Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ACUTE LEUKEMIAS
Zaw Win Myint, MD
Jane Anne Nohl Division of Hematology &
Center for the Study of Blood Diseases
USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center
Keck Medical Center of USC
heterogeneous clonal stem cell malignancy in which immature hematopoietic cells proliferate and accumulate in bone marrow, peripheral blood, and other tissues.
results in inhibition of normal hematopoiesis, characterized by neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and the clinical features of bone marrow failure.
AML AML AML AMLALL
MM
CLL
CML
differentiation proliferation
2015 US Leukemia Estimates
• ~ 54,270 new cases of leukemia were expected in the United States
• 24,450 leukemia-related deaths
Incidence of acute and chronic leukemias in
the United States.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Cancer Registry estimates of age-specific incidence rates of AML, ALL, CML, and CLL in the
U.S., SEER 18 areas, 2007-2011. Rates are given per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population.
ETIOLOGY
cause of leukemia is usually unknown
familial/genetic predisposition in some individuals
Genetic Predispositions:
– Single germline mutations in RUNX1, CEBPA, SRP72, and GATA2.
– defective DNA repair : Fanconi anemia, ataxia telangiectasia, Bloom syndrome
– ribosomal abnormalities : Diamond-Blackfan anemia, Shwachman-Diamond syndrome, and dyskeratosis congenita.
– germline mutations in p53 and abnormalities in chromosome number: Klinefelter and Down syndromes.
ONCOGENIC VIRUSES: type I (HTLV-1) in adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma. Epstein-Barr virus in endemic African form of Burkitt’s lymphoma/leukemia.
RADIATION: higher doses of radiation, particularly absorbed over a shorter period of time
CHEMICALS : benzene and benzene-containing compounds
DRUG- AND THERAPY-RELATED LEUKEMIAS :
– alkylating agents :typically 4 to 6 years after chemotherapy
– topoisomerase II inhibitors : 1 to 2 years, lacks a myelodysplasticphase, a monocytic morphology, 11q23 abnormalities; translocations of 21q22 are involved.
– autologous HCT : a cumulative incidence as high as 10%.
ETIOLOGY (Contd.)
Why is acute leukemia an emergency?
Tumor lysis
Leukostasis
Sepsis
DIC
TLS: Clinical Features
K+ uric acid PO4
Ca2+
CaPO4 Ca2+
arrhythmias
weakness
paralysis acute renal failure
tetany
AMS
K+
TLS: Prevention & Treatment
Prevention: Fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, fluids, allopurinol
Treatment: rasburicase or HD
purines/pyrimidines uric acidK+
allopurinol
What blood test should you get before administering rasburicase?
rasburicase
allantoin
Leukostasis
High blast count hyperviscosity tissue perfusion
Systems affected: CV (MI), pulm (ARDS), GI (bowel ischemia), CNS (CVA, retinal
hemorrhage)
CT head in pt with AML; Bx
showed leukocyte plugs
CXR in pt presenting with
AML;
CT + BAL Dx
Algharras et al. (2013) J Clin Diagn Res. 7(12): 3020–3022. Salloum et al. (1998) BMT 21:835-837. Vasquez (2012) FSFB-CIDER Case of the Month.
Retinal hemorrhage
Leukostasis: Diagnosis and Treatment
Leukostasis is a clinical diagnosis.
– There is no specific WBC cutoff to establish Dx or decide treatment
– Pathologic diagnosis is rarely available
– Rely on clinical judgment and investigation of appropriate DDx
– Ex: MI could be secondary to anemia, DIC, underlying CAD
• Medical management– Steroids, hydrea can rapidly decrease WBC count
– Risks: tumor lysis syndrome, hydrea can worsen other cytopenias
• Leukapheresis– Requires line placement, transfusion medicine consultation
– Contraindicated in APL
– Transfusion further increases viscosity (but hydration decreases it!)
hematology consultant
transfusion medicine
consultant
Sepsis
Patients with acute leukemia are immunodeficient
– Neutropenic
– Dysfunctional bone marrow dysfunctional immune system
Culture on admission, even if asymptomatic and afebrile
– Fast fever spikes are common, better to stay ahead of the curve!
Calculate the ANC even in the setting of elevated WBC count
– Low ANC may be “hiding”
Fever is an emergency in the neutropenic patient!
Sites of infection in neutropenic patients
Fungal infections in leukemia
DIC
Consumptive coagulopathy triggered by release of tissue factor from blasts
DVTCVAMI
ICHSDH
pulmonary hemorrhage
DIC
Occurs in ~10% of patients with acute leukemia
– At diagnosis
– After initiation of chemotherapy
Screen all patients by sending:
– Coags
– Fibrinogen
– D-dimer
How to manage:
– Monitor coags and fibrinogen even after initiation of chemotherapy!
– Keep plts > 20-30K (50K if bleeding)
– Keep fibrinogen > 150
Recognizing and treating DIC can save a patient’s life!Nur et al. (1995) Eur J Hem 55(2):78-82.
DIC in APL (AML M3)
APL has a unique molecular mechanism
– t(15;17) PML-RAR fusion protein
Nur et al. (1995) Eur J Hem 55(2):78-82.
ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA
Age-Specific AML Incidence Rates
Juliusson G, et al. Blood. 2009;113:4179-4187.
Incid
en
ce
Pt Age (Yrs)
New cases per 1000 inhabitants of Sweden (1997-2005)
OS in AML Declines With Age
Data from Swedish Acute Leukemia Registry
Juliusson G, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011;11(suppl 1):S54-S59.
Yrs
100
80
60
40
20
00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
OS
(%
)
8 9 10 11 12 13
16-29 yrs, n = 76
30-39 yrs, n = 116
40-49 yrs, n = 200
50-59 yrs, n = 405
60-69 yrs, n = 642
70-79 yrs, n = 998
80-89 yrs, n = 682
90-99 yrs, n = 86
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Kantarjian H, et al. Cancer. 2010;21:4896-4901.
Survival in AML by Time Period
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Su
rviv
al P
rob
ab
ilit
y
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Yrs
1980-Present Age< 60≥ 60
Total19201769
Died12651519
Median, Mos17.5 6.2
5 Yrs, %308
P < .001
8
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Kantarjian H, et al. Cancer. 2010;21:4896-4901.
Survival in AML by Time Period
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Su
rviv
al
Pro
ba
bilit
y
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Yrs
Age < 60 Yrs Treatment Era
< 197070-7980-8990-9900-09
Died68356375480410
Median, Mos2.7 11.8 14.0 18.0 22.8
5 Yrs,%313213038
Total69387446655819
P < .001
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Su
rviv
al
Pro
bab
ilit
y
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Yrs
Age ≥ 60 YrsTreatment
Era< 197070-7980-8990-9900-09z
Died4016927454170
Median,Mos0.91.6 3.7 5.5 7.4
5 Yrs,%0858
10
Total40170276572921
P < .001
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Therapy-Related vs Secondary AML
Danish national population-based study (N = 3055 unselected patients with AML)
Granfeldt Østgård. J Clin. Oncol. 2015;33:3641.
