A systematic review of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes clinical trials to determine the benchmark of azacitidine and explore alternative endpoints for overall survival

Safety and efficacy of the combination of azacitidine with venetoclax after hypomethylating agent failure in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Therapies for patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) who have failed hypomethylating agents (HMAs) are needed. This Phase I/II study evaluates the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of venetoclax, an orally bioavailable BCL-2 inhibitor, in combination with azacitidine in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, dose-escalation, Phase I/II trial (NCT04550442) involving 33 patients with HR-MDS or CMML (IPSS ≥ 1.5) who had progressed after prior HMA therapy. Patients received intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine (SC) (75 mg/m² for 5 days) and venetoclax (100-400 mg for 7-14 days in a 28-day cycle). The primary endpoints were safety/tolerability (Phase 1) and overall response rate (ORR) (Phase 2).

RESULTS

Patients received a median of 3 cycles (range, 1-22). The maximum tolerated dose of venetoclax was 400 mg. Common grade 3-4 adverse events included neutropenia (19 %) and thrombocytopenia (10 %). The 4-week early mortality rate was 9 %. The ORR was 49 %, and the median overall survival (OS) was 7 months (95 % CI, 3.5-10.5). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6 months (95 % CI, 3.0-9.0). Four patients (12 %) underwent stem cell transplantation, with 3 of 4 alive at last follow-up (75 %).

CONCLUSION

Combining venetoclax with azacitidine is feasible for HR-MDS and CMML patients who failed prior HMA therapy. However, this combination did not significantly improve clinical outcomes in this patient population.

How I treat higher-risk MDS

ABSTRACT

Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) are a widely heterogenous group of myeloid malignancies characterized by morphological dysplasia, a defective hematopoiesis, and recurrent genetic abnormalities. The original International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and revised IPSS have been used to risk-stratify patients with MDS to guide treatment strategies. In higher-risk MDS, the therapeutic approach is geared toward delaying leukemic transformation and prolonging survival. For more than a decade, the hypomethylating agents azacitidine and decitabine have been the standard of care and, when feasible, an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation should be considered. However, the IPSS scoring systems solely rely on clinical, morphological, and cytogenetic features and do not account for somatic mutations present in >80% of cases. These genetic abnormalities have been shown to play a crucial role in prognostication, prompting the development of molecular IPSS, and the integration of genomic features into MDS classification systems in recent years. In this review, we delineate our approach to higher-risk MDS in the context of updated classifications and the latest prognostication tools. We use illustrative clinical cases to support our discussion and share insights from recent clinical trials, highlighting lessons learned.

Oral decitabine cedazuridine with and without venetoclax in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: a propensity score-matched study

Hypomethylating agents (HMA) are indicated in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). The combination of hypomethylating agents with venetoclax (Ven) has demonstrated promising results in these diseases, although randomized clinical trials are needed for validation. In this retrospective study, we compared two matched cohorts of patients with MDS or CMML: one receiving oral decitabine-cedazuridine (DEC-C, n = 73) and one receiving DEC-C and Ven (DEC-C-Ven, n = 51), in three contemporary clinical trials. The aim is to determine the impact of the addition of Ven to HMA in MDS and CMML. Individuals were matched using a propensity score approach that was based on the IPSS-M score and age. All patients had excess blasts; 84% were diagnosed with MDS and 16% with CMML. Most patients had high- or very high-risk disease, according to the revised IPSS-R. The overall response rate was superior in the DEC-C-Ven cohort (90% vs 64%, P = 0.002). The median times to best response were 1.1 and 2.7 months for the DEC-C-Ven and DEC-C cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001). More patients underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the DEC-C-Ven cohort (47%) than in the DEC-C cohort (16%, P < 0.001). The 4- and 8-week mortality did not significantly differ between the DEC-C and DEC-C-Ven cohorts. Patients in the DEC-C-Ven cohort had a more profound neutropenia at days 15 and 21 of the first cycle. The median overall survival was 24 and 19 months for the DEC-C-Ven and DEC-C cohorts, respectively (P = 0.89), and the median event-free survival durations were 18 and 10 months (P = 0.026). In conclusion, the addition of Ven resulted in improved response rates and outcomes in specific subgroups; prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy and safety of venetoclax plus azacitidine for patients with treatment-naive high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes

ABSTRACT

Outcomes are poor in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR MDS) and frontline treatment options are limited. This phase 1b study investigated safety and efficacy of venetoclax, a selective B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D; 400 mg for 14 days per 28-day cycle), in combination with azacitidine (75 mg/m2 for 7 days per 28-day cycle) for treatment-naive HR MDS. Safety was the primary outcome, and complete remission (CR) rate was the primary efficacy outcome. Secondary outcomes included rates of modified overall response (mOR), hematologic improvement (HI), overall survival (OS), and time to next treatment (TTNT). As of May 2023, 107 patients received venetoclax and azacitidine combination at the RP2D. Best response of CR or marrow CR was observed in 29.9% and 50.5% (mOR, 80.4%), respectively. Median OS was 26.0 months, with 1- and 2-year survival estimates of 71.2% and 51.3%, respectively. Among 59 patients with baseline red blood cell and/or platelet transfusion-dependence, 24 (40.7%) achieved transfusion independence on study, including 11 (18.6%) in CR. Fifty-one (49.0%) of 104 evaluable patients achieved HI. Median TTNT excluding transplantation was 13.4 months. Adverse events reflected known safety profiles for venetoclax and azacitidine, including constipation (53.3%), nausea (49.5%), neutropenia (48.6%), thrombocytopenia (44.9%), febrile neutropenia (42.1%), and diarrhea (41.1%). Overall, venetoclax plus azacitidine at the RP2D was well tolerated and had favorable outcomes. A phase 3 study (NCT04401748) is ongoing to confirm survival benefit of this combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02942290.

Advancing the Management of CH, MDS, and AML From the First Bridging the Gaps in Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Multiple Myeloma Conference

PURPOSE

The management of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have evolved substantially in recent years with the development of targeted therapies and novel nontargeted approaches. However, many questions remain about how to best use current therapies, and there is a large unmet need for effective therapies, particularly for patients with higher-risk MDS, AML, and those with MDS/AML relapsed/refractory (R/R) to prior therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A panel of experts was assembled to discuss current controversies and unanswered questions in the care of patients with MDS and AML. Workshop topics included: molecular testing and new classification systems, clonal hematopoiesis, treatment of MDS (lower-risk and higher-risk), frontline treatment of AML, treatment of special populations, treatment of R/R AML, and novel approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified many areas of ongoing controversy in the diagnosis and management of MDS and AML related to classification and risk assessment, treatment selection, sequencing of therapies, and monitoring of responses. Many clinical trials are ongoing to further improve outcomes for patients with MDS and AML, and we noted potential areas of debate related to study design, selection of endpoints, and assessment of responses. The controversies and gaps in knowledge identified by this panel will inform a follow-up conference in 2025 that will employ a modified Delphi method with a goal of developing and publishing formal consensus recommendations that can provide actionable guidance to clinicians in practice.

Advancing drug development in myelodysplastic syndromes

ABSTRACT

Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs) are heterogeneous stem cell malignancies characterized by poor prognosis and no curative therapies outside of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Despite some recent approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, (eg, luspatercept, ivosidenib, decitabine/cedazuridine, and imetelstat), there has been little progress in the development of truly transformative therapies for the treatment of patients with MDS. Challenges to advancing drug development in MDS are multifold but may be grouped into specific categories, including criteria for risk stratification and eligibility, response definitions, time-to-event end points, transfusion end points, functional assessments, and biomarker development. Strategies to address these challenges and optimize future clinical trial design for patients with MDS are presented here.

Old drug, new use: Recent advances for G-CSF

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), also known as colony-stimulating factor 3 (CSF3), is a proinflammatory cytokine that primarily stimulates the survival, proliferation, differentiation and function of neutrophil granulocyte progenitor cells and mature neutrophils. Over the past years, G-CSF has mainly been used to cure patients with neutropenia and as a part of chemotherapy to induct the remission for refractory/relapse leukemia. Recent studies showed that C-CSF can been used as condition regimens and as a part of preventive methods after allogeneic transplantation to improve the survival of patients and also has immunoregulation, and has promote or inhibit the proliferation of solid tumors. Therefore, in this review, we firstly describe the structure for G-CSF. Then its functions and mechanism were reviewed including the neutrophil mobilization, differentiation, migration, and inhibiting apoptosis of neutrophils, and its immunoregulation. Finally, the clinical applications were further discussed.

