All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know AML.

  TRANSLATE

The aml Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the aml Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The aml and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

The AML Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, and Syndax, and has been supported through an educational grant from the Hippocrate Conference Institute, an association of the Servier Group. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given.  View funders.

Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients

Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.

Find out more

Subgroup analysis of the phase III VALOR study – vosaroxin/cytarabine in ≥ 60 years old patients with refractory/early relapsed acute myeloid leukemia

By Anna Bartus

Share:

Aug 4, 2017


In a recent issue of Haematologica, Farhad Ravandi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA, and colleagues, published the results of a subgroup analysis of the randomized phase III VALOR study (NCT01191801). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer quinolone derivative that intercalates DNA and inhibits topoisomerase II, plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) versus placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt), for the treatment of patients ≥ 60 years of age with refractory/early relapsed (Ref/eRel) acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 cycle 1 [70 mg/m2 subsequent cycles]) was administered in 361 patients by short intravenous infusion on days 1 and 4, in combination with cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hours on days 1–5). In the control arm, placebo plus cytarabine was administered. A median of one treatment cycle was administered (range, 1–4) in both cohorts. Median age was 68 years (range, 60–78).

Key data is given as vos/cyt arm vs pla/cyt arm:

Efficacy

  • Complete remission (CR) rate: 25.8% (47/182; 95% CI, 19.6–32.8) vs 10.4% (19/182; 95% CI, 6.4–15.8), P = 0.0001
  • Overall response rate (ORR): 34.1% vs 12.6%, P < 0.0001
  • Median overall survival (OS): 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.4–7.8) vs 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.3–5.2), HR = 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55–0.86), P = 0.0009
  • Median leukemia-free survival (LFS): 9.7 months (95% CI, 5.8–NE) vs 5.5 months (95% CI, 2.3–8.3), HR = 0.50 (95% CI, 0.25–0.99), P = 0.0424
  • Median event-free survival (EFS): 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.5–2.3) vs 1.3 months (95% CI, 1.2–1.4), HR = 0.59 (95% CI, 0.47–0.74), P < 0.0001
  • Post-treatment transplantation rates were similar in the two cohorts
    • CR rates in transplanted patients: 48.4% (15/31) vs 32.3% (10/31)
    • 100-day mortality rate after transplant: 19.4% (6/31) vs 25.8% (8/31)
    • Median OS in transplanted patients: 18.3 months (95% CI, 11.9–NE) vs 9.9 months (95% CI, 7.7–12.2), HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.25–0.86), P = 0.0125

Safety

  • Serious adverse events (SAEs): 53.8% vs 32.4%
  • SAEs leading to death: 15.9% vs 11.2%
  • The most common AEs and SAEs in both treatment arms: myelosuppression, infections, and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities
  • Grade ≥ 3 febrile neutropenia: 40.7% vs 29.1%
  • Grade ≥ 3 hematologic events occurred with similar frequency in both arms: thrombocytopenia (23.1% vs 26.8%), anemia (22.5% vs 25.7%), and neutropenia (17.6% vs 16.2%)

The authors concluded that “this analysis demonstrated that vos/cyt produced clinically meaningful improvements in response and survival compared with pla/cyt in patients ≥ 60 years old with Ref/eRel AML, without increasing early mortality. The AE profile of vos/cyt in older patients was consistent with the AE profile of the overall VALOR population reported previously. Rates of SAEs were higher in the vos/cyt arm compared with the pla/cyt arm, though this would be expected with the addition of a second cytotoxic agent and has been observed in other trials of cytarabine combination regimens compared to cytarabine alone.”

References

Your opinion matters

How important to you is the turnaround time for genetic testing in guiding your initial treatment decisions?