Solid cancerLymphoproliferative disorderRheumatic diseaseMultiple myelomaAcute lymphoblastic leukemia
Myelodysplastic syndromeChronic myelomonocytic leukemiaPolycythemia veraMyelofibrosisEssential thrombocythemiasAML, miscellaneousMyeloproliferative neoplasms, unclassifiableMyeloproliferative neoplasms, other
51%
32%
10%
4%
3%
58%
4%
11%
11%
11%
2%
2%
1%
tAMLsAML
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
FAB Classification
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Arber DA, et al. Blood. 2016 May 19;127(20):2391-405
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Mrozek K, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4515-4523.
N = 1550 pts younger than 60 yrs of age with de novo AML
European LeukemiaNet Genetic Risk Classification:
OS
Pro
bab
ility
of O
S
Yrs
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
P < .001
Favorable (n = 339)
Intermediate-I (n = 144)
Intermediate-II (n = 156)
Adverse (n = 179)
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
AML: Risk Status by Biologic Features
Morphologic examinationIdentifies changes in the number and morphology of bone marrow cells, particularly
blast cells and the presence of dysplasia
Immunophenotyping
Classifies leukemia cells based on the antigens present on their surfaces:
Flow cytometry
IHC
Cytogenetic evaluation
Required for classification of AML:
Karyotyping
FISH
Molecular genetic testing
Uses reverse transcriptase-PCR or direct PCR of DNA to detect molecular
abnormalities with prognostic significance:
Classifies AML into subtypes and stratifies pts into prognostic groups
Mutation-specific assays for FLT3 and IDH2 approved by FDA in 2017
(In most cases, treatment begins before cytogenetic and molecular genetic test results are available)
Arber DA, et al. Blood. 2016;127:2391-2405.
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Smith ML, et al. Blood Rev. 2011;25:39-51.
Independent Prognostic Variables in AML
MRC/NCRI AML Trials: OS
100
80
40
20
00 1 2
Pati
en
ts A
live (
%)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t(15;17) (n = 330)t(8;21) (n = 247)inv(16)/t(16;16) (n = 154)CEBPα biallelic (n = 47)FLT3-ITD WT/NPM1 mut (n = 248)Other intermediate (n = 471)FLT3-ITD mut/NPM1 WT (n = 100)Other adverse (n = 130)
76%
58%52%51%
26%
11%
Yrs From Entry
60
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
AML Therapy Decisions by Probability of TRM and
Drug Resistance
Estey EH. Haematologica. 2011;96:795-798.
Risk of
Resistance
Risk of Therapy-Related Toxicity
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
LOWStandard
Investigational Tx, Investigational Tx,
Investigational Tx,
Low Intensity
Low Intensity
Intensity Tx
High Intensity
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Current Approach to AML Therapy
Induction Goals:
- Stabilize patient
- Restore hematopoiesis
Consolidation Goals:
- CURE the patient
- Leukemia-free survival
Salvage Therapy Goals:
- Complete Remission
Formalize the assessment
of frailty in patients
- HCT-CI
- MD Anderson Risk Score
UNFIT for Intensive ChemoFIT for Intensive Chemotherapy
UnfavorableIntermediateFavorable
History = Secondary AML
Genetics = complex + TP53, FLT3,
Favorable (CBF)
Clinical Trials
vs
Hypomethylating agents
vs
Supportive care
vs
Hospice
Scheinberg et al. In: DeVita et al, eds. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 5th ed. Lippincott-Raven; 1997:2293-2321.
Adult acute lymphocytic leukemia. Available at: https://medlineplus.gov/acutemyeloidleukemia.html
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
AML Therapy Decisions by Probability of
TRM and Drug Resistance
Estey EH. Haematologica. 2011;96:795-798.
Risk of
Resistance
Risk of Therapy-Related Toxicity
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
LOWStandard
Investigational Tx, Investigational Tx,
Investigational Tx,
Low Intensity
Low Intensity
Intensity Tx
High Intensity
Improve Induction
+ Consolidation
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
The 7+3 Regimen in AML
In 1973, Yates and colleagues[1] reported results from an AML regimen of 7 days of cytarabine and 3 days of daunorubicin, aka “7+3”
40 yrs later, 7+3 induction therapy continues to benefit pts with AML[2]:
– CR rate in younger pts: 60% to 75%
– CR rate in pts older than 60 yrs of age: 35% to 50%
– However, most will NOT be cured of their disease
1. Yates JW, et al. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1973;57:485-488.2. Lichtman MA, et al. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2013;50:119-130.
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Burden of Disease in AML
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Mrozek K, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4515-4523.
N = 1550 pts younger than 60 yrs of age with de novo AML
European LeukemiaNet Genetic Risk
Classification: OS
Pro
bab
ility
of O
S
Yrs
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
P < .001
Favorable (n = 339)
Intermediate-I (n = 144)
Intermediate-II (n = 156)
Adverse (n = 179)
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Consolidation
Sawler D, Sanford D, Brandwein JM, et al. Abstract #464. Presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting, December 10, 2017; Atlanta, GA.
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Consolidation
Sawler D, Sanford D, Brandwein JM, et al. Abstract #464. Presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting, December 10, 2017; Atlanta, GA.
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Consolidation
Sawler D, Sanford D, Brandwein JM, et al. Abstract #464. Presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting, December 10, 2017; Atlanta, GA.
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Patel JP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1079-1089.
Prognostic Relevance of Integrated Genomic Profiling
Gene Overall Frequency, %
FLT3 (ITD, TKD) 37 (30, 7)
NPM1 29
DNMT3A 23
NRAS 10
CEBPα 9
TET2 8
WT1 8
IDH2 8
IDH1 7
KIT 6
RUNX1 5
MLL-PTD 5
ASXL1 3
PHF6 3
KRAS 2
PTEN 2
TP53 2
HRAS 0
EZH2 0
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Recurring Mutations in AML
April 2017: FDA approved FLT3 inhibitor midostaurin
(with 7 + 3) for pts with newly diagnosed FLT3-positive
AML as detected by FDA-approved companion
diagnostic test.
NPM1
CEBPA
FLT3-ITD (internal tandem duplication)
FLT3-TKD (point mutation in TK domain)
KIT
MLL-PTD (partial tandem duplication)
RAS
WT1
TP53
DNMT3A
TET2
IDH1, IDH2
ASXL1
Favorable
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
clinicaloptions.com/oncology
Current and Future Directions in the Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Current Approach to AML Therapy
Induction Goals:
- Stabilize patient
- Restore hematopoiesis
Consolidation Goals:
- CURE the patient
- Leukemia-free survival
Salvage Therapy Goals:
- Complete Remission
Formalize the assessment
of frailty in patients
- HCT-CI
- MD Anderson Risk Score
UNFIT for Intensive ChemoFIT for Intensive Chemotherapy
UnfavorableIntermediateFavorable
“7+3” + midostaurin
Chemotherapy
vs
Supportive
Care
“HiDAC” + midostaurin
vs
Allogeneic BMT ±midostaurin
History = Secondary AML
Genetics = complex + TP53, FLT3,
Favorable (CBF)
Clinical Trials
vs
Hypomethylating agents
vs
Supportive care
vs
Hospice
Scheinberg et al. In: DeVita et al, eds. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 5th ed. Lippincott-Raven; 1997:2293-2321.