Advances in the management of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: future prospects

Higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) are defined using a number of prognostic scoring systems that include the degree of cytopenias, percentage of blasts, cytogenetic alterations, and more recently genomic data. HR-MDS encompasses characteristics such as progressive cytopenias, increased bone marrow blasts, unfavorable cytogenetics, and an adverse mutational profile. Survival is generally poor, and patients require therapy to improve outcomes. Hypomethylating agents (HMAs), such as azacitidine, decitabine, and more recently, oral decitabine/cedazuridine, are the only approved therapies for HR-MDS. These are often continued until loss of response, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. Combinations including an HMA plus other drugs have been investigated but have not demonstrated better outcomes compared to single-agent HMA. Moreover, in a disease of high genomic complexity such as HR-MDS, therapy targeting specific genomic abnormalities is of interest. This review will examine the biological underpinnings of HR-MDS, its therapeutic landscape in the frontline and relapsed settings, as well as the impact of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, the only known curative intervention for this disease.

Measurable (Minimal) Residual Disease in Myelodysplastic Neoplasms (MDS): Current State and Perspectives

Myelodysplastic Neoplasms (MDS) have been traditionally studied through the assessment of blood counts, cytogenetics, and morphology. In recent years, the introduction of molecular assays has improved our ability to diagnose MDS. The role of Measurable (minimal) Residual Disease (MRD) in MDS is evolving, and molecular and flow cytometry techniques have been used in several studies. In this review, we will highlight the evolving concept of MRD in MDS, outline the various techniques utilized, and provide an overview of the studies reporting MRD and the correlation with outcomes.

Cytogenetic and Molecular Associations with Outcomes in Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes Treated with Hypomethylating Agents plus Venetoclax

PURPOSE

Hypomethylating agents (HMA) combined with venetoclax are an emerging therapeutic strategy for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). The cytogenetic and molecular factors associated with outcomes with this combination for HR-MDS are incompletely understood.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We pooled patient data from 3 prospective trials evaluating HMA-venetoclax in HR-MDS to study associations between cytogenetic and molecular factors and overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time-to-event endpoints. Univariate and multivariate analyses using logistic regression (for ORR) or the Cox proportional hazards model (for OS and EFS) were used to identify associations between clinical, cytogenetic, and molecular factors and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients (52 HMA-naïve, 28 HMA-failure) were included. ORR was 90% in HMA-naïve and 57% in HMA-failure. Median OS was 28.2 and 8.3 months in HMA-naïve and HMA-failure, respectively. Median EFS was 17.9 and 5.5 months in HMA-naïve and HMA-failure, respectively. In addition, 24/52 (46%) of the HMA-naïve and 3/28 (11%) of the HMA-failure patients proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Factors associated with inferior outcomes were prior HMA failure, complex cytogenetics, trisomy 8, TP53 mutations, and RAS pathway mutations. Mutations in RNA splicing, DNA methylation, and ASXL1 appeared favorable. Blast percentage was not predictive of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of cytogenetic and molecular alterations may help identify which patients with HR-MDS benefit the most from venetoclax.

Oral decitabine plus cedazuridine and venetoclax in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia: a single-centre, phase 1/2 study

BACKGROUND

Hypomethylating agents are approved in higher-riskmyelodysplastic syndromes. The combination of a hypomethylating agent with venetoclax is standard of care in acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the safety and activity of the first totally oral combination of decitabine plus cedazuridine and venetoclax in patients with higher-risk-myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia.

