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

Hagop M Kantarjian, Daniel J DeAngelo, Matthias Stelljes, Michaela Liedtke, Wendy Stock, Nicola Gökbuget, Susan M O'Brien, Elias Jabbour, Tao Wang, Jane Liang White, Barbara Sleight, Erik Vandendries, Anjali S Advani, Hagop M Kantarjian, Daniel J DeAngelo, Matthias Stelljes, Michaela Liedtke, Wendy Stock, Nicola Gökbuget, Susan M O'Brien, Elias Jabbour, Tao Wang, Jane Liang White, Barbara Sleight, Erik Vandendries, Anjali S Advani

Abstract

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.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01564784.

Keywords: acute lymphoblastic leukemia; adults; hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; hepatic veno-occlusive disease; inotuzumab ozogamicin; remission induction.

Conflict of interest statement

Hagop M. Kantarjian declares honoraria from AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Amgen, ImmunoGen, Orsinex, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Agios, Amgen, ARIAD, Astex, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Cyclacel, Daiichi‐Sankyo, ImmunoGen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer. Daniel J. DeAngelo declares honoraria from Amgen, ARIAD, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Incyte, Novartis, and Pfizer and research support from ARIAD. Matthias Stelljes declares research support and honoraria from Pfizer. Michaela Liedtke declares honoraria from Pfizer. Wendy Stock declares honoraria from Agios, Astellas, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Kite. Nicola Gökbuget declares research support and honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, and Pfizer and honoraria from Celgene. Susan M. O’Brien declares honoraria from Pfizer. Elias Jabbour declares research support and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, and Takeda. Tao Wang, Jane Liang White, Barbara Sleight, and Erik Vandendries are employees of and own stock in Pfizer. Anjali S. Advani declares consulting fees and honoraria from Pfizer.

© 2019 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile. Completing the study was defined as completing follow‐up for 5 years from the individual patient’s randomization or for 2 years from randomization of the last patient (January 4, 2015), whichever occurred first. On the date of the last visit by the last patient to be randomized (January 4, 2017), all patients discontinued the study. In the InO arm, patients received InO intravenously at 1.8 mg/m2 per 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, for a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients who achieved CR/CRi had their InO dose adjusted to 1.5 mg/m2 per cycle, with 0.5 mg/m2 administered on days 1, 8, and 15. Patients in the standard‐of‐care arm received a regimen of the investigator’s choice: 1) FLAG for up to four 28‐day cycles, which consisted of cytarabine at 2.0 g/m2/d on days 1 to 6, fludarabine at 30 mg/m2/d on days 2 to 6, and granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor at 5 μg/kg/d (or at the standard dose of the institute); 2) MXN/Ara‐C for up to four 15‐ to 20‐day cycles, which consisted of cytarabine at 200 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 7 and mitoxantrone at 12 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 3 (with dose reductions to 8 mg/m2 allowed on the basis of age, coexisting conditions, and previous anthracycline exposure); or 3) HIDAC for up to two 12‐dose cycles at 3.0 g/m2 every 12 hours (the dose could be reduced up to 1.5 g/m2 for patients aged 55 years or older and was reduced to 1.5 g/m2 for patients older than 60 years). CR indicates complete remission; CRi, complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery; FLAG, fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor; HIDAC, high‐dose cytarabine; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; ITT, intent‐to‐treat; mITT, modified intent‐to‐treat; MXN/Ara‐C, mitoxantrone and cytarabine.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Stratified comparison of CR/CRi rates. Stratification factors (duration of first remission, salvage status, and age at randomization) were based on information provided for the interactive voice response system at randomization. †One‐sided P values. BMA indicates bone marrow aspirate; CI, confidence interval; CR, complete remission; CRi, complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; NA, not applicable; Ph–, Philadelphia chromosome–negative; Ph+, Philadelphia chromosome–positive; SoC, standard of care (intensive chemotherapy).
Figure 3
Figure 3
PFS. For INO‐VATE, PFS was defined as the time from randomization to the earliest of the following: disease progression (including objective progression, relapse after CR/CRi, or treatment discontinuation due to a global deterioration of health status), the start of new induction therapy or post‐therapy HSCT without the achievement of CR/CRi, or death from any cause. It was censored at the last valid disease assessment. †One‐sided log‐rank test. CI indicates confidence interval; CR, complete remission; CRi, complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery; HR, hazard ratio; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; INO‐VATE, INotuzumab Ozogamicin trial to inVestigAte Tolerability and Efficacy; PFS, progression‐free survival; SoC, standard of care (intensive chemotherapy).
Figure 4
Figure 4
OS. For 2‐ and 3‐year survival, the 1‐sided P value was based on the chi‐square test or the Fisher exact test (if any cell count was <5). †One‐sided log‐rank test. CI indicates confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; OS, overall survival; SoC, standard of care (intensive chemotherapy).
Figure 5
Figure 5
OS according to subgroups. BMA indicates bone marrow aspirate; CI, confidence interval; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; OS, overall survival; Ph–, Philadelphia chromosome–negative; Ph+, Philadelphia chromosome–positive; SoC, standard of care (intensive chemotherapy).
Figure 6
Figure 6
OS censored at the time of blinatumomab, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell therapy, or InO. †One‐sided log‐rank test. CI indicates confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; OS, overall survival; SoC, standard of care (intensive chemotherapy).
Figure 7
Figure 7
OS of InO‐treated patients who achieved CR/CRi according to follow‐up HSCT. The graph shows the time from randomization to the date of death due to any cause. Patients whose date of death could not be verified were censored at the date of last contact. †One‐sided log‐rank test. CI indicates confidence interval; CR, complete remission; CRi, complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery; HR, hazard ratio; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; OS, overall survival.
Figure 8
Figure 8
OS censored at the date of any HSCT. Patients were censored at the time of any HSCT, regardless of whether they were in continuous first complete remission. CI indicates confidence interval; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; OS, overall survival; SoC, standard of care (intensive chemotherapy).

