Safety profile of lenalidomide in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes without del(5q): results of a phase 3 trial.

The safety profile of lenalidomide use in lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients with del(5q) is well-established, but less is known in non-del(5q) patients. We provide safety data from a randomized, phase 3 trial evaluating lenalidomide in 239 patients with lower-risk non-del(5q) MDS ineligible/refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Compared with placebo, lenalidomide was associated with a higher incidence of grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 86% vs. 44%), but not risk of infection (p = .817) or hemorrhagic events (p = 1.000). Grade 3-4 non-hematologic TEAEs were rare (the incidence of grade 3-4 pneumonia, e.g. was 5.6% in the lenalidomide group and 2.5% in the placebo group). Common grade 1-2 non-hematologic TEAEs did not require dose modifications or treatment discontinuation. Acute myeloid leukemia and second primary malignancies incidence was similar across treatment groups. Lenalidomide had a predictable and manageable safety profile in lower-risk non-del(5q) MDS patients ineligible/refractory to ESAs. Guidance on managing lenalidomide-related TEAEs is provided to help maintain patients on therapy to achieve maximum clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01029262.

Randomized Phase III Study of Lenalidomide Versus Placebo in RBC Transfusion-Dependent Patients With Lower-Risk Non-del(5q) Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Ineligible for or Refractory to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents.

PURPOSE: This international phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study assessed the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in RBC transfusion-dependent patients with International Prognostic Scoring System lower-risk non-del(5q) myelodysplastic syndromes ineligible for or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 239 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to treatment with lenalidomide (n = 160) or placebo (n = 79) once per day (on 28-day cycles). The primary end point was the rate of RBC transfusion independence (TI) ≥ 8 weeks. Secondary end points were RBC-TI ≥ 24 weeks, duration of RBC-TI, erythroid response, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety. RESULTS: RBC-TI ≥ 8 weeks was achieved in 26.9% and 2.5% of patients in the lenalidomide and placebo groups, respectively (P < .001). Ninety percent of patients achieving RBC-TI responded within 16 weeks of treatment. Median duration of RBC-TI with lenalidomide was 30.9 weeks (95% CI, 20.7 to 59.1). Transfusion reduction of ≥ 4 units packed RBCs, on the basis of a 112-day assessment, was 21.8% in the lenalidomide group and 0% in the placebo group. Higher response rates were observed in patients with lower baseline endogenous erythropoietin ≤ 500 mU/mL (34.0% v 15.5% for > 500 mU/mL). At week 12, mean changes in HRQoL scores from baseline did not differ significantly between treatment groups, which suggests that lenalidomide did not adversely affect HRQoL. Achievement of RBC-TI ≥ 8 weeks was associated with significant improvements in HRQoL (P < .01). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: Lenalidomide yields sustained RBC-TI in 26.9% of RBC transfusion-dependent patients with lower-risk non-del(5q) myelodysplastic syndromes ineligible for or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Response to lenalidomide was associated with improved HRQoL. Treatment-emergent adverse event data were consistent with the known safety profile of lenalidomide.

Stage I of a phase 2 study assessing the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of barasertib (AZD1152) versus low-dose cytosine arabinoside in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: In this phase 2 study, the authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the Aurora B kinase inhibitor barasertib compared with low-dose cytosine arabinoside (LDAC) in patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either open-label barasertib 1200 mg (as a 7-day intravenous infusion) or LDAC 20 mg (subcutaneously twice daily for 10 days) in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective complete response rate (OCRR) (complete responses [CR] plus confirmed CRs with incomplete recovery of neutrophils or platelets [CRi] according to Cheson criteria [also requiring reconfirmation of CRi ≥21 days after the first appearance and associated with partial recovery of platelets and neutrophils]). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: In total, 74 patients (barasertib, n = 48; LDAC, n = 26) completed ≥1 cycle of treatment. A significant improvement in the OCRR was observed with barasertib (35.4% vs 11.5%; difference, 23.9%; 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-39.9%; P < .05). Although the study was not formally sized to compare OS data, the median OS with barasertib was 8.2 months versus 4.5 months with LDAC (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.58; P = .663). Stomatitis and febrile neutropenia were the most common adverse events with barasertib versus LDAC (71% vs 15% and 67% vs 19%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Barasertib produced a significant improvement in the OCRR versus LDAC and had a more toxic but manageable safety profile, consistent with previous studies.