METHODS

We did a single-centre, dose-escalation and dose-expansion, phase 1/2, clinical trial. Patients with treatment-naive higher-risk-myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (risk level categorised as intermediate-2 or higher by the International Prognostic Scoring System) with excess blasts (>5%). Treatment consisted of oral decitabine 35 mg plus cedazuridine 100 mg on days 1-5 and venetoclax (variable doses of 100-400 mg, day 1 to 14, 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were safety for the phase 1 part and the overall response for the phase 2 part of the study. The trial is ongoing and this analysis was not prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04655755, and is currently enrolling participants.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 21, 2021, and Jan 20, 2023, we enrolled 39 patients (nine in phase 1 and 30 in phase 2). The median age was 71 years (range 27-94), 28 (72%) patients were male, and 11 (28%) were female. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached, and the recommended phase 2 dose was established as oral decitabine 35 mg plus cedazuridine 100 mg for 5 days and venetoclax (400 mg) for 14 days. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (33 [85%] of 39), neutropenia (29 [74%]), and febrile neutropenia (eight [21%]). Four non-treatment-related deaths occurred on the study drugs due to sepsis (n=2), lung infection (n=1), and undetermined cause (n=1). The median follow-up time was 10·8 months (IQR 5·6-16·4). The overall response rate was 95% (95% CI 83-99; 37/39). 19 (49%) patients proceeded to hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation.

INTERPRETATION

This early analysis suggests that the combination of oral decitabine plus cedazuridine with venetoclax for higher-risk-myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia is safe in most patients, with encouraging activity. Longer follow-up will be needed to confirm these data.

FUNDING

MD Anderson Cancer Center, MDS/AML Moon Shot, Genentech/AbbVie, and Astex Pharmaceuticals.

Infectious Complications in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Report from the Düsseldorf MDS Registry

Despite notable advancements in infection prevention and treatment, individuals with hematologic malignancies still face the persistent threat of frequent and life-threatening complications. Those undergoing chemotherapy or other disease-modifying therapies are particularly vulnerable to developing infectious complications, increasing the risk of mortality. Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) predominantly affect the elderly, with the incidence rising with age and peaking at around 70 years. Patients with MDS commonly present with unexplained low blood-cell counts, primarily anemia, and often experience varying degrees of neutropenia as the disease progresses. In our subsequent retrospective study involving 1593 patients from the Düsseldorf MDS Registry, we aimed at outlining the incidence of infections in MDS patients and identifying factors contributing to heightened susceptibility to infectious complications in this population.

MDS/CMML from resource-limited region: Characteristics and comparison to tertiary reference European center

INTRODUCTION

Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) and Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia (CMML) are clonal myeloid malignancies, characterized by bone marrow failure leading to cytopenias (and possible myeloproliferation for CMML) and a high propensity to evolve to Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML).

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

The aim of our retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical and hematological features; the prevalence of MDS subtypes, R-IPSS, and the outcome of 106 Armenian MDS/CMML patients diagnosed over the 2008-2020 period in a single Armenian Hematology center and compare them to French MDS patients included in the GFM registry.

RESULTS

Median age in the Armenian cohort was 64 years (range 19-84) and 55% were males. The main MDS subtypes were MDS-MLD (29.2%) and MDS-SLD (27.3%), the least frequent was del 5q (0.9%). By comparison, a higher prevalence of MDS-MLD, MDS-EB2, and MDS-RS was found in the French cohort. Armenian patients' cohort generally had poor access to standard MDS treatment and 42.3% of the patients were transfusion dependent. Overall survival, however, did not significantly differ between Armenian and French cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Our study stresses issues regarding epidemiology, access to diagnosis, difficulties of risk stratification, and access to treatment.

Are We Ready For "Triplet" Therapy in Higher-Risk MDS?

Higher-risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes/Neoplasms (MDS) represent an ongoing therapeutic challenge, with few effective therapies, many of which may have limited use in this older patient population often with considerations around comorbidities. Outside of transplant, azacitidine and decitabine remain the only disease-modifying therapies, and are palliative in nature. Recent interest has grown in extending combination chemotherapies used to treat acute myeloid leukemia (AML) to patients with MDS, including novel combination chemotherapy "doublets" and "triplets." In this review, we discuss considerations around combination chemotherapy in MDS, specifically as relates to study design, appropriate endpoints, supportive considerations, and how to integrate these into the current treatment paradigm. New therapies in MDS are desperately needed but also require considerations particular to this unique patient population.

