Quinolone Derivative

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 228 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Arnaud Pigneux - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • phase 3 results for vosaroxin cytarabine in the subset of patients 60 years old with refractory early relapsed acute myeloid leukemia
    Haematologica, 2018
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Arnaud Pigneux, Hamid Sayar, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Heinz A Horst
    Abstract:

    Refractory/early relapsed (Ref/eRel) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients ≥60 years old is the most important unmet medical need in the salvage setting, where outcomes are exceptionally poor and no standard of care exists.[1][1] Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative

  • durable overall survival benefit in patients 60 years with relapsed or refractory aml treated with vosaroxin cytarabine vs placebo cytarabine updated results from the valor trial
    Blood, 2016
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Background: Prognosis for older patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is poor, with lower response rates and shorter survival compared with younger patients. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML, is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor-mediated efflux, and has activity independent of p53 status. In the phase 3 VALOR trial, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with vosaroxin plus cytarabine vs placebo plus cytarabine in a prespecified analysis in patients ≥ 60 years of age (median OS: 7.1 mo vs 5.0 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.92]; P = 0.0030). At the time of the primary analysis (September 2014), patients had been followed for a median of 24.4 months (as estimated by the reverse Kaplan-Meier method). Here, after a median follow-up of 39.9 months, we provide updated survival information for patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial. Methods: In VALOR, patients with refractory or first relapsed AML were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m 2 IV over 2 h, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 IV over 10 min, d 1, 4; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] lasting Results:As of Jan 22, 2016, 33/451 patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial were alive and in continued follow-up: 23/226 (10.2%) in the vosaroxin/cytarabine arm and 10/225 (4.4%) in the placebo/cytarabine arm. Updated OS data in patients ≥ 60 years of age was consistent with the primary analysis, demonstrating a significant improvement with the addition of vosaroxin (Figure; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.91]; P = 0.0017). The survival benefit associated with vosaroxin/cytarabine was durable, as demonstrated by the separation of the survival curves through 48 mo . At 24 and 36 mo after randomization, the estimated survival rate was twice as high with vosaroxin/cytarabine as with placebo/cytarabine in patients ≥ 60 years (17.0% vs 8.5% and 12.8% vs 6.0%, respectively). The OS benefit was consistent across various age subgroups in the population ≥ 60 years of age; in patients 60-64 years (n = 124), 65-74 years (n = 293), and 75-84 years (n = 34), vosaroxin/cytarabine treatment increased median survival by 2.9 mo (8.1 vs 5.2 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.49-1.06]), 2.0 mo (7.0 vs 5.0 mo; HR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60-0.97]), and 2.2 mo (5.5 vs 3.3 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.36-1.45]) over placebo/cytarabine treatment, respectively. An improvement in OS was observed among patients ≥ 60 years who received post-treatment transplantation (n = 91; 19.9 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 12.2 mo with placebo/cytarbine; HR = 0.70 [95% CI: 0.43-1.13]) and those who did not (n = 360; 5.3 mo vs 3.8 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.60-0.92]). When analyzed by disease status, the greatest OS benefit was observed in patients ≥ 60 years with refractory disease (n = 210; 6.7 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 3.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.57-1.00]) and those with early relapse (n = 154; 6.5 mo vs 3.9 mo, respectively; HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.44-0.87]). In patients ≥ 60 years with late relapse (n = 87), median OS was similar in both treatment arms (9.2 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 9.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 1.06 [95% CI: 0.68-1.66]). Conclusions: After a median of 39.9 months of follow-up in the VALOR trial, the OS observed in patients ≥ 60 years of age treated with vosaroxin/cytarabine remains significantly improved versus placebo/cytarabine, with a separation of the survival curves through 48 months. The OS benefit is consistent among all older patients, even those ≥ 75 years of age, and is seen in patients with and without post-treatment transplantation. The updated survival data from VALOR continue to support the use of vosaroxin/cytarabine as a treatment option in patients ≥ 60 years of age with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi: BMS: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ritchie: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Arian: Speakers Bureau. Vey: Sunesis: Honoraria. Strickland: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Schiller: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Jabbour: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Erba: Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pigneux: Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Horst: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Agios: Consultancy; Amgen, Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Recher: Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis, Chugai: Research Funding. Cortes: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. Roboz: Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Craig: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ward: Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Employment. Smith: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stuart: Agios: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding.

  • vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia valor a randomised controlled double blind multinational phase 3 study
    Lancet Oncology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Summary Background Safe and effective treatments are urgently needed for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative, plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Methods This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken at 101 international sites. Eligible patients with acute myeloid leukaemia were aged 18 years of age or older and had refractory disease or were in first relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle of anthracycline (or anthracenedione) plus cytarabine. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m 2 intravenously on days 1–5) or placebo plus cytarabine through a central interactive voice system with a permuted block procedure stratified by disease status, age, and geographical location. All participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival and the primary safety endpoint was 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191801. Findings Between Dec 17, 2010, and Sept 25, 2013, 711 patients were randomly assigned to vosaroxin plus cytarabine (n=356) or placebo plus cytarabine (n=355). At the final analysis, median overall survival was 7·5 months (95% CI 6·4–8·5) in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group and 6·1 months (5·2–7·1) in the placebo plus cytarabine group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·73–1·02; unstratified log-rank p=0·061; stratified p=0·024). A higher proportion of patients achieved complete remission in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group (107 [30%] of 356 patients vs 58 [16%] of 355 patients, p vs 23 [7%] of 350 in the placebo plus cytarabine group; 60-day: 70 [20%] vs 68 [19%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred at any time in 20 (6%) of 355 patients given vosaroxin plus cytarabine and in eight (2%) of 350 patients given placebo plus cytarabine. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 116 (33%) and 58 (17%) patients in each group, respectively. Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more frequent in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 [47%] vs 117 [33%]), neutropenia (66 [19%] vs 49 [14%]), stomatitis (54 [15%] vs 10 [3%]), hypokalaemia (52 [15%] vs 21 [6%]), bacteraemia (43 [12%] vs 16 [5%]), sepsis (42 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), and pneumonia (39 [11%] vs 26 [7%]). Interpretation Although there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups, the prespecified secondary analysis stratified by randomisation factors suggests that the addition of vosaroxin to cytarabine might be of clinical benefit to some patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Funding Sunesis Pharmaceuticals.

  • improved survival in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia aml treated with vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine results of a phase 3 double blind randomized controlled multinational study valor
    Blood, 2014
    Co-Authors: Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Despite 40 years of intense clinical research, there remain no new approved treatments or standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). New safe and effective salvage treatments are urgently needed. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML. Vosaroxin is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor–mediated efflux and has activity independent of p53 status. VALOR is a rigorously designed and conducted phase 3, adaptive design, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating vosaroxin plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) vs placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt) in patients with R/R AML (NCT01191801). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hr, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 IV over 10 min d 1 and 4; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Up to 2 induction and 2 consolidation cycles were administered. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] Results: Between Dec 2010 and Sept 2013, 711 patients were randomized to receive vos/cyt (n = 356) or pla/cyt (n = 355) at 124 sites; per the adaptive design, a prespecified 1-time sample size increase of 225 patients was implemented after the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.5) with vos/cyt vs 6.1 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) with pla/cyt (HR = 0.866 [95% CI: 0.73-1.02]; 2-sided unstratified log-rank P = 0.06) (Figure). The OS difference was statistically significant in a preplanned analysis accounting for the stratification factors at randomization (2-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.02). Overall, 29.5% of patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT), including 45.8% of patients Thirty-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was similar in the 2 arms (30-day: 7.9% vs 6.6%; 60-day: 19.7% vs 19.4% with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt, respectively). Most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (11.3% with vos/cyt vs 7.4% with pla/cyt), sepsis (8.7% vs 4.3%), pneumonia (7.6% vs 4.9%), bacteremia (8.5% vs 2.9%), and stomatitis (3.4% vs 1.4%). Serious and non-serious cardiac, renal, neurologic, and hepatic AEs were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Vos/cyt demonstrated improved OS and higher CR rates in patients with R/R AML without increased early mortality. In the primary OS analysis, the overall clinical benefit associated with vosaroxin may be underestimated, particularly in younger patients, due to the confounding effect of high transplant rates, a methodological limitation of AML trials. Vosaroxin-containing therapy had acceptable tolerability. VALOR results represent one of the largest datasets available in this setting, and the OS benefit was confirmed by a robust sensitivity analysis. These data support the use of this combination as a new option for salvage therapy in patients with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sayar:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy. Horst:Sunesis: Research Funding. Recher:Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Klimek:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Craig:Sunesis: Equity Ownership. Fox:Sunesis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Ward:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Acton:Sunesis: Consultancy. Mehta:Sunesis: Consultancy. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

