent, so we have still not seen data and younger patients with Hamas to be convinced that this will replace intensive chemotherapy altogether, I think the signal suggests that there is a potential for it to do so, especially with the use of allergenic tensor as plan, which we’re using quite frequently and…or maintenance.
But that has not yet been established. So I would still say we do use intensive chemo in those who are young and fit, so my activation tip for this is that there has been a lot of progress in the lower intensity therapies over the last six or seven years.
A decade ago would not even be asking whether there’s anything that can replace intensive chemo today we do have data with HMA venetoclax that suggest that it may be as good as intensive chemo looking at the response rates MRD negativity, and especially with three drug combinations where adding targeted therapies to HMA venetoclax, those response rates and depth of response looking as good, if not better, than intensive chemo there are randomized studies ongoing that are going to be looking at intensive chemotherapy versus HMA venetoclax and if those show equivalents or superiority for HMA venetoclax, I think in the next five, six years there will be a huge shift towards less use of intense and chemotherapy in the frontline setting, but we’re not there yet.
Share Your Feedback
AML Clinical Trials Critical to Treatment Breakthroughs and Improvements
AML Clinical Trials Critical to Treatment Breakthroughs and Improvements from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
Why are acute myeloid leukemia (AML) clinical trials so critical? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center shares his perspective about clinical trials. Learn how clinical trials help both current and future AML patients.
[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “Clinical trials are critical, both for the patients themselves to get access to what we call tomorrow’s medicine today as well as potentially to help move the entire field forward.”
Related Resources:
|
What Promising AML Treatments Are Available for Newly Diagnosed Patients? |
|
Transcript:
Art:
Dr. Daver, what is the importance of clinical trial participation as it relates to breakthroughs in AML, and what advice do you have for AML patients considering a clinical trial?
Dr. Naval Daver: Clinical trials are critical for the progress that we have already seen an acute myeloid leukemia, the drugs that have been improved in the last six, seven years, including venetoclax (Venclexta), FLT3 inhibitors, midostaurin (Rydapt or Tauritmo), gilteritinib (Xospata), hopefully quizartinib other emerging targeted therapies…IDH1, IDH2 inhibitors, menin inhibitors, CD47 antibodies, we’ve learned about all of them and have got approvals and many of them through the ongoing clinical trials.
I think it’s very important for patients to realize that in most large academic centers, we will only participate in the clinical trial if we think it has the potential to improve the standard of care in the future. There’s very little incentive for academic investigators or clinical investigators, such as myself, we’re very, very busy to get involved in a trial if we don’t think that it has the potential to improve the outcome or change the nature of AML therapy in the future, so a lot of patients often ask me, Oh, I want the randomized or placebo arm. There is no real placebo alone in any AML study that I’m aware of, most of the studies will use standard of care, which is what you would’ve gotten wherever you were getting treatment at home, locally, community hospital versus a standard of care plus where the new drug will be added, whether it’s the FLT3 inhibitor, the CD47 antibody, the menin inhibitor
So there’s a good chance, 50 percent that you’re going to get standard of care plus that we think has the potential to improve the outcome, of course, you never know, that’s what you do, the trial, but we think based on the previous pre-clinical data to pass when the page to deliver this looks like it will improve the outcome for this molecular or site group versus standard of care, which is what you will have gotten.
So I think it’s important to realize that you will never get less on standard of care and any clinical trial, at least in the AML field, and at least in our experience that they understand.
