Association of leukemic molecular profile with efficacy of inotuzumab ozogamicin in adults with relapsed/refractory ALL.

ABSTRACT: The phase 3 INO-VATE trial demonstrated higher rates of remission, measurable residual disease negativity, and improved overall survival for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who received inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) vs standard-of-care chemotherapy (SC). Here, we examined associations between genomic alterations and the efficacy of InO. Of 326 randomized patients, 91 (InO, n = 43; SC, n = 48) had samples evaluable for genomic analysis. The spectrum of gene fusions and other genomic alterations observed was comparable with prior studies of adult ALL. Responses to InO were observed in all leukemic subtypes, genomic alterations, and risk groups. Significantly higher rates of complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery were observed with InO vs SC in patients with BCR::ABL1-like ALL (85.7% [6/7] vs 0% [0/5]; P = .0076), with TP53 alterations (100% [5/5] vs 12.5% [1/8]; P = .0047), and in the high-risk BCR::ABL1- (BCR::ABL1-like, low-hypodiploid, KMT2A-rearranged) group (83.3% [10/12] vs 10.5% [2/19]; P < .0001). This retrospective, exploratory analysis of the INO-VATE trial demonstrated potential for benefit with InO for patients with R/R ALL across leukemic subtypes, including BCR::ABL1-like ALL, and for those bearing diverse genomic alterations. Further confirmation of the efficacy of InO in patients with R/R ALL exhibiting the BCR::ABL1-like subtype or harboring TP53 alterations is warranted. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT01564784.

A phase IV study evaluating QT interval, pharmacokinetics, and safety following fractionated dosing of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in patients with relapsed/refractory CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia.

PURPOSE: Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) is indicated for treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The QT interval, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity following the fractionated GO dosing regimen have not been previously assessed. This phase IV study was designed to obtain this information in patients with R/R AML. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with R/R AML received the fractionated dosing regimen of GO 3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 4, and 7 of each cycle, up to 2 cycles. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc). RESULTS: Fifty patients received ≥ 1 dose of GO during Cycle 1. The upper limit of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval for least squares mean differences in QTc using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) was < 10 ms for all time points during Cycle 1. No patients had a post-baseline QTcF > 480 ms or a change from baseline > 60 ms. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 98% of patients; 54% were grade 3-4. The most common grade 3-4 TEAEs were febrile neutropenia (36%) and thrombocytopenia (18%). The PK profiles of both conjugated and unconjugated calicheamicin mirror that of total hP67.6 antibody. The incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and neutralizing antibodies was 12% and 2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Fractionated GO dosing regimen (3 mg/m2/dose) is not predicted to pose a clinically significant safety risk for QT interval prolongation in patients with R/R AML. TEAEs are consistent with GO's known safety profile, and ADA presence appears unassociated with potential safety issues. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03727750 (November 1, 2018).

Time to First Subsequent Salvage Therapy in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treated With Inotuzumab Ozogamicin in the Phase III INO-VATE Trial.

BACKGROUND: In relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL), successive salvage therapies may worsen outcomes and decrease quality of life. This post hoc analysis of the phase III INO-VATE trial investigates subsequent salvage therapies and compared the time from randomization to first subsequent salvage therapy (TST) in the inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and standard-of-care chemotherapy (SoC) arms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults (aged ≥18 years) with CD22+ R/R ALL were randomized to InO (n = 164) or SoC (n = 162) treatment. We determined TST and proportion of patients receiving subsequent salvage therapies by treatment arm and for subgroups based on transplantation status and baseline characteristics. RESULTS: In the InO versus SoC arm, a smaller proportion of patients received subsequent salvage therapy (34.1% [n = 56] vs. 56.8% [n = 92]), and TST was longer (median 19 vs. 4 months, hazard ratio 0.339, P < .0001). Similar benefits were seen with InO versus SoC irrespective of transplantation status, age, salvage phase, first remission duration, Philadelphia chromosome status, or CD22 expression. Following receipt of subsequent salvage therapy, median overall survival was 4 months, irrespective of treatment arm. CONCLUSION: Patients in the InO versus SoC arm were less likely to receive subsequent salvage therapy, and showed a clinically meaningful extension of TST irrespective of subgroup. This suggests InO treatment leads to improved outcomes by increasing the likelihood that subsequent salvage therapies and their associated adverse impacts can be delayed or avoided. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Available in Supplementary Materials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01564784.

Outcomes following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients treated with standard chemotherapy with or without gemtuzumab ozogamicin for acute myeloid leukemia.

