{"id":7339,"date":"2018-02-23T12:27:01","date_gmt":"2018-02-23T20:27:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sfj-pharma.com\/?p=7339"},"modified":"2021-05-13T14:21:01","modified_gmt":"2021-05-13T22:21:01","slug":"inotuzumab-ozogamicin-ino-treatment-in-patients-with-relapsed-refractory-r-r-acute-lymphoblastic-leukemia-all-analysis-from-ino-vate-by-bone-marrow-blast-percentage-bmb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sfj-pharma.com\/inotuzumab-ozogamicin-ino-treatment-in-patients-with-relapsed-refractory-r-r-acute-lymphoblastic-leukemia-all-analysis-from-ino-vate-by-bone-marrow-blast-percentage-bmb\/","title":{"rendered":"Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) treatment in patients with relapsed\/refractory (R\/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL): Analysis from INO-VATE by bone marrow blast percentage (BMB%)"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n
Background:<\/strong>InO is a calicheamicin-conjugated antibody targeting CD22 on ALL blast cells. Here we report outcomes in R\/R ALL patients (pts) receiving InO or standard of care chemotherapy (SC) in the phase 3 INO-VATE trial according to baseline BMB%, an indicator of disease burden.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Methods:<\/strong>Adults with CD22+ ALL due to receive salvage treatment were randomized 1:1 to InO (n = 164) or SC (n = 162). Dosing and methods were published previously (Kantarjian et al, NEJM 2016). BMB% was defined as low ( < 50%), moderate (50\u201390%), and high ( > 90%) at start of treatment.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Results:<\/strong>At baseline, characteristics across all groups were balanced and median BMB% was 28%, 78%, and 95% in the low, moderate, and high disease burden subgroups. Complete remission rates were significantly higher in InO vs SC pts, with 74% vs 46%, 75% vs 48%, and 70% vs 17% achieving CR\/CRi in low, moderate, and high BMB% subgroups. Significantly more pts in the InO arm achieved minimal residual disease negativity: 29\/53 (55%), 52\/79 (66%), and 16\/30 (53%) for low, moderate, and high BMB% compared with 10\/48 (21%), 11\/83 (13%), and 2\/30 (7%) for SC, respectively. InO-treated pts also had improved progression-free survival vs SC, with hazard ratios of 0.44 (97.5% CI, 0.26\u20130.74, 1-sided\u00a0P<\/em>= 0.0001) for low, 0.50 (97.5% CI, 0.34\u20130.75,\u00a0P<\/em>< 0.0001) for moderate, and 0.33 (97.5% CI, 0.16\u20130.69,\u00a0P<\/em>= 0.0002) for high BMB%. Overall survival (OS) was favored in the InO arm across groups (Table) with potentially the greatest difference seen in pts with high BMB% (HR = 0.60 [97.5% CI 0.32\u20131.129, 1-sided\u00a0P<\/em>= 0.03]). Clinical trial information:\u00a0NCT01564784<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Conclusions:<\/strong>InO treatment resulted in superior efficacy over SC across all BMB% subgroups out to 2 years follow-up, particularly in patients with the greatest disease burden by BMB%.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n