Advances in chronic myeloid leukemia treatment, particularly regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mandate regular updating of concepts and management. A European LeukemiaNet expert panel reviewed prior and new studies to update recommendations made in 2009. We recommend as initial treatment imatinib, nilotinib, or dasatinib. Response is assessed with standardized real quantitative polymerase chain reaction and/or cytogenetics at 3, 6, and 12 months. BCR-ABL1 transcript levels ≤10% at 3 months, <1% at 6 months, and ≤0.1% from 12 months onward define optimal response, whereas >10% at 6 months and >1% from 12 months onward define failure, mandating a change in treatment. Similarly, partial cytogenetic response (PCyR) at 3 months and complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) from 6 months onward define optimal response, whereas no CyR (Philadelphia chromosome–positive [Ph+] >95%) at 3 months, less than PCyR at 6 months, and less than CCyR from 12 months onward define failure. Between optimal and failure, there is an intermediate warning zone requiring more frequent monitoring. Similar definitions are provided for response to second-line therapy. Specific recommendations are made for patients in the accelerated and blastic phases, and for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Optimal responders should continue therapy indefinitely, with careful surveillance, or they can be enrolled in controlled studies of treatment discontinuation once a deeper molecular response is achieved.

Background Inotuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, is active in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Methods In this phase 3 trial, adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia were randomized to inotuzumab ozogamicin or standard intensive chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were complete remission and overall survival. Results Primary intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of complete remission included the first 218 (inotuzumab ozogamicin, n=109; standard, n=109) of 326 patients randomized. Complete remission rate was significantly better with inotuzumab ozogamicin (80.7% [95% CI, 72%–88%] vs 29.4% [21%–39%]; P<0.001), as was minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity among responders (78.4% [68%–87%] vs 28.1% [14%–47%]; P<0.001); remission duration was longer (median, 4.6 [3.9–5.4] vs 3.1 [1.4–4.9] months; hazard ratio=0.55 [0.31–0.96], P=0.034). More patients proceeded to transplant with inotuzumab ozogamicin (41%) versus standard (11%; P<0.001). In the ITT survival analysis (n=326), progression-free survival was significantly longer with inotuzumab ozogamicin vs standard (HR, 0.45 [97.5% CI, 0.34–0.61]; P<0.001; median, 5.0 [95% CI, 3.7–5.6] vs 1.8 [1.5–2.2] months). The overall survival HR was 0.77 (97.5% CI, 0.58–1.03); P=0.04; median was 7.7 (95% CI, 6.0–9.2) vs 6.7 (4.9–8.3) months. 2-year overall survival rate was 23% (95% CI, 16%–30%) vs 10% (5%–16%). In the safety population, the most frequent nonhematologic inotuzumab ozogamicin treatment-emergent grade ≥3 adverse events were liver-related. Any grade veno-occlusive liver disease occurred in 15 (11%) patients receiving inotuzumab ozogamicin. Conclusion Patients receiving inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard care achieved higher response, MRD-negativity rates, and prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival. Veno-occlusive disease was a major non-hematologic toxicity.

Key Points• Azacitidine increased median overall survival by 3.8 months vs current commonly used AML treatments (10.4 vs 6.5 months; P 5 .1009).• Azacitidine safety in patients age $65 years with AML (.30% blasts) was consistent with its known safety profile in other trials.This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated azacitidine efficacy and safety vs conventional care regimens (CCRs) in 488 patients age ‡65 years with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with >30% bone marrow blasts. Before randomization, a CCR (standard induction chemotherapy, low-dose ara-c, or supportive care only) was preselected for each patient. Patients then were assigned 1:1 to azacitidine (n 5 241) or CCR (n 5 247). Patients assigned to CCR received their preselected treatment. Median overall survival (OS) was increased with azacitidine vs CCR: 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-12.7 months) vs 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.6 months), respectively (hazard ratio [HR] was 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.03; stratified log-rank P 5 .1009). One-year survival rates with azacitidine and CCR were 46.5% and 34.2%, respectively (difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 3.5%-21.0%). A prespecified analysis censoring patients who received AML treatment after discontinuing study drug showed median OS with azacitidine vs CCR was 12.1 months (95% CI, 9.2-14.2 months) vs 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.1-9.6 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96; stratified log-rank P 5 .0190). Univariate analysis showed favorable trends for azacitidine compared with CCR across all subgroups defined by baseline demographic and disease features. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profile of azacitidine. Azacitidine may be an important treatment option for this difficult-to-treat AML population. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01074047. (Blood. 2015;126(3):291-299)

No abstract