  • improved survival in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia aml treated with vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine results of a phase 3 double blind randomized controlled multinational study valor
    Blood, 2014
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Despite 40 years of intense clinical research, there remain no new approved treatments or standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). New safe and effective salvage treatments are urgently needed. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML. Vosaroxin is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor–mediated efflux and has activity independent of p53 status. VALOR is a rigorously designed and conducted phase 3, adaptive design, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating vosaroxin plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) vs placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt) in patients with R/R AML (NCT01191801). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hr, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 IV over 10 min d 1 and 4; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Up to 2 induction and 2 consolidation cycles were administered. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] Results: Between Dec 2010 and Sept 2013, 711 patients were randomized to receive vos/cyt (n = 356) or pla/cyt (n = 355) at 124 sites; per the adaptive design, a prespecified 1-time sample size increase of 225 patients was implemented after the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.5) with vos/cyt vs 6.1 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) with pla/cyt (HR = 0.866 [95% CI: 0.73-1.02]; 2-sided unstratified log-rank P = 0.06) (Figure). The OS difference was statistically significant in a preplanned analysis accounting for the stratification factors at randomization (2-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.02). Overall, 29.5% of patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT), including 45.8% of patients Thirty-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was similar in the 2 arms (30-day: 7.9% vs 6.6%; 60-day: 19.7% vs 19.4% with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt, respectively). Most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (11.3% with vos/cyt vs 7.4% with pla/cyt), sepsis (8.7% vs 4.3%), pneumonia (7.6% vs 4.9%), bacteremia (8.5% vs 2.9%), and stomatitis (3.4% vs 1.4%). Serious and non-serious cardiac, renal, neurologic, and hepatic AEs were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Vos/cyt demonstrated improved OS and higher CR rates in patients with R/R AML without increased early mortality. In the primary OS analysis, the overall clinical benefit associated with vosaroxin may be underestimated, particularly in younger patients, due to the confounding effect of high transplant rates, a methodological limitation of AML trials. Vosaroxin-containing therapy had acceptable tolerability. VALOR results represent one of the largest datasets available in this setting, and the OS benefit was confirmed by a robust sensitivity analysis. These data support the use of this combination as a new option for salvage therapy in patients with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sayar:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy. Horst:Sunesis: Research Funding. Recher:Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Klimek:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Craig:Sunesis: Equity Ownership. Fox:Sunesis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Ward:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Acton:Sunesis: Consultancy. Mehta:Sunesis: Consultancy. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Farhad Ravandi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • phase 3 results for vosaroxin cytarabine in the subset of patients 60 years old with refractory early relapsed acute myeloid leukemia
    Haematologica, 2018
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Arnaud Pigneux, Hamid Sayar, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Heinz A Horst
    Abstract:

    Refractory/early relapsed (Ref/eRel) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients ≥60 years old is the most important unmet medical need in the salvage setting, where outcomes are exceptionally poor and no standard of care exists.[1][1] Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative

  • durable overall survival benefit in patients 60 years with relapsed or refractory aml treated with vosaroxin cytarabine vs placebo cytarabine updated results from the valor trial
    Blood, 2016
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Background: Prognosis for older patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is poor, with lower response rates and shorter survival compared with younger patients. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML, is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor-mediated efflux, and has activity independent of p53 status. In the phase 3 VALOR trial, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with vosaroxin plus cytarabine vs placebo plus cytarabine in a prespecified analysis in patients ≥ 60 years of age (median OS: 7.1 mo vs 5.0 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.92]; P = 0.0030). At the time of the primary analysis (September 2014), patients had been followed for a median of 24.4 months (as estimated by the reverse Kaplan-Meier method). Here, after a median follow-up of 39.9 months, we provide updated survival information for patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial. Methods: In VALOR, patients with refractory or first relapsed AML were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m 2 IV over 2 h, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 IV over 10 min, d 1, 4; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] lasting Results:As of Jan 22, 2016, 33/451 patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial were alive and in continued follow-up: 23/226 (10.2%) in the vosaroxin/cytarabine arm and 10/225 (4.4%) in the placebo/cytarabine arm. Updated OS data in patients ≥ 60 years of age was consistent with the primary analysis, demonstrating a significant improvement with the addition of vosaroxin (Figure; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.91]; P = 0.0017). The survival benefit associated with vosaroxin/cytarabine was durable, as demonstrated by the separation of the survival curves through 48 mo . At 24 and 36 mo after randomization, the estimated survival rate was twice as high with vosaroxin/cytarabine as with placebo/cytarabine in patients ≥ 60 years (17.0% vs 8.5% and 12.8% vs 6.0%, respectively). The OS benefit was consistent across various age subgroups in the population ≥ 60 years of age; in patients 60-64 years (n = 124), 65-74 years (n = 293), and 75-84 years (n = 34), vosaroxin/cytarabine treatment increased median survival by 2.9 mo (8.1 vs 5.2 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.49-1.06]), 2.0 mo (7.0 vs 5.0 mo; HR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60-0.97]), and 2.2 mo (5.5 vs 3.3 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.36-1.45]) over placebo/cytarabine treatment, respectively. An improvement in OS was observed among patients ≥ 60 years who received post-treatment transplantation (n = 91; 19.9 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 12.2 mo with placebo/cytarbine; HR = 0.70 [95% CI: 0.43-1.13]) and those who did not (n = 360; 5.3 mo vs 3.8 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.60-0.92]). When analyzed by disease status, the greatest OS benefit was observed in patients ≥ 60 years with refractory disease (n = 210; 6.7 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 3.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.57-1.00]) and those with early relapse (n = 154; 6.5 mo vs 3.9 mo, respectively; HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.44-0.87]). In patients ≥ 60 years with late relapse (n = 87), median OS was similar in both treatment arms (9.2 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 9.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 1.06 [95% CI: 0.68-1.66]). Conclusions: After a median of 39.9 months of follow-up in the VALOR trial, the OS observed in patients ≥ 60 years of age treated with vosaroxin/cytarabine remains significantly improved versus placebo/cytarabine, with a separation of the survival curves through 48 months. The OS benefit is consistent among all older patients, even those ≥ 75 years of age, and is seen in patients with and without post-treatment transplantation. The updated survival data from VALOR continue to support the use of vosaroxin/cytarabine as a treatment option in patients ≥ 60 years of age with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi: BMS: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ritchie: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Arian: Speakers Bureau. Vey: Sunesis: Honoraria. Strickland: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Schiller: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Jabbour: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Erba: Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pigneux: Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Horst: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Agios: Consultancy; Amgen, Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Recher: Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis, Chugai: Research Funding. Cortes: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. Roboz: Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Craig: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ward: Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Employment. Smith: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stuart: Agios: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding.

  • vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia valor a randomised controlled double blind multinational phase 3 study
    Lancet Oncology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Summary Background Safe and effective treatments are urgently needed for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative, plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Methods This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken at 101 international sites. Eligible patients with acute myeloid leukaemia were aged 18 years of age or older and had refractory disease or were in first relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle of anthracycline (or anthracenedione) plus cytarabine. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m 2 intravenously on days 1–5) or placebo plus cytarabine through a central interactive voice system with a permuted block procedure stratified by disease status, age, and geographical location. All participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival and the primary safety endpoint was 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191801. Findings Between Dec 17, 2010, and Sept 25, 2013, 711 patients were randomly assigned to vosaroxin plus cytarabine (n=356) or placebo plus cytarabine (n=355). At the final analysis, median overall survival was 7·5 months (95% CI 6·4–8·5) in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group and 6·1 months (5·2–7·1) in the placebo plus cytarabine group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·73–1·02; unstratified log-rank p=0·061; stratified p=0·024). A higher proportion of patients achieved complete remission in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group (107 [30%] of 356 patients vs 58 [16%] of 355 patients, p vs 23 [7%] of 350 in the placebo plus cytarabine group; 60-day: 70 [20%] vs 68 [19%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred at any time in 20 (6%) of 355 patients given vosaroxin plus cytarabine and in eight (2%) of 350 patients given placebo plus cytarabine. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 116 (33%) and 58 (17%) patients in each group, respectively. Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more frequent in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 [47%] vs 117 [33%]), neutropenia (66 [19%] vs 49 [14%]), stomatitis (54 [15%] vs 10 [3%]), hypokalaemia (52 [15%] vs 21 [6%]), bacteraemia (43 [12%] vs 16 [5%]), sepsis (42 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), and pneumonia (39 [11%] vs 26 [7%]). Interpretation Although there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups, the prespecified secondary analysis stratified by randomisation factors suggests that the addition of vosaroxin to cytarabine might be of clinical benefit to some patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Funding Sunesis Pharmaceuticals.

  • improved survival in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia aml treated with vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine results of a phase 3 double blind randomized controlled multinational study valor
    Blood, 2014
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Despite 40 years of intense clinical research, there remain no new approved treatments or standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). New safe and effective salvage treatments are urgently needed. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML. Vosaroxin is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor–mediated efflux and has activity independent of p53 status. VALOR is a rigorously designed and conducted phase 3, adaptive design, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating vosaroxin plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) vs placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt) in patients with R/R AML (NCT01191801). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hr, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 IV over 10 min d 1 and 4; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Up to 2 induction and 2 consolidation cycles were administered. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] Results: Between Dec 2010 and Sept 2013, 711 patients were randomized to receive vos/cyt (n = 356) or pla/cyt (n = 355) at 124 sites; per the adaptive design, a prespecified 1-time sample size increase of 225 patients was implemented after the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.5) with vos/cyt vs 6.1 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) with pla/cyt (HR = 0.866 [95% CI: 0.73-1.02]; 2-sided unstratified log-rank P = 0.06) (Figure). The OS difference was statistically significant in a preplanned analysis accounting for the stratification factors at randomization (2-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.02). Overall, 29.5% of patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT), including 45.8% of patients Thirty-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was similar in the 2 arms (30-day: 7.9% vs 6.6%; 60-day: 19.7% vs 19.4% with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt, respectively). Most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (11.3% with vos/cyt vs 7.4% with pla/cyt), sepsis (8.7% vs 4.3%), pneumonia (7.6% vs 4.9%), bacteremia (8.5% vs 2.9%), and stomatitis (3.4% vs 1.4%). Serious and non-serious cardiac, renal, neurologic, and hepatic AEs were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Vos/cyt demonstrated improved OS and higher CR rates in patients with R/R AML without increased early mortality. In the primary OS analysis, the overall clinical benefit associated with vosaroxin may be underestimated, particularly in younger patients, due to the confounding effect of high transplant rates, a methodological limitation of AML trials. Vosaroxin-containing therapy had acceptable tolerability. VALOR results represent one of the largest datasets available in this setting, and the OS benefit was confirmed by a robust sensitivity analysis. These data support the use of this combination as a new option for salvage therapy in patients with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sayar:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy. Horst:Sunesis: Research Funding. Recher:Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Klimek:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Craig:Sunesis: Equity Ownership. Fox:Sunesis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Ward:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Acton:Sunesis: Consultancy. Mehta:Sunesis: Consultancy. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