A Personalized Risk Model for Azacitidine Outcome in Myelodysplastic Syndrome and Other Myeloid Neoplasms Identified by Machine Learning Model Utilizing Real-World Data

Azacitidine is an approved therapy for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). However, only 30-40% patients respond to azacitidine, and the responses may take up to six cycles to become evident. Delayed responses and the myelosuppressive effects of azacitidine make it challenging to predict which patients will benefit. This is further compounded by a lack of uniform prognostic tools to identify patients at risk of early treatment failure. Hence, we performed a retrospective analysis of 273 consecutive azacytidine-treated patients. The median overall survival was 16.25 months with only 9% alive at 5 years. By using pre-treatment variables incorporated into a random forest machine learning model, we successfully identified those patients unlikely to benefit from azacytidine upfront (7.99 vs. 22.8 months, p < 0.0001). This model also identified those who required significantly more hospitalizations and transfusion support. Notably, it accurately predicted survival outcomes, outperforming the existing prognostic scoring system. By integrating somatic mutations, we further refined the model and identified three distinct risk groups with significant differences in survival (5.6 vs. 10.5 vs. 43.5 months, p < 0.0001). These real-world findings emphasize the urgent need for personalized prediction tools tailored to hypomethylating agents, reducing unnecessary complications and resource utilization in MDS treatment.

Magrolimab in Combination With Azacitidine in Patients With Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Final Results of a Phase Ib Study

PURPOSE

Magrolimab is a monoclonal antibody that blocks cluster of differentiation 47, a don't-eat-me signal overexpressed on cancer cells. Cluster of differentiation 47 blockade by magrolimab promotes macrophage-mediated phagocytosis of tumor cells and is synergistic with azacitidine, which increases expression of eat-me signals. We report final phase Ib data in patients with untreated higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) treated with magrolimab and azacitidine (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03248479).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated Revised International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-/high-/very high-risk MDS received magrolimab intravenously as a priming dose (1 mg/kg) followed by ramp-up to a 30 mg/kg once-weekly or once-every-2-week maintenance dose. Azacitidine 75 mg/m2 was administered intravenously/subcutaneously once daily on days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle. Primary end points were safety/tolerability and complete remission (CR) rate.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were treated. Revised International Prognostic Scoring System risk was intermediate/high/very high in 27%, 52%, and 21%, respectively. Fifty-nine (62%) had poor-risk cytogenetics and 25 (26%) had TP53 mutation. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included constipation (68%), thrombocytopenia (55%), and anemia (52%). Median hemoglobin change from baseline to first postdose assessment was -0.7 g/dL (range, -3.1 to +2.4). CR rate and overall response rate were 33% and 75%, respectively. Median time to response, duration of CR, duration of overall response, and progression-free survival were 1.9, 11.1, 9.8, and 11.6 months, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached with 17.1-month follow-up. In TP53-mutant patients, 40% achieved CR with median OS of 16.3 months. Thirty-four patients (36%) had allogeneic stem-cell transplant with 77% 2-year OS.

CONCLUSION

Magrolimab + azacitidine was well tolerated with promising efficacy in patients with untreated higher-risk MDS, including those with TP53 mutations. A phase III trial of magrolimab/placebo + azacitidine is ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04313881 [ENHANCE]).

Evolution of Therapeutic Benefit Measurement Criteria in Myelodysplastic Syndromes/Neoplasms

ABSTRACT

Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) are heterogeneous, clonal myeloid neoplasms characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis, progressive cytopenias, and an increased risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia. The diversity in disease severity, morphology, and genetic landscape challenges not only novel drug development but also therapeutic response assessment. The MDS International Working Group (IWG) response criteria were first published in the year 2000 focusing on measures of blast burden reduction and hematologic recovery. Despite revision of the IWG criteria in 2006, correlation between IWG-defined responses and patient-focused outcomes, including long-term benefits, remains limited and has potentially contributed to failures of several phase III clinical trials. Several IWG 2006 criteria also lacked clear definitions leading to problems in practical applications and interobserver and intraobserver consistency of response reporting. Although the 2018 revision addressed lower-risk MDS, the most recent update in 2023 redefined responses for higher-risk MDS and has set out to provide clear definitions to enhance consistency while focusing on clinically meaningful outcomes and patient-centered responses. In this review, we analyze the evolution of the MDS response criteria, limitations, and areas of improvement.

Novel Therapies in Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Where Do Venetoclax and Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Inhibitors Fit in?