Now, beyond that, there’s also a Phase I in two states, and those are the ones that we focus on quite a bit at MD Anderson, these are single arm studies, meaning everybody will get the investigational agent combo, so azacitidine (Onureg or Vidaza) and venetoclax (Venclexta), we were one of the first sites to work on and leave this study and all of our patients in 2015, 2016, we’re getting this regiment, it was not approved to much later in 2019, 2020, and for those three, four years, our patients, hundreds of patients were able to get that combination, which probably cured many, many more than would have been cured to the standard of care until, of course, I’ve got a pro four years later, but for an option, of course, you cannot wait four years, so I’m a huge believer in clinical trials, I think it’s really, really important, both for the patients themselves as well as for the field, for us to be able to move the entire AML field forward for the next decade, and I would very strongly consider looking at or discussing with your treating physician trial options, and then you can look at them on your own through clinicaltrials.gov, or other sites with leukema and lymphoma that give a lot of information on clinical trials.
So my activation tip related to this question is that I think clinical trials are critical, both for the patients themselves to get access to what we call tomorrow’s medicine today as well as potentially to help move the entire field forward, all of the clinical drug approvals in progress we have seen in AML in the last six, seven years have come through clinical trials that patients in the past have agreed to kindly participate and helped probably themselves by getting better medications and combinations, and definitely the field to move forward, so definitely a big proponent for clinical trials.
Share Your Feedback
A Look at Treatment Strategies for High-Risk AML Patients
A Look at Treatment Strategies for High-Risk AML Patients from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
What acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatments are available for high-risk patients? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center discusses various mutations, potential for cure, and clinical trials. Learn about the outlook for high-risk AML treatments.
[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “The best way to get up to these agents is to go on clinical trials and incorporate these therapies, both in the frontline setting as well as in the relapsed refractory setting.”
Related Resources:
|
What Are Some Clinical Predictors for Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia? |
Assessing Untreated AML Patients Who Are Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy |
|
Transcript:
Art:
Dr. Daver, what treatment strategies are available for high-risk AML patients?
Dr. Naval Daver:
High-risk AML patients includes a group of a number of different mutations, and cytogenetic abnormalities, this includes TP53 mutation, as well as adverse cytogenetics, which includes chromosome 17, deletion 5, deletion 7, as well as complex carrier type. This entire group historically had a poor outcome and has had limited responses to traditional intensive chemo, even if we achieve responses there, usually short-lived.
We do have some patients where we are able to achieve remission with intensive chemo or with azacitidine-venetoclax (Vidaza-Venclexta) and transition and transmission them transplant with about 25 to 30 percent potentially achieving a long-term remission and possible cure.
But aside from that, there is very little potential to cure these patients with just traditional intensive chemo, venetoclax in this area, there has been developments with the emergence new class of immunotherapy drugs, called CD47 antibodies, the one that’s most advanced in this field is a drug called magrolimab, and we are evaluating the drugs such as magrolimab in combination with azacitidine as well as in combination with azacitidine-venetoclax and are seeing high remission rates, both in TP53 mutated and TP53 wild type.
So this pathway that works by activating a macrophages or the immune system to attack the tumor cells, seems to be in some way mutation agnostic with response rates being maintained even in the traditional high-risk subsets, especially such as TP53 and complex cytogenetics for some of the other high-risk groups such as MLL, we’re using targeted therapies like menin inhibitors, and these seem to work well in those patients who have these adverse cytogenetic molecular abnormalities, so there is progress, and we think that the CD47 antibody field and hopefully the main inhibitor feed will be able to improve outcomes in these traditionally molecular cytogenetic subsets.
My activation point related to this question is for high-risk mutations and cytogenetic commonalities such as TP53 complex carrier chromosome 17 MLL, best hope at this time is in clinical trials evaluating novel therapies such as CD47 antibodies and menin inhibitors. These are not yet FDA-approved, but based on emerging data from the ongoing Phase I, II studies, we think that there is a good chance they will be approved in the future.
However, this time, the best way to get up to these agents is to go on clinical trials and incorporate these therapies, both in the frontline setting as well as in the relapsed refractory setting.
Share Your Feedback
AML Treatment Approaches Expand for Older and High-Risk Patients
AML Treatment Approaches Expand for Older and High-Risk Patients from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
How have acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment approaches expanded for older and high-risk patients? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center shares insight about additional treatment options. Learn about the potential for long-term cures for these patient groups.
