A phase 2 study of olutasidenib in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia: Outcomes by number of prior treatment regimens.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6545 Background: A subset of patients (7-14%) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 gene (m IDH1 ). Olutasidenib (OLU), a selective, potent, oral inhibitor of mIDH1, is approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) m IDH1 AML. Results from the phase 2 pivotal cohort (NCT02719574) demonstrated clinical efficacy and tolerability of OLU, with a complete remission/complete remission with partial hematological recovery (CR/CRh) rate of 35% for a median duration of 25.9 months. Here we evaluated the efficacy and safety of OLU in patients with R/R AML grouped by the number of prior regimens. Methods: The pivotal cohort of the phase 2 study assessed OLU 150 mg BID in adult patients and included efficacy endpoints of CR/CRh, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). This post hoc analysis evaluated outcomes based on when patients received OLU: after 1-2 or ≥3 prior lines of therapy. Results: There were 147 patients in the efficacy evaluable analysis set (1-2 prior regimens, n=93; ≥3 prior regimens, n=54). Median age was 72 years in patients with 1-2 prior regimens and 66.5 years in those with ≥3 prior regimens. Forty-three percent and 33% of patients had prior treatment with a hypomethylating agent, and 11% and 4% received prior venetoclax therapy (1-2 and ≥3 prior regimens groups, respectively). In patients with ≥3 prior regimens, 31% had prior hematopoietic stem cell transplantation vs none in those with 1-2 prior regimens. Those in the 1-2 prior regimens group had a higher ORR and CR/CRh rate and longer median OS, with a larger percentage of patients achieving CR, than those in the ≥3 prior regimens group (Table 1). All patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Serious TEAEs were reported in 73% (68/93) and 77.8% (42/54) of patients in the 1-2 and ≥3 prior regimens groups, respectively, and TEAEs ≥grade 3 occurred in 89.2% (83/93) and 90.7% (49/54). The most common TEAEs included nausea, decreased red blood cell count, and fatigue. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: Higher response rates (including CR and CRh) and greater survival were observed in patients receiving OLU following 1-2 versus ≥3 prior treatment regimens, providing rationale for initiating OLU earlier in the R/R treatment paradigm. Clinical trial information: NCT02719574 . Efficacy of OLU stratified by number of prior regimens. 1-2 Prior Regimensn=93 ≥3 Prior Regimensn=54 ORR, n (%); 95% CI 50 (54); 43.1, 64.2 21 (39); 25.9, 53.1 DOR, median months (95% CI) 14.8 (7.4, 25.9) 16.6 (5.8, NR) CR rate, n (%); 95% CI 35 (38); (27.8, 48.3) 12 (22); (12.0, 35.6) DOR, median months (95% CI) 21.3 (12.0, NR) NR (8.7, NR) CR/CRh rate, n (%); 95% CI 38 (41); 30.8, 51.5 13 (24); 13.5, 37.6 DOR, median months (95% CI) 25.3 (12.0, NR) NR (8.7, NR) OS, median months (95% CI) 13.0 (9.3, 18.9) 8.9 (5.8, 14.9) NR, not reached.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".