Adult acute lymphocytic leukemia. Available at: https://medlineplus.gov/acutemyeloidleukemia.html
Induction Goals:
- Stabilize patient
- Restore hematopoiesis
Consolidation Goals:
- CURE the patient
- Leukemia-free survival
Salvage Therapy Goals:
- Complete Remission
Formalize the assessment
of frailty in patients
- HCT-CI
- MD Anderson Risk Score
UNFIT for Intensive ChemoFIT for Intensive Chemotherapy
UnfavorableIntermediateFavorable
“7+3” Clinical Trial
vs
Hypomethylating agents
vs
Supportive care
vs
Hospice
Chemotherapy
vs
Supportive
Care
“HiDAC”
vs
Allogeneic BMT
History = Secondary AML
Genetics = complex + TP53, FLT3,
Favorable (CBF)
Scheinberg et al. In: DeVita et al, eds. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 5th ed. Lippincott-Raven; 1997:2293-2321.
Adult acute lymphocytic leukemia. Available at: https://medlineplus.gov/acutemyeloidleukemia.html
Current Approach to AML Therapy
AML in Older Adults: A Major Challenge
SEER Program Populations. AML (1988-2012).SEER Program Populations. AML (2009-2013).
100
80
60
40
0
20
0 1 2 43 5 6 7 98 10
Yrs
Surv
ival
(%)
Age, Yrs
< 5050-6465-74≥ 75
25
20
15
10
0
5
< 20 20-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 75-8465-74 > 84
Age (Yrs)
Ne
w C
ases
(%)
5.3 6.0 5.7
10.1
16.9
23.0 22.6
10.4
Percent of New AML Cases by Age Group
Survival in Elderly AML by Therapy (SEER–Medicare)
3317 elderly pts aged 65 yrs or older with AML
1193 (36%) received chemotherapy (younger, fewer comorbidities)
888 pts matched in both cohorts
Survival
Median, Mos 1 Yr, %
Overall 4.4
Chemotherapy 6.1 30
No treatment 1.7 10
Menzin J, et al. ASH 2006. Abstract 1973.
AML in Older Adults: Disease and Pt Factors Predict
Prognosis
Kantarjian H, et al. Cancer. 2006;106:1090-1098.
Adverse prognostic factors
– Aged 75 yrs or older
– Unfavorable karyotype
– Treatment outside LAFR
– AHD ≥ 12 mos
– ECOG PS > 2
– LDH > 600 u/L
– Creatinine > 1.3 mg/dL
Risk group by number of factors
– Low: 0
– Intermediate: 0-2
– High: ≥ 3
Pro
port
ion o
f P
ts S
urv
ivin
g
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
0 12 24 36 60 84 9648 72
Mos
Survival Survival
Risk Group Total Dead Median,
% at
Mos 5
Yrs
Low 121 82 18 17
Intermediate 558 475 7 8
High 301 288 1 1
P < .001
Hypomethylating Agents: Structural Differences
RNA
DNA
Nucleic Acid
Incorporation
Azacitidine x 7 days, 28-day cycles
Decitabine x 5 days, 28-day cycles
Kuykendall JR. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39:1700-1709.
Meletis J, et al. Med Sci Monit. 2006;12:RA194-206.
Phase II Study of Decitabine for Older Pts With
Untreated AML
N = 55 pts with ≥ 20% blasts
Median age: 74 yrs (range: 61-87)
Treatment: decitabine 20 mg/m2 IV daily x 5 Q4W
Median cycles: 3 (range: 1-25)
ORR: 25% (CR: 24%)
Responses included poor-risk
cytogenetics and in pts with prior MDS
Poor response in pts with high blast
count
Median OS: 7.7 mos
4-wk mortality rate: 7%
3-mo mortality rate: 25%
Cashen AF, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:556-561.
1.00
0.75
0.50
0
0.25
0 100 400 600 800
Days
Surv
ival
200 300 700500
Subjects, n55
Event82% (45)
Censored18% (10)
Median Survival (95% CI)231 (172.0-349.0)
Product-limit estimate curveCensored observations
CPX-351 Uses a Nano-Scale Delivery Complex
100-nm bilamellar liposomes
5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine to daunorubicin
1 unit = 1.0 mg cytarabineplus 0.44 mg daunorubicin
In August 2017, the FDA granted regular approval to CPX-351 for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC)
Lancet JE, et al. ASCO 2016. Abstract 7000.
First-Line CPX-351 in Pts Aged 60-75 with Untreated
Secondary AML: OS by Age
Medeiros BC, et al. ASH 2016. Abstract 902.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Surv
ival
(%)
Mos0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Events, n/N62/96
81/102
Median Survival, Mos (95% CI)
9.63 (6.24-12.62)6.37 (4.63-8.84)
CPX-3517+3
60-69 yrs
CPX-3517+3
96102
7973
5953
5141
4032
3124
2316
1310
86
73
42
10
100
80
60
40
20
0
Surv
ival
(%)
Mos0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Events, n/N42/5751/54
Median Survival, Mos (95% CI)
8.87 (4.73-12.19)5.62 (3.29-7.52)
CPX-3517+3
70-75 yrs
CPX-3517+3
5754
4337
3324
2815
2211
157
114
82
81
40
10
00
Recurring Mutations in AML
NPM1
CEBPA
FLT3-ITD (internal tandem duplication)
FLT3-TKD (point mutation in TK domain)
KIT
MLL-PTD (partial tandem duplication)
RAS
WT1
TP53
DNMT3A
TET2
IDH1, IDH2
ASXL1
Favorable
TP53 Mutations: Frequency and Prognosis
TP53 mutations found in ~ 8% of AML pts[1]
‒ Incidence increases with age – Predominantly in pts with complex karyotype
Confers poor outcome to chemo, including lower CR rates, inferior RFS, OS[2]
OS by Karyotype Complexity[2]
All 21 pts
w/mutated
TP53
responded
1. Döhner H, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1136-1152. 2. Rucker FG, et al.
Blood. 2012;119:2114-2121. 3. Welch, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2023.
Response to Decitabine by Gene Mutation[3]
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f P
ts
OS
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
P < .001
P = .04
P = .05
Pts with a response
Pts without a response
100
75
50
25
00 12 24 36 48 60 72
Mos
TP53unaltered (n = 52)
TP53altered (n = 103)
P < .0001
Recurring Mutations in AML
NPM1
CEBPA
FLT3-ITD (internal tandem duplication)
FLT3-TKD (point mutation in TK domain)
KIT
MLL-PTD (partial tandem duplication)
RAS
WT1
TP53
DNMT3A
TET2
IDH1, IDH2
ASXL1
Other Factors:
CD33 ExpressionFavorable
September 2017: FDA approved gemtuzumab
ozogamicin for patients with newly diagnosed or
relapsed/refractory CD33-positive AML.
Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin: MOA
1. Zein N, et al. Science. 1988;240:1198-1201. 2. Naito K, et al. Leukemia. 2000; 14:1436-1443. 3. Elmroth K, et al. DNA Repair (Amst). 2003;2:363-374.
Rosen DB, et al. PLoS One. 2013;8:e53518.
Monoclonal anti-CD33 antibody linked to calicheamicin-y1[1]
Internalized and cleaved in lysosomes to release free calicheamicin moiety[2]
Calicheamicin moiety enters nucleus and interacts with DNA causing double-strand breaks initiating apoptosis[1-3]
SurvivalSignaling
Drug TransporterActivityTarget
Levels
GO-InducedDNA Damage
GOInternalization/
Processing
GO-InducedApoptosis and
Cell Death
Growth Factors, Cytokines
Mitochondria
MDR-1/MRP-1
CD33GO
P13K/AKT
MEK/ERK
JAK/STAT
c-Casp3
γH2AX
p-CHk2
Cell Death
c-PARP
Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin: Efficacy in AML
3 open-label, single-arm phase II trails in CD33+ AML in first relapse
– N = 142 at interim analysis
– Remission: 32%
– High incidences of myelosuppression, hyperbilirubinemia, elevated hepatic transaminase levels
GO received accelerated approval in 2000 for pts 60 yrs of age or older with CD33+ AML in first relapse
Sievers EL, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3244-3254.
Relapse-Free Survival
CRCRp
P = .624
Mos From Date of Remission
Pro
bab
ility
of
Rel
apse
-Fre
e S
urv
iva
l 1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
00 6 12 18 24 30
OR and 95% CI(GO: Control)
0.77 (67-0.90)2P = .0009
1.30 (1.04-1.63)2P = .02
0.93 (0.82-1.07)2P = .3; NS
0.46 (0.29-0.73)2P = .001
0.99 (0.69-1.40)2P = .9; NS
0.89 (0.78-1.00)2P = .06
1.00 (0.83-1.20)2P = 1.0; NS
0.90 (0.81-0.99)2P = .03
Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin in AML: Meta-analysis
Loke J, et al. Ann Hematol. 2015;94:361-373.
Trials
Resistant disease
Induction death
CR
Favorable
Favorable/intermediate
Intermediate
Adverse
Total
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
GO Better Control Better
Venetoclax: BCL-2 Selective Inhibitor
Konopleva M, et al. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:1106-1117.Lin T, et al. ASCO 2016. Abstract 7007.
BCL-2 overexpression allows cancer cells to evade apoptosis by sequestering proapoptotic proteins
Venetoclax binds to BCL-2, freeing proapoptotic proteins that initiate
apoptosis
BCL-XL MCL1
BIMBCL-2 BCL-2 BAX
Venetoclax
BCL-2
BCL-2
BIM
BAXBIM
BAX
BAXBAX
Cytochrome capoptosis
Minimal Residual Disease in AML
Detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) in morphologic CR provides an assessment of disease burden that may be used for guidance in therapy efficacy and relapse risk in patients with AML
MRD methodologies
– FISH
– Multicolor flow cytometry
– PCR assays, including real-time quantitative PCR, which has been used in clinical trials for markers including NPM1 and PML-RARA
– Next-generation sequencing
Minimal Residual Disease
Minimal Residual Disease in AML
Survival for Pts With Relapsed AML
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
bab
ility
of
Surv
ival
0 26 52 78 104 130 156 182 208 234 260
Pts
436
175
Deaths
413
162
Pts Censoredat > 1, 2 Yrs
0, 0
2, 0
Wks of CR1
0-26
27-52
Wks
98
37
86
34
6, 3
1, 1
53-78
79-104
56 38 8, 7 104
Estey E. Leukemia. 1996;10:932-936.
Poor Risk Factors1.Duration CR1 < 6 mos2.Poor-risk karyotype3.KPS < 90%4.Circulating blasts5.Non-HLA identical donor
• Mismatch URD, 1 point• Related donor, but not HLA
identical sibling, 2 points
CIBMTR study (N = 2255): 1995-2004
Survival After Myeloablative AlloSCT for AML in Relapse
or Primary Induction Failure
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
01 2 3
Yrs
Pro
bab
ility
of
Surv
ival
42%
6%
28%
15%
0
Score = 0 Score = 1 Score = 2 Score = ≥ 3
Duval M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3730-3738.
Patel JP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1079-1089.
Prognostic Relevance of Integrated Genomic
Profiling
Gene Overall Frequency, %
FLT3 (ITD, TKD) 37 (30, 7)
NPM1 29
DNMT3A 23
NRAS 10
CEBPα 9
TET2 8
WT1 8
IDH2 8
IDH1 7
KIT 6
RUNX1 5
MLL-PTD 5
ASXL1 3
PHF6 3
KRAS 2
PTEN 2
TP53 2
HRAS 0
EZH2 0
Recurring Mutations in AML
NPM1
CEBPA
FLT3-ITD (internal tandem duplication)
FLT3-TKD (point mutation in TK domain)
KIT
MLL-PTD (partial tandem duplication)
RAS
WT1
TP53
DNMT3A
TET2
IDH1, IDH2
ASXL1
Other Factors:
CD33 ExpressionFavorable
August 2017: FDA approved IDH2 inhibitor
enasidenib for patients with relapsed/refractory
IDH2-positive AML as detected by FDA-approved
companion diagnostic test.
Mutant IDH enzymes convert a Krebs cycle intermediate, α-KG, into 2-HG.
Mark Levis Blood 2013;122:2770-2771
©2013 by American Society of Hematology
IDH1 and IDH2: Key Research Milestones
Cairns. Cancer Discov. 2013;3:730.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
IDH1 mutations identified in glioblastoma
IDH1 and IDH2mutations identified in AML
Germline IDH2 mutations identified in D2HG aciduria
IDH mutations identified in chondrosarcomas
Initial characterization of mutant IDH1 knock-in mice
First small-molecule inhibitors of mutant IDH enzyme activity developed
IDH mutations identified in cholangiocarcinoma
IDH2 mutations identified in AITL
D2HG shown to inhibit many 2-OG-dependent dioxygenases
D2HG found to inhibit TET2 and affect DNA methylation
Production of D2HG by mutant IDH enzymes discovered
Current Approach to AML Therapy
Induction Goals:
- Stabilize patient
- Restore hematopoiesis
Consolidation Goals:
- CURE the patient
- Leukemia-free survival
Salvage Therapy Goals:
- Complete Remission
Formalize the assessment
of frailty in patients
- HCT-CI
- MD Anderson Risk Score
UNFIT for Intensive ChemoFIT for Intensive Chemotherapy
History = Secondary AML
Genetics = complex + TP53, FLT3,
Favorable (CBF)
UnfavorableIntermediateFavorable
“7 + 3”
Favorable = “7 + 3” + gemtuzumab
FLT3-mutation = “7+3” + midostaurin
Secondary = CPX-351
“HiDAC”
HiDAC + gemtuzumab
HiDAC + midostaurin
CPX-351
vs
Allogeneic BMT
Clinical Trial
vs
Hypomethylating Agents
vs
Supportive Care
vs
Hospice
History = Secondary AML
Genetics = complex + TP53, FLT3,
Favorable (CBF)
UnfavorableIntermediateFavorable
ACUTE PROMYELOCYTIC LEUKEMIA
Pathogenesis
q22q12
#15 #17Chromosome
t(15,17)(q22,q12)
PML
RARa
PML
RARa
North American Intergroup Protocol I0129:
Maintenance
Tallman MS, et al. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1021-1028.
