ASH 2020: Comparative Results of Azacitidine and Decitabine from a Large Prospective Phase 3 Study in Treatment Naive Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Not Eligible for Intensive Chemotherapy

/in , ,

View Video Poster: Comparative Results of Azacitidine and Decitabine from a Large Prospective Phase 3 Study in Treatment Naive Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Not Eligible for Intensive Chemotherapy

Abstract:

Background:
Background: Prognosis of elderly (≥65 years of age) patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains dismal with a substantial proportion being deemed unfit for intensive chemotherapy. Monotherapy with the hypomethylating agents azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DEC) has been the de facto standard of  care for the treatment of chemotherapy-ineligible AML pts although both AZA and DEC did not improve median OS compared to low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) or physician choice, respectively, in phase III trials. No clinical trials comparing AZA and DEC head-to-head in AML exist. Here, we present a subgroup analysis of pts enrolled in the phase III ASTRAL-1 trial (NCT02348489) who were randomized to the AZA or DEC control arm.

Methods:
ASTRAL-1 randomized 815 treatment-naïve AML pts ineligible for intensive chemotherapy in a 1:1 ratio to either guadecitabine or treatment-choice (TC) of AZA, DEC, LDAC (NCT02348489). Study protocol and results have been presented previously (Fenaux, EHA 2019). Briefly, adult (≥18 years of age) pts with newly-diagnosed AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy based on age of 75 years or older, major organ comorbidities, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 2-3 were eligible for enrollment. Exclusion criteria included prior treatment with AZA or DEC, extramedullary central nervous system AML, inability to tolerate treatment in the TC arm, or refractory congestive heart failure, uncontrolled active infection, or advanced pulmonary disease. Pts were pre-selected to receive either AZA, DEC, or LDAC with subsequent 1:1 randomization to either guadecitabine or TC in the respective arm. Patients treated with standard doses and schedules of AZA or DEC within the TC arm were included in the subgroup analysis presented here. Co-primary outcomes were rates of complete response (CR) and median, 1-year, and 2-year overall survival (OS) as defined by the International Working Group response criteria for AML. Composite CR (CRc) was defined as the composite of CR, CR with incomplete platelet count recovery (CRp), and CR with incomplete cell count recovery (CRi).

Rates of CR among pts treated with AZA and DEC were compared using Fisher’s exact test. Survival outcomes were compared using log-rank tests to compare the hazard ratio for death among the AZA and DEC treated pts. Subgroup analyses for OS stratified by patient and disease characteristics were performed.

Results:

815 patients were enrolled in the ASTRAL-1 trial across 144 sites in 24 countries with 171 and 167 pts being randomized to and treated with AZA and DEC in the TC arm of the trial, respectively. Baseline patient and disease characteristics were well-balanced between the AZA and DEC-treated pts (Table 1). The median number of treatment cycles was 6 (range [R]: 1-31) in the AZA arm and 5 (R: 1-34) in the DEC arm. There was no statistically significant difference in the co-primary endpoint of CR with 30 pts (17.5%) in the AZA and 32 pts (19.2%) in the DEC arm achieving CR (p=0.78). The rate of CRc (CR + CRp + CRi) was comparable among AZA and DEC-treated patients with 22.2% (38 out of 171 pts) and 25.1% (42 out of 167 pts), respectively (Table 2). Median OS between AZA and DEC-treated pts was similar with 8.7 months and 8.2 months in the two arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] for death: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.77-1.23; p=0.81). One-year and 2-year OS was comparable in both groups with 39% and 15% in the AZA arm and 32% and 14% in the DEC arm, respectively. Median OS estimates in clinically or genetically-defined patient subgroups were similar between AZA and DEC-treated pts. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred more frequently in the AZA arm compared with DEC (AZA: 38% vs 26% with DEC; p=0.02).

Conclusion:

Outcomes in treatment-naïve AML pts ineligible for intensive chemotherapy treated with AZA or DEC in the randomized phase III ASTRAL-1 trial are comparable with CR rates of 17.5% and 19.2% and median OS of 8.7 months and 8.2 months, respectively. No patient, disease, or molecular characteristics predicted a higher likelihood of response to either AZA or DEC. Safety in this frail patient population was comparable to prior trails of HMAs in AML and no major safety differences between AZA and DEC were detected although fatal serious adverse events tended to be higher in the AZA-treated cohort.

2020 EHA: Comparative results of azacitidine and decitabine from a large prospective Phase 3 study in treatment naïve acute myeloid leukemia (TN-AML) not eligible for intensive chemotherapy

/in , ,

View Presentation:

Comparative results of azacitidine and decitabine from a large prospective Phase 3 study in treatment naïve acute myeloid leukemia (TN-AML) not eligible for intensive chemotherapy

 

Abstract:

Background: Older patients with TN-AML who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy have limited therapeutic options and poor outcomes. Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DEC) have been the standard of care in this population for more than a decade and were approved in Europe for patients not candidates for intensive chemotherapy or patients not candidates for hematopoietic cell transplant. However, there is no direct efficacy and safety comparative data of AZA and DEC from a prospective large randomzied study. We took advantage of the largest randomized trial for patients with TN-AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy, ASTRAL-1, to compare efficacy and safety of AZA vs DEC in patients randomized to these 2 treatments

Aims: To compare clinical outcomes between AZA and DEC in TN-AML patients not eligible for intensive chemotherapy

Methods: ASTRAL-1 is a global randomized Phase 3 trial which enrolled 815 patients with TN AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy using stringent criteria including age ≥ 75 year or comorbidities including ECOG PS 3. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either Guadecitabine (G), a next generation HMA (60 mg/m2/d SC days 1-5) or a preselected Treatment Choice (TC) of AZA (75 mg/m2/d IV or SC days 1-7), DEC (20 mg/m2/d IV days 1-5), or low dose Ara-C (LDAC) (20 mg SC BID days 1-10). AML diagnosis and responses were assessed by an independent central pathologist blinded to randomization assignment. Responses were recorded using IWG 2003 criteria. Rates of Complete Response (CR) and Overall Survival (OS) were co-primary endpoints.

Results: 815 patients were randomized to G (408) or TC (407). Preselected TCs were DEC (43%), AZA (42%), or LDAC (15%). Of 407 patients randomized to TC, 338 (83%) were treated with either AZA (171 patients) or DEC (167 patients). Baseline variables were well balanced between AZA and DEC patients with no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics: median age 76 y for both treatments, with poor PS 2-3 in 47.4% vs 53.9%, poor risk cytogenetics 38% vs 33.5%, secondary AML 38% vs 36.5%, BM blasts > 30% in 63.7% vs 71.3%, and TP53 mutations in 12.9% vs 11.3% for AZA vs DEC respectively. Median follow up was 25.5 months and median number of treatment cycles was 6 for AZA (range 1,31), and 5 for DEC (range 1,34). The ITT analyses showed a CR rate of 17.5% vs 19.2% (p= 0.70); and overall CR (CR+CRp+CRi) of 22.2% vs 25.1% (p= 0.53) for AZA vs DEC respectively. Median OS was 8.7 vs 8.2 months for AZA vs DEC respectively with Hazard Ratio of 0.97 (95% CI 0.77, 1.23; log rank p= 0.8). Additional subgroup analyses by baseline characteristics and molecular genetic mutations will be presented at the meeting. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of Grade ≥ 3 AEs (88.9% vs 87.4%), serious AEs (81.9% vs 76.0%), or 30-day all-cause mortality (11.7% vs 7.8%) for AZA vs DEC respectively. There was a trend of higher 60-day all-cause mortality on AZA (20.5%) vs DEC (13.2%) (p= 0.07).

Conclusions/Summary: This is the largest comparison of clinical outcomes associated with AZA and DEC for patients with TN AML not eligible for intensive chemotherapy who were treated in the same prospective study. While patients were randomized between G and each of AZA and DEC separately with no direct randomization of AZA vs DEC, the patients’ characteristics were well balanced in patients randomized to the two HMA treatments. There were no significant differences in CR, overall CR, OS, or safety between AZA and DEC.