Posts

Expert Advice for AML Patients When Making Treatment Choices

Expert Advice for AML Patients When Making Treatment Choices from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What are key factors to consider for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients when making treatment decisions? Dr. David Sallman reviews important considerations and their impact on treatment choices, and shares questions patients should ask their doctor to receive optimal care. 

Dr. David Sallman is an Assistant Member in the Department of Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center where he specializes in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). Learn more about Dr. Sallman, here.

See More From Engage AML


Related Resources:

 

How Molecular Testing Has Transformed AML Treatment Options


Transcript:

Katherine:

When making a treatment choice, what are three key considerations for AML patients?

Dr. Sallman:

Yeah, so I think the initial probably two main questions are is the patient fit or non-fit, and that’s really an evolving definition. I think historically, we had this magical age if you’re less than 60 or less than 65 years of age, but we’ve really gone past that significantly. So, does a patient have significant medical problems, decreased performance status that we would not think about intensive therapy is one of the main questions. I think what feeds into that. And the other big question is what is the underlying mutations that the patient has which really gives us a prognostic risk from a disease perspective.

With certain mutations and subgroups being much more sensitive to intensive chemotherapy and other groups really where that option is poor irrespective of age. So, I think the most important thing is how does the patient look, what is their fitness level, and what are the underlying cytogenetic and molecular changes that impact their disease.

I think third, of course, is really involving the patient in their preferences, because I think some of these can really be a decision between several options.

Katherine:

What’s the role of the patient in making treatment decisions?

Dr. Sallman:

Yeah, the patient has to be central. I’m really hoping that we’ve moved a long way from the paternalistic practices in the past.

I think there are still many instances where there’s sort of a clear best option from a medical perspective, but there’s a lot of social logistics. If you’re getting intensive therapy, as an example, you’re going to be in the hospital four to five weeks, what’s your support system? What financial, other impact factors, all of these things come into play. I think it’s a tough group. I think the patients that are, let’s say, 60 to 70, because responses are somewhat similar across non-intensive and intensive options, I think there’s the question of is the goal long-term, is the goal quality of life, and I think all of those really are impactful.

I think it can be very challenging to go through all of the specific numbers and how a patient comprehends that or not, but really trying to draw out is their goal long-term, is their goal quality of life, give them the pros and cons of the potential options in that setting, and then real-time discuss that as we go. I think when they have that buy-in from their goals, it’s important.

These are complicated regimens and patient compliance and follow-up and all that are really critical to the overall safety and good outcomes of these patients.

Katherine:

Are there questions that patients should ask in their proposed treatment plan?

Dr. Sallman:

Yeah. I think it’s always important to discuss what options. I think any time there’s a one-option, if there is a one-option, why? Maybe because standard of care in this group is so good that it’s not really reasonable to necessarily offer a main alternative regimen. I think it’s important to understand as much of the disease as possible. If you’re choosing this regimen, why are you doing it? I think asking about the mutations is important, although that’s a very complicated thing to explain. Some patients like it and some patients don’t, and I think you have to do that in your team-based relationship.

I think always asking about clinical trials is an important question to ask. Should they be getting a second opinion? These are overall very rare diseases, and we highly favor an initial consultation at an academic center that specializes in this. I’d say a majority of my patients are ultimately treated in the community. But especially given that the regimens are becoming much more complicated, the intensity of watching their counts, managing side effects, titrating medications, it’s really great to have a team-based model between academic and community centers and that can’t really ever happen if they never come to us. As much as possible for that to occur I think is important as well.

How Molecular Testing Has Transformed AML Treatment Options

How Molecular Testing Has Transformed AML Treatment Options from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How has molecular testing impacted approaches to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) therapy? Dr. David Sallman explains how molecular testing has transformed AML care, including a discussion of risk assessment and the role of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in tailoring care for each patient. 

Dr. David Sallman is an Assistant Member in the Department of Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center where he specializes in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). Learn more about Dr. Sallman, here.

See More From INSIST! AML


Related Resources:

 

Understanding AML Induction and Consolidation Therapy

Transcript:

Katherine:

How has molecular testing changed the landscape of therapy for AML?

Dr. Sallman:

Yeah, it’s really transformed it, and it’s really a constantly evolving paradigm. We have updated classifications; most people utilizing the ELN system.

So, based on both cytogenetic and molecular factors, you can ultimately go into good risk, intermediate risk, adverse risk. In general, for fit patients for good risk, we focus on curative intent, ideally with chemotherapy alone. For intermediate and adverse, typically we’re incorporating allogeneic stem cell transplant. So, that’s one of the main things that really guides treatment really from the beginning and throughout.

Then, I think really where it’s evolving is personalized therapy. So, it’s really not a one-size-fits-all treatment paradigm, it’s you have mutation A, B, you’re this age, this fitness, and we put all those things together to ideally come up with the best treatment plan for the patient.

Katherine:

Is molecular testing standard following an AML diagnosis or is this something that patients should ask for?

Dr. Sallman:

It definitely should be standard and I think the challenge is when you say the word “molecular,” it means lots of things to different people. I think in the community, as targeted medications were first approved, so this was with FLT3 inhibitors, subsequently IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors, I think people are realizing yes, we have to send these sequencing panels, but there’s a potpourri of choices from a lot of different commercial vendors.

Really the key and one of the main messages we try to get across is you really have to assess for both FLT3 as well as really a comprehensive next-gen sequencing panel in order to cover all of the relevant genes at diagnosis and likely at other time points such as relapsed or refractory disease.

So, there’s no question, it’s standard, although unfortunately, it’s still not uncommon where the comprehensive panels are not sent and you’re left with somewhat not a complete picture for your patients. Since we’re personalizing everything, it’s really quite critical to have these data.

Katherine:

Yeah. How does inhibitor therapy work to treat AML?

Dr. Sallman:

So, you have a gene that turns on and turns off as we go, but with the mutation, it’s basically turned on all the time. Then, you can have targeted pills that basically turn it off. Most commonly this is done, there’s the active

or energy site for these different genes, and so these therapies can really specifically block that. I wouldn’t say that’s the only mechanism. There are IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors and they’re very specific for those mutations. Each mutation may have a little bit different end biology. In general, you have mutation A, and we’re going to turn it off with drug that inhibits A.

Treatment Advances for Aging AML Patients

Treatment Advances for Aging AML Patients from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What are the latest acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment advances for elderly patients? Dr. David Sallman shares details about new therapies that he’s excited about and their impact on care for all AML patient groups.

Dr. David Sallman is an Assistant Member in the Department of Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center where he specializes in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). Learn more about Dr. Sallman, here.

See More From Engage AML

Related Resources:

How Molecular Testing Has Transformed AML Treatment Options


Transcript:

Katherine:

Okay. When it comes to AML research and emerging treatment options, what specifically are you excited about?

Dr. Sallman:

Yeah. So, I think probably the most exciting changes have really been in the overall elderly AML setting, although I think are really broadly impactful across patients.

So, the standard has been hypomethylating agents for a long time. This paradigm has recently changed with the FDA approval and now full approval of venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents, but we’re still talking about immediate overall survival of 14 months in the Phase III setting.

There are lots of exciting drugs, and I think this is really where the spectrum of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia comes into play.

So, I really think in elderly AML, we’re moving towards more triplet type combinations to really ideally move the field forward. That adds levels of complexity, toxicity from additional therapies, but we’re really hoping to truly move that survival curve even more.

There’s a lot of HMA, doublet, triplet combinations that are exciting and I think that’s really where the field is going.

I think at the same time in the failure setting, particularly, let’s say, in the HMA venetoclax failure setting, there’s really a lack of almost any effective therapies. We’re really hoping that novel cellular and immunotherapies will hold significant promise in this group. There are numerous trials that are being considered in this space, but I’m hopeful for it.

What AML Patients Should Know About the COVID-19 Vaccines

What AML Patients Should Know About the COVID-19 Vaccines from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What are some key points for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients to understand about the COVID-19 vaccines? Dr. David Sallman shares advice for patients who are considering the COVID-19 vaccine.

Dr. David Sallman is an Assistant Member in the Department of Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center where he specializes in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). Learn more about Dr. Sallman, here.

See More From Engage AML


Related Resources:

 

Understanding AML Induction and Consolidation Therapy

 


Transcript:

Katherine:

Are the COVID-19 vaccines safe for AML patients, and how does the vaccine affect treatment, if at all?

Dr. Sallman:

Yeah, I think that’s a great question. I think it’s really a rapidly evolving day-by-day update. For example, at our center, we vaccinated a high number of patients and we’re actually in a study trying to understand what their antibody production. So, I think the question is less ‘is it safe or not safe,’ but more is it as effective or worthwhile based on patients that have low blood counts.

I think, in general, if a patient is in remission, either post-therapy or on maintenance-type therapy that has a relatively preserved white count and is it’s very reasonable to utilize it, I think we still have the caveat of is it as effective, of course we don’t know that clearly since all the large trials, these patients weren’t really included. But in general, if you’re not severely leukopenic, we are vaccinating a high percentage of patients that we’re monitoring closely, but anecdotally, we’ve not had significant different adverse events from our perspective.

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.