[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “There is a dramatic progress, especially in the treatment of older unfit AML with the approval of the azacitidine-venetoclax combination.”
Related Resources:
Long-Term Effects Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Should Know |
|
Transcript:
Art:
Dr. Daver, for older and high-risk AML patients, how are the treatment approaches expanding?
Dr. Naval Daver:
In older and high-risk AML, the major approval has been the combination of azacitidine (Onureg or Vidaza) and venetoclax (Venclexta), which is a BCL-2 inhibitor, the regimen was evaluated in a large Phase III study called the VIALE study, where we looked at the standard of care for the last two decades for older unfit AML, which azacitidine alone versus the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax and this combination showed a three times higher remission rate, 75 versus 28 percent overall remission rate as well as an improvement in overall survival and long-term survivors.
So this has led to great progress with now remission rates of 75 percent achievable in older unfit AML and many of them being durable at three years with ongoing follow-up, so this has really opened the door for us to be able to treat patients up to 75, 80, 85 years of age with effective therapy given the three parts of these to achieve remission, which is usually associated with freedom from transfusion improvement, quality of life, improved energy, less time in the hospital, less infections.
The other progress now is coming from the use of targeted therapies as well in these populations, and even though the HMA venetoclax or azacitidine combination is doing very well.
We now have data, in fact, from the ASH 2022 December meeting that at three years, about 25 percent or so I would still remain alive with azacitidine was even or 8 percent, now it’s 25 percent. But, of course, we want to do much better than that, and so this is where we are incorporating the targeted therapies, the FLT3 inhibitors, the IDH1, IDH2 inhibitors, menin inhibitors, and immunotherapies onto the backbone of azacitidine-venetoclax, which we hope will further improve that long-term survival cure from 25 to hopefully 50 to 60 percent and beyond.
So a lot of progress, you know, going from less than 10 percent, a 30 percent survival, long-term, and I think in the next few years, even up to 50 percent with some of these new combinations. The activation tip related to this question is that there is a dramatic progress, especially in the treatment of older unfit AML with the approval of the azacitidine-venetoclax combination.
This regimen is now giving high remission rates, which approximate remission rates that are seen with traditional intensive chemotherapy without the mucositis and toxicities and better volatility, and we are now working to further improve the remission and the durability of this dominant of initial.
…potentially adding targeted therapy such as FLT3 inhibitors, IDH1, IDH2 menin inhibitors, and we think that potentially in the next decade, we could be achieving long-term cures in a large proportion of older unfit AML, which was something one could just dream of a decade ago.
Share Your Feedback
What Promising AML Treatments Are Available for Newly Diagnosed Patients?
What Promising AML Treatments Are Available for Newly Diagnosed Patients? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
What do newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients have for promising treatment options? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center discusses progress in available treatments. Learn about therapies determined by key factors.
[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “It’s very important to really consider all the available treatment options and if needed to seek consultation with an expert or academic center to get the most up-to-date treatments available for AML.“
Related Resources:
|
|
|
|
Transcript:
Art:
Dr. Daver, for newly diagnosed AML patients, what are the latest and most promising available therapies?
For newly diagnosed AML at this time, the most promising agents include targeted therapies and BCL-2 inhibitor treatments, these are non-chemotherapeutic drugs, and we’ve seen great progress in the application of these as well as recent FDA approvals.
So one of these is an agent called venetoclax (Venclexta), which is a BCL-2 inhibitor and venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents such as azacitidine (Onureg or Vidaza) has shown a response to close to 75 percent.