ABSTRACT

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) are a heterogeneous group of clonal hematopoietic stem cell disorders with treatment approaches tailored to the presence of cytopenias, disease risk, and molecular mutation profile. In higher-risk MDSs, the standard of care are DNA methyltransferase inhibitors, otherwise referred to as hypomethylating agents (HMAs), with consideration for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in appropriate candidates. Given modest complete remission rates (15%-20%) with HMA monotherapy and median overall survival of approximately 18 months, there is much interest in the investigation of combination and targeted treatment approaches. Furthermore, there is no standard treatment approach in patients with progression of disease after HMA therapy. In this review, we aim to summarize the current evidence for the B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor, venetoclax, and a variety of isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors in the treatment of MDSs along with discussing their potential role in the treatment paradigm of this disease.

Evaluation of the outcomes of newly diagnosed patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome according to the initial therapeutical strategies chosen in usual clinical practice

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of diseases without a care standard and show variability in treatment outcomes. This Spanish, observational, prospective study ERASME (CEL-SMD-2012-01) assessed the evolution of newly diagnosed and treatment-naïve high-risk MDS patients (according to IPPS-R). 204 patients were included: median age 73.0 years, 54.4% males, 69.6% 0-1 ECOG, and 94.6% with comorbidities. Active treatment was the most common strategy (52.0%) vs. stem cell transplantation (25.5%) and supportive care/watchful-waiting (22.5%). Overall (median) event-free survival was 7.9 months (9.1, 8.3, and 5.3); progression-free survival: 10.1 months (12.9, 12.8, and 4.3); and overall survival: 13.8 months (15.4, 14.9; 8.4), respectively, with significant differences among groups. Adverse events (AEs) of ≥3 grade were reported in 72.6% of patients; serious AEs reported in 60.6%. 33.1% of patients died due to AEs. Three patients developed second primary malignant neoplasms (median: 8.2 months). Our study showed better outcomes in patients receiving active therapy early after diagnosis.

Azacitidine Monotherapy in Patients With Treatment-Naïve Higher-risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The global incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) has been estimated as 0.06 to 0.26/100,000. Since their introduction, hypomethylating agents have played a central role in the treatment of MDS, with heterogeneous real-world outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed and synthesized clinical outcomes of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with higher-risk MDS. A systematic literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, both prospective and retrospective, reporting complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), time-to-response (TTR), and myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs) for patients treated with AZA monotherapy. Noncomparative meta-analyses were used to summarize effects.

RESULTS

The search identified 3250 abstracts, of which 34 publications describing 16 studies (5 RCTs, 3 prospective, and 8 retrospective observational) were included. Across all studies, pooled CR was 16%; PR was 6%; Median OS was 16.4 months; median DOR was 10.1 months; median TTR was 4.6 months. Proportions of grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia AEs were 10% and 30%.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness and efficacy of AZA monotherapy-as measured by CR and median OS-was limited. These findings highlight a significant unmet medical need for effective treatments for patients with higher-risk MDS.

Azacitidine plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia: phase 1 results of a single-centre, dose-escalation, dose-expansion, phase 1-2 study

BACKGROUND

Therapies beyond hypomethylating agents such as azacitidine are needed in high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Venetoclax is an orally bioavailable small molecule BCL-2 inhibitor that is synergistic with hypomethylating agents. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary activity of azacitidine combined with venetoclax for treatment-naive and relapsed or refractory high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia.

METHODS

We did a single centre, dose-escalation, dose-expansion, phase 1-2 trial at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). This Article details the phase 1 results. We enrolled patients (≥18 years) with treatment-naive or relapsed or refractory high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and bone marrow blasts of more than 5%. No specific Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status restriction was used. Patients were treated with intravenous or subcutaneous azacitidine (75 mg/m²) for 5 days and oral venetoclax (100-400 mg) for 7-14 days. The primary outcome was safety and tolerability as well as determination of the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose of the azacitidine and venetoclax combination using a 3 + 3 study design. All patients who received one dose of study drug were included in the analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04160052. The phase 2 dose-expansion part of the trial is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 12, 2019, and Dec 17, 2021, a total of 23 patients were enrolled in the phase 1 portion of this study (17 [74%] hypomethylating agent naive and six [26%] post-hypomethylating agent failure). 18 (78%) patients were male and five (22%) were female; 21 (91%) were white and two (9%) were Asian. Median follow-up was 13·2 months (IQR 6·8-18·3). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the recommended phase 2 dose was established as azacitidine 75 mg/m² for 5 days plus venetoclax 400 mg for 14 days. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (nine [39%] of 23), thrombocytopenia (nine [39%]), lung infection (seven [30%]), and febrile neutropenia (four [17%]). Three deaths due to sepsis, which were not deemed treatment-related, occurred on the study drugs. The overall response rate was 87% (95% CI 66-97; 20 of 23 patients).