ATRAObservation
Yr
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f D
FS
0.5 4.01.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
00
Differentiation Syndrome (APL)
Mechanisms
– Cytokine release from differentiating APL blasts – “cytokine storm”
– Migration and tissue deposition of differentiating APL blasts
– Increased integrin expression endothelial adhesion capillaritis leak
Presentation
– Associated with WBC > 10K (especially > 30K)
– Symptoms: fever, hypoxia, pleural or pericardial effusion, renal failure, hypotension
Treatment
– Dexamethasone 10 mg BID x3-5 days with taper
– Consider holding ATRA
Call the hematology fellow with any concerning symptoms in an APL patient!
ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA
Incidence of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia by Age
.
SEER Cancer Statistics Factsheets. 2011-2015.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
New
Cas
es (
%)
Age (Yrs)
< 20 20-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 > 84
56.1
10.15.8 7.4 8.9
5.9 4.3 1.5
Clinical Presentation
Anemia
Thrombocytopenia
Neutropenia
Renal insufficiency
Peripheral blasts
Leukocytosis
Increased LDH
Increased uric acid
Bruising/bleeding
Ecchymoses/petechiae
Fatigue
Weight loss
Paul. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:1645. Terwilliger. Blood Cancer J. 2017;7:e577. Luciano. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2014;21:27. American Cancer Society. Signs and symptoms of acute lymphocytic leukemia. Kornberg. Blood. 1980;56:35.
Hepatomegaly/splenomegaly
Dyspnea
Dizziness
Headache
Infection
Diagnosis
Physical examination
Labs
– CBC
– CMP (LDH, uric acid, phos)
– Peripheral flow cytometry
Bone marrow
– Cytogenetics
– Flow cytometry
– Next generation sequencing
– Molecular analyses (BCR-ABL)
– Consider LDA card (Ph-like signature)
Lumbar puncture (if CNS disease suspected, must give with IT chemo)
Imaging: CT scan/PET-CT, if indicated
American Cancer Society. How is acute lymphocytic leukemia diagnosed? Terwilliger. Blood Cancer J. 2017;7:e577.
Prognostic Indices
Favorable Unfavorable
t(12;21) TEL-AML1– Incidence: pediatric, 20%; adult,
2% Hyperdiploidy
– Incidence: pediatric, 25%; adult, 5%
t(9;22) BCR-ABL (Ph+)– Incidence: pediatric, 3%; adult, 20% to
50% Older age (> 35 yrs) WBC: B-cell, > 30 x 109/L; T-cell, > 100 x 109/L Ph-like lesions Other cytogenetics
– t(4;11) MLL-AF4 ; t(8;14)– Complex karyotype (> 5 abnormalities)– Low hypodiploid/near triploidy
CNS involvement MRD positive (> 10-4 or 0.01%) after induction
Blasts ≥ 20%
Cytochemistry
MPOPos.
AML TdT
Neg. Pos. or Neg.
Flow Cytometry
CD19/CD79a
Pre-pre B-ALL
CD10
Common ALL
Cytoplasmic IgM
Pre B-ALL
Surface Ig
Mature B-ALL
T-cell Markers
T-ALL
ALL: Differentiating Subsets
Hoelzer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v69. Peters. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:44.
16
%
44
%
28
%
Sasaki. ASH 2016. Abstr 3975.
OS in Ph-Negative ALL OS in Ph-Positive ALL
Survival in Ph-ALL by Regimen (Excluding Primary Refractory)
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Mos
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Hyper-CVAD + imatinibHyper-CVAD
N No. Fail48 2150 45
P < .001
Median follow-up 77 mos (range, 27 to 101+ mos)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Yrs
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Median follow-up: 77 mos (range: 27-101+)
OS
Age15-3940-60> 60
Total185486301
Events142261193
Median4.5 yrs2.8 yrs1.3 yrs
P < .001P < .001
Ph-Like ALL Identified by Genomewide Classification Analysis
Ph-Like ALL
Den Boer ML, et al. Lancet Oncology. 2009;10:125-134.
CALGB 10403: Ph-Like Signature Is Associated With Poor EFS
28% of pts with Ph-like signature
– Median age: 24 yrs (range: 17-69)
Stock W, et al. ASH 2014. Abstract 796.
2-Yr EFS
100
80
60
40
20
0
Even
t-F
ree
Su
rviv
al
(%)
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Mos
Not Ph-like
Ph-like
N = 58; events = 16
N = 23; events = 14 Log-rank P = .04
2 yr rate = 57%
2-yr rate: 81%
OS of 39,697 Children With ALL Treated on Sequential
CCG/COG Clinical Trials, 1968-2009
Hunger. NEJM. 2015;373:1541.
ALL: Age Distribution and Age-Based Differences in
Therapeutic Approaches
Care for ALL pts historically divided between 2 different clinical teams[1]
– No collaboration
– Different treatments
Estimated New ALL Cases
in 2016: 6590[2]
57.2%(< 20 yrs)
10.2%(20-34 yrs)
5.8%(35-44 yrs)
7.2%(45-54 yrs)
8.2%(55-64 yrs)
11.4%(≥ 65 yrs)
42.8%
of ALL
pts ≥ 20 yrs
of age
1. Sallan SE. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2006;2006:128-132.
2. SEER Stat fact sheets: acute lymphocytic leukemia.
Adult ALL: No Standard Chemotherapy Approach
Fundamentally different regimens without common basic principles (except maintenance and CNS prophylaxis)[1]
No comparative trials between regimens or individual drugs
The role of HSCT is unclear[2]
1. NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. V2.2016.
2. Rowe JM. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17:S76-S83.
ALL: Treatment
Chemotherapy
– Backbone of treatment
– HyperCVAD, AYA therapy, 10403, Larson, FOA
Targeted therapies
– TKIs for Ph+ ALL
Immunotherapies
– Monoclonal antibodies, antibody–drug conjugates, and bispecific T-cell engager antibodies targeting CD19, CD20, CD22
– CAR T-cell therapy (patients ≤ 25 yrs of age)
Clinical trials
– For relapsed and refractory disease
– CAR T-cell therapy in patients > 25 yrs of age
Stem cell transplantation
Terwilliger. Blood Cancer J. 2017;7:e577.