And the nice thing is that this regimen can be given and patients who are older than 70, 75 years of age, and even those who are having comorbidities are not fit for traditional intensive chemotherapy with similar response rates, so this has been approved in the last couple of years for the frontline treatment of AML, and we’ve been using this combination of venetoclax and azacitidine quite frequently with high efficacy in this patient population, the other new agents that have shown breakthroughs in AML are the targeted therapies, these include FLT3 inhibitors that target the FLT3 mutation and these have shown good activity, but the single agents with gilteritinib (Xospata) being approved in the relapsed refractory setting as a single agent where gilteritinib showed a response rate of about 50 percent as a single oral targeted therapy in relapsed FLT3-mutated AML, which is actually better than the response rate with high-dose combination more where the response rate is only about 25 to 30 percent.
So, gilteritinib is now approved, and it’s now moving and being evaluated in frontline setting other FLT3 inhibitors like lestaurtinib (CEP-701), actually just recently completed frontline studies showing improved outcome when lestaurtinib added to intensive chemo versus just intensive chemo in FLT3 in AML. And we hope and think there’s a good chance lestaurtinib will be approved in the near future.
And also IDH inhibitors have been approved both in the relapsed setting, frontline setting, and now we even have a third group of targeted therapy is called the menin inhibitors, they target MLL rearrangement and NPM1 mutations, which are seen in about 15 percent to 20 percent of the AML, so there’s been a lot of progress.
All of this in the last seven years, six, seven years with multiple targeted therapies, with multiple inhibitor-based treatments, showing progress in AML and then also recently, the concept of maintenance therapy, this is something we used for the last couple of decades in a acute lymphoblastic leukemia and multiple myeloma and in lymphoma.
But we had not had clear data in AML, but the recent study using oral formulation of a azacitidine in CC486 has shown the maintenance in patients who complete an induction consolidation and could not go to allogeneic stem cell transplant for one reason or the other was important and improve both overall survival and relapse-free survival, and so this is the first time now we have an FDA-approved and standard use of maintenance therapy after the traditional induction consolidation, so even changing the general paradigm of AML therapy.
So a lot has changed in the last seven to eight years in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, and this is very exciting.
And the activation tip related, this question is that there are multiple new targeted and low intensity therapeutic options available for patients with acute myeloid leukemia, and in our institution, in my opinion, even older patients are eligible for some form of therapy or the other…very few patients, if any, today, are being sent to hospitals or palliative care without treatment.
So it’s very important to really consider all the available treatment options and if needed to seek consultation with an expert or academic center to get the most up-to-date treatments available for AML.
Share Your Feedback
Assessing Untreated AML Patients Who Are Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy
Assessing Untreated AML Patients Who Are Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
How are acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients assessed for intensive chemotherapy? Dr. Catherine Lai from Penn Medicine explains eligibility criteria. Learn factors that impact patient eligibility and treatment options for AML patients who are categorized as ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.
[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Lai: “Talk with your physician about how they will determine whether or not you are fit or unfit for intensive chemotherapy.“
Related Resources:
What AML Treatment Options Are Available for MRD-Positive Patients? |
|
|
Transcript:
Art:
Okay, Dr. Lai, what are we learning about patients with untreated AML who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy?
Dr. Catherine Lai:
To define ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, I think that that is a moving target because historically, we would define patients as eligible for intensive or less intensive chemotherapy based on an age cut-off. And as the population is becoming more fit and is also getting older, what I would like to say is that we should use physiologic age, not chronologic age to determine who is eligible for intensive chemotherapy, and that is…in terms of how that is assessed, that is not uniformly done.
But, in general, it takes into account how active a patient is and what they’re able to do on a day-to-day basis, so mostly their physical function, we also take into consideration their cognitive function as well, but to a lesser extent.
So, for patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, the standard practice would be the combination of azacitidine (Onureg or Vidaza) or decitabine (Dacogen), both of which are hypomethylating agents in combination with venetoclax (Venclexta), and that combination has really changed the landscape in terms of how we treat patients, it can be given as an outpatient, so it’s much better tolerated and has fewer side effects compared to intensive chemotherapy.
So the activation tip here is to talk with your physician about how they will determine whether or not you are fit or unfit for intensive chemotherapy.
Share Your Feedback
What Are the Latest Acute Myeloid Leukemia Therapies?
What Are the Latest Acute Myeloid Leukemia Therapies? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
What are the latest treatments in acute myeloid leukemia (AML)? Dr. Catherine Lai from Penn Medicine discusses the increase in available AML treatments. Learn about combination therapies and treatment options for patients with IDH1, IDH2, and FLT3 mutations.
[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Lai: “Ask your physician and your oncologist when you’re talking with them about what all the newest therapies are and what would be specifically the best treatment for their specific leukemia with respect to the different mutations.”
Related Resources:
How Can We Address Disparities in AML Among Diverse Populations? |
|
What Promising AML Treatments Are Available for Newly Diagnosed Patients? |
Transcript:
Art:
Dr. Lai, for newly diagnosed AML patients, what are the latest available therapies?
Dr. Catherine Lai:
That’s a great question. The last, I would say, a handful of years have really seen a dramatic increase in the number of new treatment options for AML patients, specifically since 2017, the FDA has approved 10 new drugs for AML, that’s both for patients who are newly diagnosed and in the relapsed refractory setting.
And so what I would say is that we break our patients into two different categories in terms of being able to tolerate intensive chemotherapy versus non-intensive chemotherapy, and as well as looking at specifically targeted mutations that patients may have so that we can better understand the disease but also treat these patients more specifically to try to maximize efficacy while minimizing toxicity.
And so specifically, I would say for patients who have FLT3 mutations, there are drugs such as midostaurin (Rydapt) and gilteritinib (Xospata), there are drugs for mutations in IDH1 and IDH2, enasidenib (Idhifa) and ivosidenib (Tibsovo) and recently, or in December of 2022, olutasidenib (Rezlidhia) was also approved for IDH1-mutated patients as well.
We have a general targeted agent that’s an oral chemotherapy that probably has made the biggest difference in how we treat patients called venetoclax (Venclexta), and that’s used in combination with azacitidine (Onureg) or decitabine (Dacogen), or low dose cytarabine (Cytosar).
Although most commonly in the United States, we use azacitidine or decitabine in combination with the venetoclax, and that I think is really what I’d say has been practice changing for the most part, in terms of both increasing the complete remission rates as well as the overall survival for these patients. So I would say there are a lot of new drugs. It is all very exciting.
The biggest activation tip in terms of takeaways is to ask your physician and your oncologist when you’re talking with them about what all the newest therapies are and what would be specifically the best treatment for their specific leukemia with respect to the different mutations.
Art:
Okay. Dr. Lai, what are the latest approaches to combination chemotherapy to treat AML?
Dr. Catherine Lai:
So, the latest approaches for combination chemotherapy would be in the combination of a hypomethylating agent, azacitidine or decitabine in combination with venetoclax. This is the most practice-changing combination that has been approved since 2017 to 2018, and now more recently, what’s been happening is now looking, so we call that a doublet, and now it’s been looking at…what we’ve been studying is now whether or not triplets are more effective, when we do have triple combinations, we do see an increase in toxicity and so on, we haven’t come up with the right algorithm in terms of what that exact formula should be, but often I think about it in kind of a three-fold in terms of wins the right time, what’s the right combination, and how do we see in the drugs, and I think the sequencing is the biggest thing that we don’t yet know, and how do we combine the two different..two different drugs in a way, and how do we give them in a way that will maximize efficacy, will minimize the toxicity, so as an example is, Do we give two drugs for a specific period of time, and then after some determined time point, do we…
And change it to a different set of combination of drugs to make sure that patients are getting the most benefit of the drugs, and we don’t know that yet, but I think that that’s where the general direction…where the landscape is heading, so the activation tip I would take home from this is just to have a conversation with your physician about potential clinical trials and how combination therapies are being used.