References

    1. Tavernier E, Boiron JM, Huguet F, et al. Outcome of treatment after first relapse in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia initially treated by the LALA‐94 trial. Leukemia. 2007;21:1907‐1914.
    1. O’Brien S, Thomas D, Ravandi F, et al. Outcome of adults with acute lymphocytic leukemia after second salvage therapy. Cancer. 2008;113:3186‐3191.
    1. Gokbuget N, Stanze D, Beck J, et al. Outcome of relapsed adult lymphoblastic leukemia depends on response to salvage chemotherapy, prognostic factors, and performance of stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2012;120:2032‐2041.
    1. Kantarjian H, Stein A, Gokbuget N, et al. Blinatumomab versus chemotherapy for advanced acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:836‐847.
    1. Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, et al. Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed or refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:45‐56.
    1. Fielding AK, Richards SM, Chopra R, et al. Outcome of 609 adults after relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL); an MRC UKALL12/ECOG 2993 study. Blood. 2007;109:944‐950.
    1. Yurkiewicz IR, Muffly L, Liedtke M. Inotuzumab ozogamicin: a CD22 mAb‐drug conjugate for adult relapsed or refractory B‐cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2018;12:2293‐2300.
    1. DeAngelo DJ, Stock W, Stein AS, et al. Inotuzumab ozogamicin in adults with relapsed or refractory CD22‐positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a phase 1/2 study. Blood Adv. 2017;1:1167‐1180.
    1. DiJoseph JF, Armellino DC, Boghaert ER, et al. Antibody‐targeted chemotherapy with CMC‐544: a CD22‐targeted immunoconjugate of calicheamicin for the treatment of B‐lymphoid malignancies. Blood. 2004;103:1807‐1814.
    1. Shor B, Gerber HP, Sapra P. Preclinical and clinical development of inotuzumab‐ozogamicin in hematological malignancies. Mol Immunol. 2015;67:107‐116.
    1. Boue DR, LeBien TW. Expression and structure of CD22 in acute leukemia. Blood. 1988;71:1480‐1486.
    1. Haso W, Lee DW, Shah NN, et al. Anti‐CD22–chimeric antigen receptors targeting B‐cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2013;121:1165‐1174.
    1. Kantarjian HM, DeAngelo DJ, Stelljes M, et al. Inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:740‐753.
    1. Kantarjian HM, DeAngelo DJ, Advani AS, et al. Hepatic adverse event profile of inotuzumab ozogamicin in adult patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: results from the open‐label, randomised, phase 3 INO‐VATE study. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4:e387‐e398.
    1. Royston P, Parmar MK. The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med. 2011;30:2409‐2421.
    1. Trinquart L, Jacot J, Conner SC, Porcher R. Comparison of treatment effects measured by the hazard ratio and by the ratio of restricted mean survival times in oncology randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1813‐1819.
    1. Uno H, Claggett B, Tian L, et al. Moving beyond the hazard ratio in quantifying the between‐group difference in survival analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2380‐2385.
    1. Uno H, Wittes J, Fu H, et al. Alternatives to hazard ratios for comparing the efficacy or safety of therapies in noninferiority studies. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:127‐134.
    1. McDonald GB, Freston JW, Boyer JL, DeLeve LD. Liver complications following treatment of hematologic malignancy with anti‐CD22–calicheamicin (inotuzumab ozogamicin). Hepatology. 2019;69:831‐844.
    1. Oliansky DM, Larson RA, Weisdorf D, et al. The role of cytotoxic therapy with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the treatment of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: update of the 2006 evidence‐based review. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18:18‐36.
    1. Jabbour E, Pui CH, Kantarjian H. Progress and innovations in the management of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:1413‐1420.
    1. Kantarjian H, Ravandi F, Short NJ, et al. Inotuzumab ozogamicin in combination with low‐intensity chemotherapy for older patients with Philadelphia chromosome–negative acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a single‐arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:240‐248.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren