P719: RANDOMIZED PHASE 1-2 STUDY TO ASSESS SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF LOW-DOSE (LD) ORAL DECITABINE/CEDAZURIDINE (ASTX727) IN LOWER-RISK MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROMES (LR-MDS) PATIENTS: INTERIM SAFETY ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cedazuridine (CED), a cytidine deaminase (CDA) inhibitor allows oral availability of decitabine (DEC) and 5 daily doses of the fixed-dose combination of 35 mg DEC/100 mg CED standard dose (SD) provides equivalent exposure to an IV DEC regimen of 20 mg/m2 days 1-5 (Garcia-Manero et al, 2020). Attenuated HMA regimens (e.g., 3 days of IV DEC) have shown activity in LR-MDS (Jabbour, et al. 2017). Aims: This Phase 1/2 study explores the optimal dosing schedule of Low Dose oral DEC/CED in patients with LR-MDS. Methods: A two-part Phase 1/2 study is being conducted in LR-MDS (IPSS low risk and lntermediate-1) subjects requiring treatment. Phase 1 explored 6 different 28-day regimens, ranging from 5-20 mg DEC with 100mg CED and treatment duration of 5-10 days (Figure 1). The primary endpoints were determination of the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and safety. Secondary endpoints included clinical activity based on modified International Working Group (IWG) 2006 MDS response criteria, transfusion independence rate, leukemia-free survival (LFS), and overall survival (OS). In Phase 2, 81 LR-MDS were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive the RP2D from Phase 1 or 35 mg DEC/ 100 mg CED (SD) for 3 days, a regimen based on 3-day IV decitabine dosing in the NCCN guidelines for treatment of LR-MDS. Efficacy and safety endpoints of the Phase 2 were the same as those of the Phase 1. Results: In Phase 1, 47 patients were treated with five different DEC/CED regimens. DLT associated with prolonged neutropenia was seen in proportion to the dose per cycle and the number of days of treatment. Based on the clinical efficacy and safety profile, 10mg DEC/100mg CED for 5 days was selected as the RP2D. The Hematologic Improvement (HI) % for all dosing schedules was 30% (14/47), and the RBC transfusion-independent % over 8 weeks was 33% (7/21). Of the 47 patients treated, 23 (47%) had an event of death at the data cutoff, with a median OS of 31 months (95% Cl: 19, NE); the median LFS was 23 months (95% Cl: 14, 32). In Phase 2, IPSS INT-1 risk was 73% and 65% in the LD and SD arms, respectively. 48% were previously treated for MDS (21% and 26% were treated with ESA or luspatercept, respectively). At baseline, RBC and platelet transfusion dependence was 46% and 14%, respectively. At the data cutoff, 80 subjects had received a median of 4.5 cycles of treatment, and approximately 10 patients had discontinued treatment to receive bone marrowbone marrow transplant. In the pharmacokinetic analysis, the total cycle Area Under Curve (AUC) for decitabine in the LD 5-day was about half of the SD 3-day exposure and 1/4 of the SD 5-day exposure. Reported adverse event terms were similar to those reported for SD 5-day, with the most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) being neutropenia (19%), anemia (20%), and febrile neutropenia (6%). Average neutrophil counts by cycle 8 in subjects receiving LD 5-day regimen were slightly higher compared to subjects receiving SD 3-day dosing (Figure 2A), while changes in platelet count were similar in both arms (Figure 2B). Of the 8 all-cause deaths at data cutoff, only 2 and 1 were within 60 and 30 days, respectively, in the SD group. Summary/Conclusion: This Phase 1/2 study shows that a LD 5-day treatment regimen is tolerable and safe with less neutropenia, suggesting that it may be an optimal regimen for LR-MDS provided that longer term efficacy results prove to be comparable to the SD 3-day regimen.Keywords: MDS, Phase I/II, Oral
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".