Share Your Feedback
[ACT]IVATED AML Resource Guide
Ivosidenib and Azacitidine for IDH1-Mutated AML
There has been another significant advance in the treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) at least for the small subset of patients (6-10%) who have a mutation in one of their genes called IDH1 (isocitrate dehydrogenase 1).
Until 5-7 years ago, the typical initial treatment (called induction) for patients with AML consisted of relatively high doses of cytarabine (Ara-C) and another chemotherapy called an anthracycline (usually either daunorubicin or idarubicin). Cytarabine is given as a continuous infusion for seven days and a daunorubicin or idarubicin is given on the first 3 days (this is commonly referred to as “7 + 3“regimen). There are other regimens that are sometimes used although most contain cytarabine. This regimen is effective, but quite toxic and usually reserved for healthier fitter patients (generally under 65 without comorbidities like diabetes, or certain heart conditions).
In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved venetoclax and azacitidine for use in older patients or those with comorbidities. Earlier this year, FDA approved Iivosidenib (used in combination with azacytidine) for newly diagnosed AML patients an IDH1 mutation. The approval was for “adults 75 years or older, or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy”. This was based on a clinical trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM): Ivosidenib and Azacitidine in IDH1-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia,. Ivosidenib is not a brand new drug, it was approved in 2018 for relapsed or refractory AML.
The current approval was based on a global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing AML patients with an IDH1 mutation treated with ivosidenib and azacytidine with patients treated with azacytidine alone. The primary end point of the trial was event-free survival (EFS), defined as the time until treatment failure (i.e., the patient did not have complete remission by week 24), relapse or death. The first group of patients, who received ivosidenib had an EFS at 12 months of about 37% versus 12% in the placebo group. In addition, the median overall survival (that is half of the patients lived at least this long) was 24.0 months with ivosidenib and azacitidine versus 7.9 months with azacitidine alone. This is a big difference, although there is still a lot of room for improvement. In addition, there were fewer infections in the ivosidenib, group although there were more incidences of low white blood counts (neutropenia) and bleeding in that group.
While this is good news, showing ivosidenib (Tibsovo) and azacitidine (Vidaza) is better than azacitidine alone, most patients with AML with an IDH1 mutation who are not good candidates for intensive induction chemotherapy during the time period of the trial would likely have been treated with azacitidine and venetoclax (Venclexta). The combination has been shown to be much more effective than azacitidine alone. My guess is that azacitidine alone was chosen as the comparison, since the ivosidenib trial started enrolling patients in March 2018 (presumably the protocol for the trial was completed several months before that) and venetoclax was not approved until November, 2018. The question remains, which is better ivosidenib and azacitidine or azacitidine and venetoclax. I believe we will probably never know. Given that AML is already a rare disease and no more that 10% of AML patients have an IDH1 mutation, it is not likely such a trial would be done. Instead, it seems more likely that trials will look at the 3-drug combination of ivosidenib, venetoclax and azacitidine. Perhaps a trial with 3 arms may be done, comparing azacitidine with ivosidenib, or venetoclax or both. I hope the 3-drug combination will be more effective than either ivosidenib or venetoclax combined with azacitidine. If the side effects are not much worse, then standard therapy for AML patients with an IDH1 mutation who are not good candidates for intensive chemotherapy would become the 3-drug combination. This would happen faster than first comparing ivosidenib to venetoclax and then comparing the better of those two to the 3-drug combination. For younger healthier patients, ivosidenib is being combined with intensive chemotherapy in clinical trials.
Further reading:
Ivosidenib and Azacitidine in IDH1-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia, the original article from the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med 2022; 386:1519-1531).
Ivosidenib and Azacitidine for IDH1-Mutated AML, mostly a repeat of the abstract of the above NEJM article, but also includes some commentary.
Ivosidenib with Chemotherapy New Option for Some People with AML an article on Ivosidenib and Azacytidine from Cancer Currents: An NCI Cancer Research Blog.
This AML Treatment Option is an Alternative to Induction Therapy an article on Ivosidenib and Azacytidine from PatientPower.
FDA approves ivosidenib in combination with azacitidine for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia an article about the drug approval, from Practice Update (registration may be required).
Ivosidenib or enasidenib combined with intensive chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed AML: a phase 1 study, an article in Blood (Volume 137, Issue 13, April 1 2021) about a preliminary study of Ivosidenib and Enasidenib (for patients who have a mutation in IDH2) along with intensive chemotherapy (“7+3” induction, Ara-C consolidation).
FDA grants regular approval to venetoclax in combination for untreated acute myeloid leukemia, an article from the FDA on the approval of Venetoclax for treating AML (October, 2020).
FDA approves first targeted treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia who have a certain genetic mutation, an article from the FDA on the initial approval of Ivosidenib for treating AML (July, 2018).FDA approves first targeted treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia who have a certain genetic mutation, an article from the FDA on the initial approval of Ivosidenib for treating AML (July, 2018).
AML Network Manager
Art Flatau lives in Austin, Texas with his wife Gretchen. They have 2 grown children. He was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in 1992 at the age of 31, while still in graduate school at the University of Texas. Gretchen and Art’s kids were 2 and 4 at the time. He received chemotherapy (both induction chemotherapy and then consolidation). After graduating with a Ph.D. in computer science in December 1992. He relapsed in early 1993 and then had a bone marrow transplant (BMT), his brother was a perfect match.
What Is Low-Intensity AML Therapy?
What Is Low-Intensity AML Therapy? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
How does low-intensity AML therapy differ from high-intensity AML therapy? Expert Dr. Ellen Ritchie provides a comparison of the administration methods, side effects and reviews which AML patients low-intensity and high-intensity therapy are right for.
Dr. Ellen K. Ritchie is assistant professor of medicine and a member of the Leukemia Program at the Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University and the New York Presbyterian Hospital. More about Dr. Ritchie, here.
Related Resources:
|
|
|
Transcript:
Katherine:
You mentioned earlier, Dr. Ritchie, low-intensity therapy. Could you tell us about the types of treatment options?
Dr. Ritchie:
So, I’ll go – high-intensity therapy or intense chemotherapy always has to be given really in a hospital. And if you don’t start it – if you can start certain intensive chemotherapies, like daunorubicin and cytarabine (Vyxeos), which is also intensive, in the outpatient setting, but by day seven or eight, you end up in the hospital. And in intensive chemotherapies, you lose your hair, there’s GI toxicities, you’re at high risk of developing infections and you need a lot of transfusion. And for even young people, it’s a difficult therapy for which you’re in the hospital, and 90-some percent of patients are on IV antibiotics.
So, it’s intensive chemotherapy because it has to be given in a hospital setting and requires intensive supportive care. Low-intensity therapy can be given in the outpatient setting. So, at the present time you can get a drug like azacitidine (Vidaza), for example, which is an injection that you get seven days in a row.
Unfortunately, you have to come to the doctor’s office every day for those injections, but once you’ve had the injection, you can go home. Combined with venetoclax (Venclexta) which is an oral agent. So, an oral agent can be given at home.
You need close supervision in the physician’s office when you’re on this type of therapy, but you don’t need the constant support that you need if you are getting intensive chemotherapy. So, it can be done, in the comfort really of your home and with your family. You will have to come in and have transfusions potentially as an outpatient, nearly everyone does. And there’s always the risk that you develop a fever and if you do, you have to come into the hospital for IV antibiotics.
But in general, low-intensity means not so much support needed in a hospitalized setting, and the tolerability of this particular chemotherapy in the outpatient setting.
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.
Related Resources:
|
|
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.