INTERPRETATION

Azacitidine with venetoclax is safe and shows encouraging activity in patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia.

FUNDING

MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Pevonedistat plus azacitidine vs azacitidine alone in higher-risk MDS/chronic myelomonocytic leukemia or low-blast-percentage AML

PANTHER is a global, randomized phase 3 trial of pevonedistat+azacitidine (n = 227) vs azacitidine monotherapy (n = 227) in patients with newly diagnosed higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS; n = 324), higher-risk chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (n = 27), or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with 20% to 30% blasts (n = 103). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). In the intent-to-treat population, the median EFS was 17.7 months with pevonedistat+azacitidine vs 15.7 months with azacitidine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.968; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.757-1.238; P = .557) and in the higher-risk MDS cohort, median EFS was 19.2 vs 15.6 months (HR, 0.887; 95% CI, 0.659-1.193; P = .431). Median overall survival (OS) in the higher-risk MDS cohort was 21.6 vs 17.5 months (HR, 0.785; P = .092), and in patients with AML with 20% to 30% blasts was 14.5 vs 14.7 months (HR, 1.107; P = .664). In a post hoc analysis, median OS in the higher-risk MDS cohort for patients receiving >3 cycles was 23.8 vs 20.6 months (P = .021) and for >6 cycles was 27.1 vs 22.5 months (P = .008). No new safety signals were identified, and the azacitidine dose intensity was maintained. Common hematologic grade ≥3 treatment emergent adverse events were anemia (33% vs 34%), neutropenia (31% vs 33%), and thrombocytopenia (30% vs 30%). These results underscore the importance of large, randomized controlled trials in these heterogeneous myeloid diseases and the value of continuing therapy for >3 cycles. The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03268954.

Historical expectations with DNA methyltransferase inhibitor monotherapy in MDS: when is combination therapy truly "promising"?

DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTIs) for patients with higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) have low complete remission rates and are not curative. Early DNMTI combination clinical trials in HR-MDS are often termed "promising," but many randomized trials subsequently failed to show benefit. Clearer understanding of when a combination is likely to improve upon DNMTI monotherapy would inform randomized studies. We reviewed MDS azacitidine or decitabine monotherapy studies. We collected baseline demographics including International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk, DNMTI, disease characteristics; and response variables including survival and marrow and hematologic responses. Aggregate estimates across studies were calculated using meta-analyses techniques. Using a binomial design, we estimated the necessary operating characteristics to design a phase 2 study showing improved efficacy of a combination over monotherapy. Among 1908 patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 24% (n = 464; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.26): 267 complete response (CR, 14%), 68 partial response (4%), and 129 marrow complete remission (7%). Among 1604 patients for whom a hematologic response was reported, 476 (30%; 95% CI, 0.27-0.32) reported hematologic improvement (HI). More patients treated with azacitidine achieved HI (38%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.41) compared with decitabine (15%; 95% CI, 0.13-0.19), whereas the marrow ORR rate was higher with decitabine (29%; 95% CI, 0.26-0.33) compared with azacitidine (21%; 95% CI, 0.19-0.23). CR rates were similar between DNMTIs: 13% with azacitidine and 16% with decitabine. Variables that influence MDS response include the specific DNMTI backbone and the distribution of IPSS risk of patients enrolled on a trial. Considering these factors can help identify which early combination approaches are worth assessing in larger randomized trials.