The phase 3 ALFA-0701 trial demonstrated improved outcomes with fractionated-dose gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) combined with standard chemotherapy vs. standard chemotherapy alone in adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We examined post-transplant outcomes and occurrence of hepatic veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (VOD/SOS) in patients who received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) as follow-up therapy in ALFA-0701. Patients aged 50-70 years were randomized to standard chemotherapy with or without GO (3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, and 7 of induction and day 1 on each of two consolidation courses). Allogeneic HSCT was recommended for patients in first complete remission with matched (related or unrelated) donor, except those with core-binding factor AML or normal karyotype and either NPM1+/FLT3-ITDwt or CEBPA+ AML. Eighty-five patients (GO: n = 32; control: n = 53) received HSCT in first complete remission or after relapse/primary induction failure. Three patients (GO: n = 2; control: n = 1 [received GO as follow-up therapy]) developed VOD/SOS after HSCT or conditioning. Post-transplant survival, non-relapse mortality, and relapse were not different between arms. Results indicate fractionated-dose GO as part of induction and consolidation chemotherapy for AML does not induce excess post-transplant VOD/SOS or mortality and thus does not preclude the use of HSCT as consolidation treatment.

Inotuzumab Ozogamicin for Relapsed/Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the INO-VATE Trial: CD22 Pharmacodynamics, Efficacy, and Safety by Baseline CD22.

PURPOSE: We assessed the relationship between cluster of differentiation-22 (CD22) expression and outcomes of inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard of care (SC) in INO-VATE (NCT01564784). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor CD22-positive (by local or central laboratory) acute lymphoblastic leukemia were randomized to inotuzumab ozogamicin (n = 164) or SC (n = 162). Outcomes were analyzed by baseline CD22 positivity (percentage of leukemic blasts CD22 positive, ≥90% vs. <90%) and CD22 receptor density [molecules of equivalent soluble fluorochrome (MESF), quartile analysis]. RESULTS: Most patients had high (≥90%) CD22 positivity per central laboratory. The response rate was significantly higher with inotuzumab ozogamicin versus SC. Minimal/measurable residual disease negativity, duration of remission (DoR), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were significantly better with inotuzumab ozogamicin versus SC in patients with CD22 positivity ≥90%. Fewer patients had CD22 positivity <90%; for whom, response rates were higher with inotuzumab ozogamicin versus SC, but DoR and OS appeared similar. Similar trends were evident in quartile analyses of CD22 MESF and CD22 positivity per local laboratory. Among inotuzumab ozogamicin-responding patients with subsequent relapse, decrease in CD22 positivity and receptor density was evident, but not the emergence of CD22 negativity. Rates of grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs) were similar and hepatobiliary AEs rate was higher for inotuzumab ozogamicin versus SC. No apparent relationship was observed between the rates of hematologic and hepatic AEs and CD22 expression. CONCLUSIONS: Inotuzumab ozogamicin demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus SC in patients with higher and lower CD22 expression. Patients with high CD22 expression and normal cytogenetics benefited the most from inotuzumab ozogamicin therapy.

Efficacy of inotuzumab ozogamicin in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. METHODS: The efficacy of inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), a humanized anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic antibiotic calicheamicin, was evaluated in R/R ALL patients in the phase 1/2 study 1010 (NCT01363297) and open-label, randomized, phase 3 study 1022 (INO-VATE; NCT01564784). This analysis focused specifically on Ph+ R/R ALL patients. In study 1022, Ph+ patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to InO (n = 22) or standard intensive chemotherapy (SC) (n = 27) and 16 Ph+ patients in study 1010 received InO. RESULTS: In study 1022, rates of complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi) and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (patients achieving CR/CRi) were higher with InO (CR/CRi = 73%; MRD = 81%) versus SC (CR/CRi = 56%; MRD = 33%). The corresponding rates in study 1010 were 56% (CR/CRi) and 100% (MRD). The hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) rate in study 1022 was 41% versus 19% for InO versus SC; however, there was no benefit in overall survival (median OS: 8.7 vs 8.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.64-2.14]). The probability of being event-free (progression-free survival) at 12 months was greater with InO versus SC (20.1% vs 4.8%). CONCLUSION: Given the substantial improvement in responses and rates of HSCT, InO is an important treatment option for patients with R/R Ph+ ALL. Future studies need to consider better characterization of disease characteristics, more sensitive MRD measurements, MRD-directed therapy before HSCT, and potentially combination therapies, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Characterization of the Relationship of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Exposure With Efficacy and Safety End Points in Adults With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), an anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, is approved in Europe and the United States for treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Population analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between InO exposure and efficacy and safety end points in patients with ALL. The probability of achieving complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi) and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity for InO relative to chemotherapy was also investigated. Data from study 1010 (NCT01363297) and INO-VATE (NCT01564784) were pooled for exposure-response (InO, n = 234) and treatment-response (InO, n = 234; chemotherapy, n = 143) analyses. The analyses demonstrated that InO exposure was significantly correlated with achieving CR/CRi and MRD-negativity, as well as with hepatic event adjudication board-reported veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction. Patients with ALL treated with InO had significantly greater odds of achieving CR/CRi (7-times higher) and MRD-negativity (13-times higher) than those receiving chemotherapy.