Navigating AML Treatment Decisions
Navigating AML Treatment Decisions from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
What factors can help determine the best treatment path for your AML? This animated video walks through important considerations that may help in navigating treatment decisions, including how genetic testing results, treatment goals and patient preference can impact your choice.
Related Resources:
|
Confused About AML Genetic Testing and Treatment? What You Need to Know |
|
Transcript:
Hi, I’m Gina. I’m a nurse practitioner and I specialize in acute myeloid leukemia, or AML.
When diagnosed with AML, it’s important to take steps to get a deeper understanding of your disease, and the available treatment options, so that you can feel confident in your care decisions.
Before we walk through the important steps to decide on a treatment path, I want to remind you that this video is intended to help educate AML patients and their loved ones and shouldn’t be a replacement for advice from your doctor.
OK, let’s get started.
The first step is to understand your diagnosis, so that you can find out what treatments are available to you. Unlike solid tumor cancers, such as lung or breast cancer, AML is not staged. Instead, your physician will use lab testing, including blood and bone marrow tests, to determine the subtype of your AML and if you have any chromosomal abnormalities to determine if your AML is low, intermediate or high-risk.
Knowing your risk can impact your prognosis and help establish the best treatment option for you. If you don’t know your subtype, ask your doctor for the information and if you may need further testing to reach a more accurate diagnosis.
Testing that identifies characteristics unique to YOUR AML can impact your treatment options and determine if a targeted therapy or immunotherapy might be more effective. These tests include:
- Molecular testing
- Cytogenetic analysis (or karyotyping), and
- Fluorescence in situ hybridization also known as a FISH test
Before you start any treatment, it’s essential to insist that you have had relevant testing.
Next, you should understand treatment goals. The first goal of AML therapy is to get into remission. The second goal is to maintain that remission.
Induction therapy, or the first phase of treatment, is meant to induce remission. This first-line treatment kills as much of the disease as possible and returns blood counts back to normal.
Consolidation treatment, also referred to as post-remission therapy, is used to prevent leukemia cells from returning and maintain remission. In some patients, stem cell transplant acts as a consolidation therapy. In others, additional treatment options to maintain remission can be explored.
The next step is to consider your treatment options with your doctor. It’s important to understand the approaches available for YOUR individual disease. AML treatments can include:
- Chemotherapy
- Targeted therapy
- Stem cell transplant
- Immunotherapy
- Clinical trials, which may provide access to treatments that are not yet approved.
Or, you may receive a combination of one or more of these treatments.
Once you understand the therapies that are available to you, it’s time to talk to your doctor about the risks and benefits of each option. Your doctor will also consider your age, overall health, and existing conditions before suggesting a treatment course.
So, what questions should you address when discussing your treatment goals with your doctor? Consider asking:
- Is stem cell transplant a viable option for you?
- Can you tolerate high-intensity therapy or is low-intensity therapy better for you?
- How will the treatment impact your quality of life and lifestyle?
- Are there short or long-term treatment side effects that may occur after you have completed treatment?
- What is the plan if the first approach to treatment isn’t effective?
- Is there a clinical trial that might be right for you?
- Is there a member of the team, such as a social worker, that can help you understand the potential treatment costs? And is there access to financial resources that can help you if needed?
Remember that you have a role in making decisions regarding your care. Insist that all of your questions are answered when making a decision with your healthcare team. If you don’t feel supported or you don’t feel heard by your healthcare team, then it is always best to seek a second opinion.
Finally, once you have gathered all the information, it may be helpful to talk it out with people you trust, such as a partner, friend or family member, to help you make a decision that you feel confident about.
Now, how can you put this information to work for you?
- Ensure that you have an accurate understanding of your diagnosis.
- Make sure you have had appropriate testing to establish your subtype and risk.
- Understand your treatment options and talk with your doctor about what’s best for YOUR AML.
- Remember, you are a partner in your care and have an active voice in finding the best treatment for you.
Visit powerfulpatients.org/aml to learn more about AML.
