Revumenib for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) Nucleophosmin 1–Mutated (NPM1m) Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML): Outcomes by prior treatment in the phase 2 AUGMENT-101 study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND NPM1m AML accounts for ~30% of newly diagnosed adult AML and 12% of R/R AML cases. Approximately 50% of adult patients with NPM1m AML experience progressive disease or death after frontline treatment. Historical data suggest that only 48% and 10% of patients achieve complete remission (CR) after first salvage with high- or low-intensity treatments, respectively; CR rates decrease with each subsequent line (CR with second salvage, 30% and 8%; CR with subsequent salvage, 11% and 2%). Current standard of care varies depending on patient and disease characteristics and may include intensive chemotherapy, venetoclax (ven) ± hypomethylating agents, targeted therapies (such as FLT3 inhibitors [i], IDH1i, or IDH2i if a corresponding co-mutation is present), and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Despite these available options, the prognosis for patients with R/R NPM1m AML remains poor, with a 1-year survival rate of only 16%. Novel treatments are needed. The menin–lysine methyltransferase 2A (KMT2A) interaction is a critical driver of leukemogenesis in NPM1m AML. Revumenib is a first-in-class, oral, selective inhibitor of the menin-KMT2A interaction. Safety (safety population, N=84) and clinical outcomes (efficacy-evaluable population, n=77) from the phase 2 AUGMENT-101 study in patients with R/R NPM1m AML have been previously reported and demonstrated clinically meaningful responses across a range of prior treatments, including ven, FLT3i, IDH1i, IDH2i, and HSCT (NCT04065399; Arellano et al. EHA 2025. PS1467). Here, we present additional characterization of clinical outcomes, including duration of response (DOR), by prior treatment. METHODS Patients aged ≥30 d with R/R NPM1m AML were eligible to receive revumenib 163 mg (95 mg/m2 if body weight [bw] <40 kg) every 12 h (q12h) with a strong CYP3A4i or 276 mg (160 mg/m2 if bw <40 kg) q12h without a strong CYP3A4i in 28-d cycles. Patients with centrally confirmed NPM1m AML status and ≥5% blasts in bone marrow at baseline within 28 d prior to the start of study treatment were included in the efficacy-evaluable population. Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or lack of response after ≤4 cycles. Primary endpoints were rate of CR or CR with partial hematologic recovery (CR+CRh), safety, and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate and DOR. Post hoc analysis of DOR by prior treatment was conducted. This analysis was descriptive and not powered to allow statistical comparisons. RESULTS As of September 18, 2024, 77 patients met efficacy-evaluable criteria. Median age was 63 y (range, 11–84 y; 38 patients were ≥65 y). Of these patients, 57 (74.0%) had received prior ven, 31 (40.3%) had prior FLT3i, 5 (6.5%) had prior IDH1i, 5 (6.5%) had prior IDH2i, and 18 (23.4%) had previously undergone HSCT. Overall, the CR+CRh rate was 26.0% (20/77; 95% CI, 16.6%–37.2%) and median duration of CR/CRh was 4.7 mo (95% CI, 2.1–8.2). The CR+CRh rate based on prior treatment was 19.3% (11/57; 10.0%–31.9%) with ven; 12.9% (4/31; 3.6%–29.8%) with FLT3i; 40.0% (2/5; 5.3%–85.3%) with IDH1i; 60.0% (3/5; 14.7%–94.7%) with IDH2i; and 27.8% (5/18; 9.7%–53.5%) with HSCT. Median (95% CI) duration of CR/CRh based on prior treatment was 3.9 mo (1.0–8.2) with ven; 4.3 mo (0.9–NR) with FLT3i; 3.9 mo (NR–NR) with IDH1i; 8.2 mo (NR–NR) with IDH2i; and 5.6 mo (1.8–NR) with HSCT. Safety data from the safety population (N=84) were reported previously; 66 patients (78.6%) experienced a treatment-related AE (TRAE); TRAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 4 patients (4.8%) and death in 1 (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS These findings further characterize outcomes in patients with R/R NPM1m AML treated with revumenib monotherapy in AUGMENT-101. The median DORs by prior treatment were similar to that for the overall population. Given the small subgroup sizes per prior treatment and overlapping confidence intervals, additional data are needed to identify optimal treatment sequences.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».