Comparison Between the 2 Main Adult Regimens
Characteristic Asparaginase-Based BFM Models Hyper-CVAD
OriginModified from pediatrics[1] Pediatric Burkitt
leukemia[2]
Structure Complex
Each cycle has different drugs and
schedule[3]
Simple
A to B[1]
Asparaginase Yes
(much less than children)[1] None or limited*[1]
Myelosuppression Limited[4] Common[2]
Key toxicity Asparaginase related[4] Long cytopenias[5]
*Could include late 2 doses of pegaspargase 2500 U/m2 on Day 1 for Mos 9 and 12.
1. NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. V2.2016.
2. Garcia-Manero G, et al. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2000;14:1381-1396.
3. Larson RA, et al. Blood. 1995;85:2025-2037.
4. Patel B, et al. Leukemia. 2016;[Epub ahead of print].
5. Gill S, et al. Ann Hematol. 2008;87:727-734.
Pediatric vs Adult Regimens for ALL
4-8 wks 5-9 mos 2-3 yrs
Induction
AnthracyclineVincristine
Corticosteroid(Asparaginase)
(Cyclophosphamide)(TKI)
Induction 2or
extendedinduction
Consolidation
MethotrexateCytarabineVincristine
6-mercaptopurine6-thioguanine
CyclophosphamideAsparaginase
EtoposideTKI
Interimmaintenanc
e
Delayed Intensification
AnthracyclineVincristine
Corticosteroid(Asparaginase)
(Cyclophosphamide)(TKI)
Consolidation
Maintenance
MercaptopurineVincristine
MethotrexateCorticosteroid
(TKI)
Treatment for Ph-negative ALL
Treatment is long!
– 1-3 yrs[1]
Multi agent chemotherapy is a backbone of treatment for adults[1]
– CALGB 8811, GRAALL, Linker
– Hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine
– 8 cycles total
– 4 of each cycle
– First cycle is induction; achieve remission
2 LPs given per cycle (for first 2-8 cycles) as CNS prophylaxis[2]
– Alternating methotrexate and cytarabine
– More given if at higher risk for CNS disease
Children and young adults[3,4]
– Augmented BFM
1. Terwilliger. Blood Cancer J. 2017;7:e577. 2. Kantarjian. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:547. 3. Nachman. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2222. 4. Nachman. NEJM. 1998;338:1663.
Pediatric vs Adult Regimens for ALL: BFM
Regimen
Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (BFM) Regimen for ALL Induction and Consolidation
Induction Consolidation CNS Prophylaxis Maintenance
Phase I
VCR 2 mg IV on D 1, 8, 15, 22
DNR 25 mg/m2 IV on D 1, 8, 15, 22
PSE 60 mg/m2 PO on D 1-28
L-Asp 5000 IU/m2 IV on D 1-14
Phase I (begin Wk 20)
VCR 2 mg IV on D 1, 8, 15, 22
Adria 25 mg/m2 IV on D 1, 8, 15, 22
DEX 10 mg/m2 IV on D 1-14
MTX 10 mg IT on D 31, 38, 45, 52
6-MP 60 mg/m2 PO on Wks 10-18 and 29-130
MTX 30 mg PO or IV QW on Wks 10-18 and
29-130
Phase II
CTX 650 mg/m2 IV on D 29, 43, 57 (max 1000 mg)
Ara-C 75 mg/m2 IV on D 31-34, 38-41, 45-48, 52-55
6-MP 60 mg/m2 IV on D 29-57
Phase II
CTX 650 mg/m2 IV on D 29
Ara-C 75 mg/m2 IV on D 31-34, 38-41
6-TG 60 mg/m2 PO on D 29-42
Cranial RT 2400 cGY* given with
Phase II induction
*Reduced to 1800 cGy if pt considered for allogeneic BMT while in first complete remission.
O’Donnell MR. Cancer Network. Cancer Management 2016.
Pediatric vs Adult Regimens for ALL: CALBG
Regimen
CALBG Regimen for ALL Induction and Consolidation
Wks 1-4Course 1: Induction (4 wks)CTX 1200 mg/m2 IV on D 1*DNR 45 mg/m2 IV on D 1-3*VCR 2 mg IV on D 1, 8, 15, 22PSE 60 mg/m2/d PO on D 1-21*L-Asp 6000 IU/m2 SC on D 5, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22, orPeg-Asp 2000 IU SC on D 15
Wks 13-25Course III: CNS Prophylaxis, Interim Maintenance (12 Wks)Cranial RT 2400 cGY on D 1-12MTX 15 mg IT on D 1, 8, 15, 22, 296-MP 60 mg/m2/d PO on D 1-70MTX 20 mg/m2 PO on D 36, 43, 50, 57, 64
Until 20 Mos from DiagnosisCourse V: Prolonged Maintenance VCR 2 mg IV on D 1 Q4WPSE 60 mg/m2/d PO on D 1-5 Q4WMTX 20 mg/m2 PO on D 1, 8, 15, 226-MP 60 mg/m2/d PO on D 1-28
Wks 5-12Course II: Early Intensification (4 wks, repeat 1x)MTX 15 mg IT on D 1CTX 1000 mg/m2 IV on D 16-MP 60 mg/m2/d PO on D 1-14Ara-C 75 mg/m2 SC on D 1-4, 8-11VCR 2 mg IV on D 15, 22L-Asp 6000 IU/m2 SC on D 5, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22, orPeg-Asp 2000 IU SC on D 15
Begin Wk 26Course IV: Late Intensification (8 Wks)DOX 30 mg/m2 on D 1, 8, 15VCR 2 mg IV on D 1, 8, 15DEX 10 mg/m2 PO on D 1-14CTX 1000 mg/m2 IV on D 296-TG 60 mg/m2/d PO on D 29-42Ara-C 75 mg/m2 SC on D 29, 32, 36-39
*For pts > 60 yrs of age, modify to CTX mg/m2 IV on D 1; DNR 30 mg/m2 IV on D 1-3; PSE 60 mg/m2/d PO on D 1-7.
O’Donnell MR. Cancer Network. Cancer Management 2016.
Pediatric vs Adult Regimens for ALL:
MD Anderson Regimen (Hyper-CVAD)
MD Anderson (Hyper-CVAD) Regimen for ALL Induction and Consolidation
CTX 300 mg/m2 infused over 3 hrs Q12h X 6 doses (D 1-3)DOX 25 mg/m2/d continuous infusion over 24 hrs X 2 d; begins 12 hrs after last CTX dose (D 4-5)VCR 1.4 mg/m2 (maximum 2 mg) IV on D 4 and 11 DEX 40 mg/d on D 1-4 and 11-14
Alternate Q21d with MTX 1 g/m2 continuous infusion over 24 hrs on D 1Ara-C 3 g/m2 over 2 hrs Q12H X 4 doses (D 2-3)Leucovorin rescue 50 mg PO at end of MTX infusion; then 25 mg PO Q6h X 48 hrsMethylprednisolone 50 mg IV BID on D 1-3
All pts receive minimum of 4 doses of MTX IT for CNS prophylaxis. All pts receive maintenance therapy twice yearly with 6-MP 150 mg/d MTX 20 g/m2 PO QW VCR 2 mg IV QM PSE 200 mg PO for 5 days with VCR
O’Donnell MR. Cancer Network. Cancer Management 2016.