A randomised phase II study of azacitidine (AZA) alone or with Lenalidomide (LEN), Valproic acid (VPA) or Idarubicin (IDA) in higher-Risk MDS or low blast AML: GFM's "pick a winner" trial, with the impact of somatic mutations

In order to improve the outcome observed with azacitidine (AZA) in higher-risk Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), its combination with other drugs in MDS must be evaluated. So far, no combination has not been shown to be more effective than AZA alone. AZA-PLUS was a phase II trial that, in a "pick a winner" approach, randomly assigned patients with higher-risk MDS, CMML and low blast count AML to: AZA; AZA plus lenalidomide; AZA plus Valproic Acid or AZA plus Idarubicin. 322 patients were included. After six cycles, 69 (21.4%) CR + PR were observed with no benefit from any combination. Median EFS and OS were 17.2 and 19.7 months in the whole cohort, respectively, with no difference across randomised arms. Infection and rates of hospitalisation during the first six cycles were higher in the AZA-LEN And AZA-IDA arm, related to increased myelosuppression. Factors associated with better response were IPSS, favourable or intermediate karyotype, haemoglobin, lower circulating blast count, fibrinogen level and lower LDH, while poorer survival was seen in therapy-related MDS and, in the case of TP53, PTPN11 or CSF3R mutation. The combinations used did not improve the outcome obtained with AZA alone. However, our "pick a winner" randomised strategy may remain useful with potentially more active drugs to be tested in combination with AZA.

New Approaches to Myelodysplastic Syndrome Treatment

OPINION STATEMENT

The treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) begins with risk stratification using a validated tool such as the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) or its revised version (IPSS-R). This divides patients into lower- and higher- risk categories. Although treatment objectives in lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) have traditionally been directed at improving cytopenias (usually anemia) as well as quality of life, recent data supports a potential role for early intervention in delaying transfusion dependency. In addition, careful individualized risk stratification incorporating clinical, cytogenetic, and mutational data might help identify patients at higher-than-expected risk for progression. Given the need for supportive care with red blood cell (RBC) transfusions leading to iron overload, iron chelation should be considered for patients with heavy transfusion requirements at risk for end-organ complications. For patients with LR-MDS and isolated anemia, no high-risk features, and endogenous erythropoietin (EPO) levels below 500 U/L, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) can be attempted to improve anemia. Some LR-MDS patient subgroups may also benefit from specific therapies including luspatercept (MDS with ring sideroblasts), lenalidomide (MDS with deletion 5q), or immunosuppressive therapy (hypocellular MDS). LR-MDS patients failing the above options, or those with multiple cytopenias and/or higher-risk features, can be considered for oral low-dose hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy. Alternatively, these patients may be enrolled on a clinical trial with promising agents targeting the transforming-growth factor beta (TGF-β) pathway, the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) pathway, telomerase activity, inflammatory signaling, or the splicing machinery. In higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS), therapy seeks to modify the natural history of the disease and prolong survival. Eligible patients should be considered for curative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT). Despite promising novel combinations, the HMAs azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DAC) are still the standard of care for these patients, with intensive chemotherapy-based approaches being a potential option in a small subset of patients. Individuals who fail to respond or progress after HMA experience dismal outcomes and represent a major unmet clinical need. Such patients should be treated as part of a clinical trial if possible. Experimental agents to consider include venetoclax, myeloid cell leukemia 1 (MCL-1) inhibitors, eprenetapopt, CPX-351, immunotherapies (directed towards CD47, TIM3, or CD70), interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) inhibitors, pevonedistat, seclidemstat, and eltanexor. In this review, we extensively discuss the current landscape of experimental therapies for both LR- and HR-MDS.

Meaningful response criteria for myelodysplastic syndromes

Standardizing response criteria for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), a clinically and biologically heterogeneous group of disorders, has been historically challenging. The International Working Group (IWG) response criteria, first proposed in 2000 and modified in 2006 and 2018, represent the best effort by a group of international experts to define a set of clinically meaningful end-points in MDS. These criteria have been adopted in many MDS clinical trials, allowing for comparisons of response across trials. However, clinical experience has also revealed some limitations of these criteria, and most of the end-points proposed by the IWG require further validation. In this review, we present a critical analysis of the current MDS response criteria from both a practical standpoint and based on currently available clinical trial data. Potential areas for improvement in the criteria are highlighted, which may be considered in future iterations of the response criteria.