Published in

American Society of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15_suppl(30), p. 6527-6527, 2012

DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.6527

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Stage I findings of a two-stage phase II study to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of barasertib (AZD1152) compared with low-dose cytosine arabinoside (LDAC) in elderly patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

6527 Background: Barasertib is the pro-drug to barasertib-hQPA, a selective Aurora B kinase inhibitor with preliminary anti-AML activity in a Phase I/II study (Löwenberg et al. Blood 2011;118:6030). Methods: AML pts aged ≥60 y considered unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to open-label barasertib 1200 mg (7-day iv infusion) or LDAC 20 mg (sc twice daily for 10 days) in 28-day cycles (NCT00952588). The primary endpoint was improved objective complete response rate (OCRR: CR + CRi [Cheson criteria, but requiring CRi confirmation ≥21 days after first appearance, with partial recovery of platelets and neutrophils]). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: 74 pts (barasertib, 48; LDAC, 26) received treatment and all completed ≥1 cycle. A significant improvement in OCRR was observed with barasertib (35.4% [17/48] vs 11.5% [3/26]; difference, 23.9% [95% CI, 2.7-39.9]; P<0.05); barasertib responses were seen in all cytogenetic risk groups and appeared to be durable (median DoR [range], 82 [28-321] days; vs LDAC 30-85 days). Although not formally sized to compare OS data, a trend favoring barasertib was observed (HR=0.88, 95% CI, 0.49-1.58; P=0.663; median OS, 8.2 vs 4.5 mo). Stomatitis and febrile neutropenia were the most common adverse events (AEs) in the barasertib arm with higher incidences vs LDAC (71% vs 15%; 67% vs 19%, respectively). Grade ≥3 AEs with a greater incidence in the barasertib arm were febrile neutropenia (50% vs 19%), stomatitis (29% vs 0%) and pneumonia (25% vs 8%); grade ≥3 infection rates were also higher with barasertib (40% vs 23%). For both arms, there were similar discontinuation rates due to AEs (barasertib 8.3% vs LDAC 7.7%), deaths due to AEs (12.5% vs 11.5%) and 30-day mortality (12.5% vs 15.4%). Cumulative toxicities were not observed with barasertib treatment. Conclusions: In this population with poor prognosis using standard chemotherapy, barasertib showed a significant improvement in OCRR vs LDAC, and a safety profile that was manageable and consistent with previous studies.