Inotuzumab ozogamicin for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia: outcomes by disease burden.

Adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) have a poor prognosis, especially if disease burden is high. This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 INO-VATE trial examined the efficacy and safety of inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) vs. standard of care chemotherapy (SC) among R/R ALL patients with low, moderate, or high disease burden, respectively, defined as bone marrow blasts (BMB) < 50% (n = 53 vs. 48), 50-90% (n = 79 vs. 83), and >90% (n = 30 vs. 30). Patients in the InO vs. SC arm with low, moderate, and high BMB%, respectively, had improved rates of complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (74% vs. 46% [p = 0.0022], 75 vs. 27% [p < 0.0001], and 70 vs. 17% [p < 0.0001]), and improved overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.64 [p = 0.0260], 0.81 [p = 0.1109], and 0.60 [p = 0.0335]). Irrespective of BMB%, cytopenias were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, and post-transplant veno-occlusive disease was more common with InO vs. SC. Patients with extramedullary disease or lymphoblastic lymphoma showed similar efficacy and safety outcomes. This favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of InO treatment irrespective of disease burden supports its use in challenging and high disease burden subpopulations. INO-VATE is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov : #NCT01564784.

Impact of minimal residual disease status in patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin in the phase III INO-VATE trial.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity is a key prognostic indicator of outcome in acute lymphocytic leukemia. In the INO-VATE trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01564784), patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphocytic leukemia who received inotuzumab versus standard chemotherapy achieved greater remission and MRD-negativity rates as well as improved overall survival: hazard ratio 0.75, one-sided P = 0.0105. The current analysis assessed the prognostic value of MRD negativity at the end of inotuzumab treatment. All patients who received inotuzumab (n = 164) were included. Among patients with complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic response (CR/CRi; n = 121), MRD-negative status (by multiparametric flow cytometry) was defined as <1 × 10-4 blasts/nucleated cells. MRD negativity was achieved in 76 patients at the end of treatment. Compared with MRD-positive, MRD-negative status with CR/CRi was associated with significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively: hazard ratio (97.5% confidence interval; one-sided P-value) 0.512 (97.5% CI [0.313-0.835]; P = 0.0009) and 0.423 (97.5% CI [0.256-0.699]; P < 0.0001). Median overall survival was 14.1 versus 7.2 months, in the MRD-negative versus MRD-positive groups. Patients in first salvage who achieved MRD negativity at the end of treatment experienced significantly improved survival versus that seen in MRD-positive patients, particularly for those patients who proceeded to stem cell transplant. Among patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphocytic leukemia who received inotuzumab, those with MRD-negative CR/CRi had the best survival outcomes.

Inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard of care in Asian patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is a targeted treatment for adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). InO was previously studied in INO-VATE, an international, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial comparing InO against standard of care (SoC). In the present subgroup analysis, we evaluated outcomes in the 55 Asian patients who were randomized in INO-VATE (31 InO and 24 SoC). Complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) was achieved in 22/31 patients treated with InO versus 5/24 treated with SoC. In the InO arm, more of the patients achieving CR/CRi were minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative (17/22 versus 1/5), and more patients proceeded directly to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (15/31 versus 3/24). Median overall survival for the respective arms was 5.8 versus 3.9 months (hazard ratio 0.67; 97.5% CI 0.28, 1.62). In the safety analysis (n = 51), the most common adverse events were hematologic. Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome was reported in five InO patients and one SoC patient. In conclusion, Asian patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL experienced improved efficacy with InO versus SoC, with an efficacy and safety profile consistent with results of the overall INO-VATE population.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01564784.

Burden of hospitalization in acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients treated with Inotuzumab Ozogamicin versus standard chemotherapy treatment.