ALL: Treatment
Maintenance of precursor B-ALL, Ph-negative ALL
– POMP x 24-30 mos following hyperCVAD
– Purinethol (6-mercaptopurine): orally every day
– Oncovin (vincristine): IV monthly on Day 1
– Methotrexate: orally once/wk
– Prednisone: orally x 5 days (Days 1-5 of each cycle)
Kantarjian. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:547. Bassan. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:532.
Reasons for Recent Success in Treatment of Adult
ALL
Addition of TKIs to various backbones in Ph-positive ALL
Addition of rituximab to chemotherapy in Burkitt and pre B-ALL (only if CD20-positive)
Addition of anti-CD19/CD3 bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab to chemotherapy in salvage ALL therapies and in patients who are MRD+
Addition of CD22-directed antibody–drug conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin to chemotherapy in salvage ALL therapies
Clinical trials combining chemotherapy with blinatumomab and inotuzumab in the upfront setting are ongoing
Papadantonakis. Ther Adv Hematol. 2016;7:252. Thomas. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2009;23:949.
Pediatric vs Adult Regimens for ALL
1. Alacacioglu I, et al. Chemotherapy 2014; 60:219-223. 2. Buyukasik et al. Acta Haematologica 2013; 130:199-205.
Cu
mu
lati
ve S
urv
ival
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
RFS Functions
TherapyHyper-CVADBFM-like
P = .009
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mos
Cu
mu
lati
ve S
urv
ival
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
OS Functions
TherapyHyper-CVADBFM-like
P = .012
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mos
Dis
eas
e-f
ree
Su
rviv
al
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
TherapyHyper-CVADCALGB-8811
P = .001
0 25 50 75 100 125Mos
Ove
rall
Surv
ival
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
TherapyHyper-CVADCALGB-8811
P = .05
0 25 50 75 100 125Mos
“AML-Like” Myelosuppression: Is Prolonged and Profound
Marrow Aplasia Necessary in AML?
No added benefit from anthracycline dose intensification[1-3]
Steroids + vincristine = CR 50%
3 out of 4 or 5 drugs used in BFM inductions are nonmyelosuppressive: asparaginase, prednisone, vincristine[1,4-7]
Long, low-dose maintenance
Pediatric regimens typically use nonmyelosuppressivedrugs[10]
1. Stock W, et al. Cancer. 2013;119:90-98. 2. Thomas D, et al. Cancer. 2010;116:4580-4589. 3. Lamanna N, et al. Cancer.
2013;119:1186-1194. 4. Stock W, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2011;52:2237-2253. 5. Teuffel O, et al. Leukemia. 2011;25:1232-1238.
6. Egbelakin A, et al. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011;56:361-367. 7. Shaw PJ, et al. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1995;24:18-22. 8. Gökbuget
N, et al. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2006;2006:133-141. 9. Kung FH, et al. Cancer. 1978;41:428-434.
10. Ribera JM, et al. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis. 2014;6:e2014052.
Retrospective Comparison in Adolescents and
Young Adults Pre-2008: Pediatric vs Adult Protocols
Study Age Range,
Yrs
N EFS,* % P Value
Pediatric
Protocol
Adult
Protocol
United States[1] 16-20 321 63 34 < .0001
France[2] 15-20 177 67 41 < .0001
The Netherlands[3] 15-18 91 69 34 .0001
Sweden[4] 15-20 59 74 39 < .01
United Kingdom[5] 15-17 128 65 49 .01
Italy[6] 14-17 242 83 55 NR
*7-yr EFS for US study; 5-yr EFS for France, The Netherlands, Sweden, and UK studies; 2-yr EFS for Italy study.
1. Stock W, et al. Blood. 2008;112:1646-1654. 2. Boissel N, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:774-780. 3. de Bont JM,
et al. Leukemia. 2004;18:2032-2035. 4. Hallböök H, et al. Cancer. 2006;107:1551-1561. 5. Ramanujachar R, et
al. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;48:254-261. 6. Testi AM, et al. Blood. 2004;104:1954a.
Treatments for ALL: Pediatric vs AYA vs Adult Pts
Katz AJ, et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;11:1627-1642.
Age at Diagnosis (Yrs)
39
15-21
60-65+ ?
Employing a different treatment
9
8
6
4
2
0
Rate
pe
r 10
0,0
00
20%
46%
7
5
3
1
Pediatricians Adult Oncology Specialists
Asparagine
Glutamine Glutamic acid
Asparagine synthetase
Asparagine
circulating in blood
Aspartic acid
Diet
synthesis in liver
L-Asparaginase Mechanism of Action
ALL tumor cell
Asparaginase
Multiple Cycles of Asparaginase in Pediatric/Pediatric-
Inspired Regimens: Adult ALL Trials 2007-2014
Regimen Study Asparaginase Form Asparaginase Dose, IU/m2
Pediatric DFCI[1] Pegaspargase2500 Q2W or
2000 Q3W x 8-15 doses
Pediatric CALGB 10403[2] Pegaspargase[3] 2500 x 7 cycles
Pediatric inspired PETHEMA[4] E coli 10,000 x 3 cycles
20,000 Q4W x 12 mos
Pediatric inspired GRAALL-2003[5] E coli 10,000 x 9 cycles
Pediatric inspired USC[6] Pegaspargase 2000 x 6 cycles
1. DeAngelo DJ, et al. ASH 2015. Abstract 80. 2. Stock W, et al. ASH 2014. Abstract 796.
3. Larsen EC, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2380-2388. 4. Ribera JM, et al. J Clin Oncol.
2008;26:1843-1849. 5. Huguet F, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:911-918. 6. Douer D, et al.
J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:905-911.
RCTs of E coli Asparaginase Addition to Frontline
Pediatric ALL
Consolidation ± 25,000 IU/m2 E coli asparaginase weekly x 30
1. Amylon MD, et al. Leukemia. 1999;13:335-342. 2. Sallan SE, et al. Cancer Res. 1983;43:5601-5607. (Updated
courtesy of Dr. DeAngelo. 3. Salzer WL, et al. Leukemia. 2010;24:355-370. 4. Salzer WL, et al. Ann N Y Acad Sci.
2014;1329:81-92.
POG 8704: 7 drugs
T-cell ALL[1]
DFCI 77-01: 8 drugs
Non–T-cell ALL[2-4]
P < .001
100
80
60
40
20
00
2 4 6 8
Continuous C
R (
%)
Yrs
20%
38%P =
.04
10
08
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
00
2 4 6 8
Surv
ival (
%)
Yr
s
+ Asparaginase
No asparaginase
20
%
46
%
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
6
1
8
2
0
Number of Cycles With Asparaginase in Newly
Diagnosed Adult ALL, 1988-2000
ProtocolAsparaginase
Form
Induction Dosing,
IU/m2
Consolidation Dosing, IU/m2
Doses/Cycle Cycles
Pre-1988[1,2] E coli 5000-6000 x 9-14 d None None
CALGB 8811[3]
and 19802[4] E coli 6000 x 6 6000 x 4 (BIW) 2
CALGB 9511[5] Pegaspargase 2000 x 2 2000 x 2 1
MRC/ECOG
UKALLXII/E2993[6] E coli 10,000 x 14 d 10,000 x 3 None
UCSF 8707[7] E coli 6000 x 14 d 12,000 x 6 (TIW) 1
1. Hoelzer D, et al. Blood. 1988;71:123-31. 2. Annino L, et al. Blood. 2002;99:863-871. 3.
Larson RA, et al. Blood. 1995;85:2025-2037. 4. Stock W, et al. Cancer. 2013;119:90-98. 5.
Wetzler M, et al. Blood. 2007;109:4164-4167. 6. Rowe JM, et al. Blood. 2005;106:3760-3767.
7. Linker C, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2464-2471.
USC Trial: Modification of Augmented CCG
Pediatric BFM Protocol in Adult ALL
DNR
VCR
Peg-Asp
Cyclo
DEX
Ara-C
6-TG
IT-MTX
Maintenance
therapy continues
for 2 yrs
Induction 1
DNR
VCR
PRED
Peg-
Asp
IT-MTX
Cyclo
VCR
PRED
Peg-
Asp
Ara-C
6MP
IT-MTX
HD-MTX
VCR
Peg-Asp
PRED
IT-MTX
Pegaspargase (2000 IU/m2 IV x 6 doses) in adults with ALL
x 2
Induction 2 Consolidation 1 Consolidation 2Delayed
Reinduction 1
ARA-
C
VM 26
Douer D, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:905-911.
XX
Rituximab Improves Outcome for CD20+ ALL
Thomas DA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3880-3889.
Rituximab + Hyper-CVAD
Hyper-CVAD ± Imatinib in Ph+ ALL: OS
Thomas DA, et al. ASCO 2010. Abstract 6506.
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f
Su
rviv
al
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1
2
2
4
3
6
4
8
6
0
7
2
8
4
9
6
108 120 132 144 156 168
Mos
Survival in Ph-Positive ALL by Regimen*
*Excluding primary
refractory.
Hyper-CVAD + imatinib
Hyper-CVAD
n
4
8
5
0
Fail, n
21
45
P < .001
Median follow-up: 77 mos (range: 27-101+ mos)
Measurable (Minimal) Residual Disease (MRD)
Cancer Cell Burden
Campana D. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2010;2010:7-12. Curran EK, et al. Trends Immunol. 2017;38:513-525.
Ideal
Ce
ll N
um
ber
Time
Cancer Cell Eradication
Actual
Ce
ll N
um
be
r
Time
Measurable Residual Disease
MRD
Clinical relapse
Dis
ease
bu
rden
1011
10-1
10-7
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
100
1⁰ Treatment Response
Consolidation/Maintenance Therapy
Immunologic Effects
High-Risk Genetics
Niche Effects
Immune Evasion
MRD Strongly Predicts Outcome in ALL
Brüggemann M, et al. Blood. 2006;107:1116-1123.
Probability of DFS According to MRD
100
80
60
40
20
0
DFS
(%
)
0 1 2 3 4 5Yrs
Day +24P = .003
100
80
60
40
20
0D
FS (
%)
0 1 2 3 4 5Yrs
Wk +22P < .001
10080
6040
20
0
DFS
(%
)
0 1 2 3 4 5Yrs
Wk +52P < .001
MRDNegative/< 10-4
> 10-4
n7582
3-Yr DFS (95% CI)68.6 (55.0-82.2)37.8 (24.5-51.1)
MRDNegative/< 10-4
> 10-4
n10125
3-Yr DFS (95% CI)65.4 (54.1-76.7)11.8 (0-31.6)
MRDNegative/< 10-4
> 10-4
n11311
3-Yr DFS (95% CI)67.9 (56.9-80.6)14.6 (0.0-40.0)
Methods for MRD Quantification in ALL
Parameter Flow Cytometry ASO-PCR NGS
Sensitivity 10-4 (to 10-5) 10-4 to 10-5 10-6
Samples Fresh Fresh or Frozen Fresh or Frozen
Availability Widely available* Not widely availableUniversally via centralized
reference lab
Customization Not required† Patient-specific probes and primers
Not required
Cost Expensive Expensive Expensive
*Conventional analysis may not be adequate for MRD quantification. †Phenotype of cancer cells must be different from normal cells.
MRD Status Before and After HCT Predicts RFS and OS
N = 43, 18-63 yrs of ageMAC alloHCT in CR1
MRD quantification: TCR/Ig ASO-PCR or BCR/ABL or MLL/AF4 Q-PCR
OS by MRD Status pre-HCT
CIR by MRD Status Pre-HCT
CIR by MRD Status at Day 100
Spinelli O, et al. Haematologica. 2007; 92:612-618.
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
Mos
1440 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
P = .17
n = 120.80 (0.40-0.95)
n = 250.49 (0.20-0.67)
MRD+
MRD-
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
Mos1440 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
P = .027
n = 250.46 (0.27-0.71)
n = 120
MRD-
MRD+
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
01440 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Mos
n = 140.8 (0.46-0.98)
n = 170.07 (0.01-0.39)
MRD+
MRD-
P = .0006
Treatment of older patients
Low-Intensity Chemotherapy + Dasatinib in Ph+
ALL Pts 55 Yrs of Age or Older
Phase II EWALL-PH-01 study (2007-2010)
– Induction: dasatinib 100-140 mg/day; vincristine 1-2 mg/wk; dexamethasone 20-40 mg/day twice weekly
– Consolidation: dasatinib 100 mg/day; MTX-Asp C1,3,5; cytarabine C2,4,6
– Maintenance: dasatinib + POMP
Rousselot P, et al. Blood. 2016;774-782.
Parameter Pts (N = 71)
Median age, yrs
(range)69 (59-83)
CR, % 96
MMR, % 60
CMR, % 20
5-yr OS, % 36
5-yr EFS, % 27
Relapses, n
T315I, n/n (%)
36
18/24 (75)
GIMEMA 1509: Chemotherapy-Free Induction in
Ph+ ALL
Steroids x 35 days; dasatinib140 mg/day x 85 days
If no CMR, clofarabine + cyclophosphamide and/or alloHSCT
Median follow-up: 28 mos
Parameter Pts (N = 60)
Median age, yrs (range) 42 (19-59)
CHR, % 97
CMR, % 19
Deaths in CMR, n 12
No CMR, n
Total relapses, n
p210+ relapses, n
46
14
8
36-mo OS, % 58
30-mo DFS, %
85-day CMR, %
p190+, % (n)
p210+, % (n)
49
79
59
40
Chiaretti S, et al. ASH 2015. Abstract 81.
Take Home Messages
Questions / Comments ?