BACKGROUND: Inotuzumab Ozogamicin (INO), has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival, high rate of complete remission, favorable patient-reported outcomes, and manageable safety profile vs standard of care (SoC; intensive chemotherapy) for relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in the phase 3 INO-VATE trial. With a one-hour weekly dosing schedule, INO might be associated with lower healthcare system burden. This study analyses hospitalizations for INO vs SoC. METHODS: All patients receiving study treatment in the INO-VATE trial were included. The days hospitalized during study treatment was calculated. Due to different treatment durations for INO and SoC (median of 3 vs 1 cycles), number of hospital days was mainly reported per observed patient month. Hospital days per patient month were analyzed for different treatment cycles, subgroups, and main reasons for hospitalization. Differences between treatments were analyzed by the incidence rate ratio (IRR). RESULTS: Overall, 82.9% and 94.4% INO and SoC patients experienced at least one hospitalization. The mean hospitalization days per patient month was 7.6 and 18.4 days for INO and SoC (IRR = 0.413, P < .001), which corresponds to patients spending 25.0% and 60.5% of their treatment time in a hospital. Main hospitalization reasons were R/R ALL treatment (5.2 (INO) vs 14.0 (SoC) days, IRR = 0.368, P < .001), treatment toxicities (1.4 vs 2.8 days, IRR = 0.516, P < .001) or other reasons (1.0 vs 1.6 days, IRR 0.629, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Inotuzumab Ozogamicin treatment in R/R ALL is associated with a lower hospitalization burden compared with SoC. It is likely this lower burden has a favorable impact on healthcare budgets and cost-effectiveness considerations.

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling to Support the Re-approval of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg; Pfizer, New York, NY) was the first antibody-drug conjugate to be approved for CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, it was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market due to lack of clinical benefit in the confirmatory phase III trial. In 2012, several investigator cooperative studies using a different dosing regimen showed efficacy, but pharmacokinetic (PK) data were not collected in these trials. Through simulation of expected concentrations for new dosing regimens, PK/pharmacodynamic modeling was able to support the safety and efficacy of these regimens. Significant exposure-response relationships were found for the attainment of complete remission with and without platelet recovery, attainment of blast-free status, the time course of myelosuppression, several grade ≥ 3 hepatic adverse events, and veno-occlusive disease. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin received full approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2017 for newly diagnosed and relapsed AML in adult patients and relapsed AML in pediatric patients aged 2-17 years.

Outcomes of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation after Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Treatment for Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

Attaining complete remission of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) correlates with better post-transplant outcomes. Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), an anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, has shown significantly higher rates of remission, minimal residual disease negativity, and HSCT versus standard chemotherapy in treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) ALL. We investigated the role of previous transplant and proceeding directly to HSCT after remission as factors in determining post-transplant survival in the setting of InO treatment for R/R ALL. The analyzed population comprised InO-treated patients who proceeded to allogeneic HSCT in 2 clinical trials (phase 1/2: NCT01363297 and phase 3: NCT01564784). Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from HSCT to death (any cause). Of 236 InO-treated patients, 101 (43%) proceeded to allogeneic HSCT and were included in this analysis. Most received InO as first salvage (62%); 85% had no previous HSCT. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) post-transplant OS was 9.2 months (5.1, not evaluable) with 2-year survival probability (95% CI) of 41% (32% to 51%). In first-HSCT patients (n = 86), median (95% CI) post-transplant OS was 11.8 months (5.9, not evaluable) with 2-year survival probability (95% CI) of 46% (35% to 56%); some patients relapsed and needed additional treatment before HSCT (n = 28). Those who went directly to first HSCT upon remission with no additional salvage/induction treatment (n = 73) fared best: median post-transplant OS was not reached with a 2-year survival probability (95% CI) of 51% (39% to 62%). In patients with R/R ALL, InO followed by allogeneic HSCT provided an optimal long-term survival benefit among those with no previous HSCT who went directly to transplant after remission.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Versus Blinatumomab for Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: No head-to-head studies have compared inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), namely network meta-analysis (NMA), anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC), were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these therapies. METHODS: Patient-level data from a study that evaluated InO with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy (INO-VATE-ALL) and published data from a study that evaluated Blina with SoC chemotherapy (TOWER) were used in the analyses. Endpoints evaluated included remission rate defined as complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS). For each outcome, treatment-effect modifiers were adjusted for in the anchored MAIC and STC analyses. RESULTS: Analyses showed statistically significant higher rates of remission and HSCT with InO compared to Blina irrespective of the ITC method used or measure of the effect (i.e., odds ratio [OR] or rate difference). The treatment effects derived from the MAIC and STC analyses were consistent and stronger than those estimated from the NMA. A trend favoring InO was detected for EFS. The ITC results for OS suggest no difference between InO and Blina. CONCLUSION: Results from these ITCs indicated a statistically significant advantage for InO over Blina for rates of remission and HSCT in adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor ALL. It was not possible to fully adjust for all treatment-effect modifiers, and the similarity in chemotherapy regimens used in the SoC comparator arms of the INO-VATE-ALL and TOWER studies is worthy of further exploration. Both studies, however, used chemotherapy regimens that have a low response rate; therefore, no significant differences in efficacy outcomes are expected between SoC arms. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc, New York, NY. Plain language summary available for this article.

Inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard of care in relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Final report and long-term survival follow-up from the randomized, phase 3 INO-VATE study.

BACKGROUND: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an antibody-drug conjugate used for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor (BCP) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The INotuzumab Ozogamicin trial to inVestigAte Tolerability and Efficacy (INO-VATE) previously reported improved outcomes with InO versus standard-of-care (SoC) chemotherapy. This article reports the final INO-VATE results (≥2 years of follow-up) and additional analyses of patient characteristics associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: Between August 27, 2012, and January 4, 2015, this multicenter, parallel, open-label, phase 3 trial randomized 326 adults with relapsed/refractory ALL to InO (n = 164) or SoC (n = 162); 307 received 1 or more doses of the study drug (164 in the InO arm and 143 in the SoC arm). RESULTS: The complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rate was higher with InO versus SoC (73.8% vs 30.9%; 1-sided P < .0001), with consistent CR/CRi rates across patient subgroups. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.7 months with InO and 6.2 months with SoC, with 2-year OS rates of 22.8% and 10.0%, respectively (overall hazard ratio, 0.75; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.99; 1-sided P = .0105). The predictors of OS with InO were the best minimal residual disease status, baseline platelet count, duration of first remission, achievement of CR/CRi, and follow-up hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT; all 2-sided P values < .05). More InO arm patients proceeded directly to HSCT after achieving CR/CRi before any follow-up induction therapy (39.6% [95% CI, 32.1%-47.6%] vs 10.5% [6.2%-16.3%]; 1-sided P < .0001). The most frequent all-grade and grade 3 or higher adverse events in both arms were hematologic. Veno-occlusive disease (VOD)/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) was more frequent with InO (23 of 164 [14.0%] vs 3 of 143 [2.1%]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with relapsed/refractory BCP ALL in INO-VATE, InO was associated with a greater likelihood of CR/CRi across key patient subgroups, and it served as a bridge to HSCT. Potential VOD/SOS risk factors must be considered when InO treatment decisions are being made.

Prognostic implications of cytogenetics in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin.

Karyotype is frequently used to predict response and outcome in leukemia. This post hoc exploratory analysis evaluated the relationship between baseline cytogenetics and outcome in patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), a humanized CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, in the phase 3, open-label, randomized INO-VATE trial. Data as of March 8, 2016, are presented in this analysis. Of the 326 patients randomized, 284 had screening karyotyping data (144 in the InO arm and 140 in the standard care [SC] arm). With InO, complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), minimal residual disease negativity rates, and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between cytogenetic subgroups. CR/CRi rates favored InO over SC in the diploid with ≥20 metaphases, complex, and "other" cytogenetic subgroups. The OS hazard ratio favored InO over SC in the diploid with ≥20 metaphases, complex, and other cytogenetic subgroups. Generally, InO is effective and provides substantial clinical benefit in patients with R/R ALL who have specific baseline karyotypes.

Efficacy and safety analysis by age cohort of inotuzumab ozogamicin in patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia enrolled in INO-VATE.

BACKGROUND: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in patients aged 18 to 78 years with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in the INO-VATE trial. This subset analysis compared the efficacy and safety of InO in younger and older patients. METHODS: Intent-to-treat analyses of morphologic responses and overall survival (OS) included 326 randomized patients, and safety assessments included 307 patients receiving 1 or more doses of the study treatment. Of the 326 patients, 164 received InO at a starting dose of 1.8 mg/m2 /cycle (0.8 mg/m2 on day 1 and 0.5 mg/m2 on days 8 and 15 of a 21- to 28-day cycle [≤6 cycles]); 60 patients were aged ≥55 years, and 104 were aged <55 years. RESULTS: For older and younger patients, the median duration of InO therapy and the types and frequencies of adverse events of any grade were generally similar. Although the remission rates, median duration of remission (DOR), and progression-free survival were similar with InO for those aged <55 years and those aged ≥55 years, OS was longer for younger patients (median, 8.6 vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.610). Among patients proceeding to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after InO treatment (28% of older patients and 58% of younger patients), the incidence of veno-occlusive disease was greater in older patients (41% vs 17%). The study database was not locked at the time of this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: InO was tolerable in older patients with relapsed/refractory ALL. Although OS was longer for younger patients versus older patients, InO demonstrated high response rates with similar DOR in the 2 age groups. Cancer 2018;124:1722-32. © 2018 American Cancer Society.