  • a phase ib study of vosaroxin an anticancer Quinolone Derivative in patients with relapsed or refractory acute leukemia
    Leukemia, 2011
    Co-Authors: Jeffery Lancet, Farhad Ravandi, Rebecca M Ricklis, Larry D Cripe, Hagop M Kantarjian, Francis J Giles, Alan F List, Tianling Chen, R S Allen, Judith A. Fox
    Abstract:

    This study of vosaroxin evaluated dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics (PK), clinical activity and pharmacodynamics in relapsed/refractory leukemia. Dosing was weekly (days 1, 8 and 15) or twice weekly (days 1, 4, 8 and 11). Seventy-three treated patients had a median age of 65 years, 85% had acute myeloid leukemia and 78% had refractory disease. Weekly schedule: 42 patients received 18–90 mg/m2; MTD was 72 mg/m2. Twice-weekly schedule: 31 patients received 9–50 mg/m2; MTD was 40 mg/m2. DLT was stomatitis; primary non-hematologic toxicity was reversible gastrointestinal symptoms and febrile neutropenia. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 11%. Five patients had complete or incomplete remissions; median duration was 3.1 months. A morphologic leukemia-free state (bone marrow blast reduction to <5%) occurred in 11 additional patients. Antileukemic activity was associated with total dose or weekly time above 1 μmol/l plasma vosaroxin concentration (P<0.05). Vosaroxin exposure was dose proportional over 9–90 mg/m2. The average terminal half-life was ∼25 h and clearance was non-renal. No induction or inhibition of vosaroxin metabolism was evident. Vosaroxin-induced DNA damage was detected as increased intracellular γH2AX. Vosaroxin had an acceptable safety profile, linear PK and encouraging clinical activity in relapsed/refractory leukemia.

Stephen A Strickland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • phase 3 results for vosaroxin cytarabine in the subset of patients 60 years old with refractory early relapsed acute myeloid leukemia
    Haematologica, 2018
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Arnaud Pigneux, Hamid Sayar, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Heinz A Horst
    Abstract:

    Refractory/early relapsed (Ref/eRel) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients ≥60 years old is the most important unmet medical need in the salvage setting, where outcomes are exceptionally poor and no standard of care exists.[1][1] Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative

  • durable overall survival benefit in patients 60 years with relapsed or refractory aml treated with vosaroxin cytarabine vs placebo cytarabine updated results from the valor trial
    Blood, 2016
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Background: Prognosis for older patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is poor, with lower response rates and shorter survival compared with younger patients. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML, is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor-mediated efflux, and has activity independent of p53 status. In the phase 3 VALOR trial, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with vosaroxin plus cytarabine vs placebo plus cytarabine in a prespecified analysis in patients ≥ 60 years of age (median OS: 7.1 mo vs 5.0 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.92]; P = 0.0030). At the time of the primary analysis (September 2014), patients had been followed for a median of 24.4 months (as estimated by the reverse Kaplan-Meier method). Here, after a median follow-up of 39.9 months, we provide updated survival information for patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial. Methods: In VALOR, patients with refractory or first relapsed AML were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m 2 IV over 2 h, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 IV over 10 min, d 1, 4; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] lasting Results:As of Jan 22, 2016, 33/451 patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial were alive and in continued follow-up: 23/226 (10.2%) in the vosaroxin/cytarabine arm and 10/225 (4.4%) in the placebo/cytarabine arm. Updated OS data in patients ≥ 60 years of age was consistent with the primary analysis, demonstrating a significant improvement with the addition of vosaroxin (Figure; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.91]; P = 0.0017). The survival benefit associated with vosaroxin/cytarabine was durable, as demonstrated by the separation of the survival curves through 48 mo . At 24 and 36 mo after randomization, the estimated survival rate was twice as high with vosaroxin/cytarabine as with placebo/cytarabine in patients ≥ 60 years (17.0% vs 8.5% and 12.8% vs 6.0%, respectively). The OS benefit was consistent across various age subgroups in the population ≥ 60 years of age; in patients 60-64 years (n = 124), 65-74 years (n = 293), and 75-84 years (n = 34), vosaroxin/cytarabine treatment increased median survival by 2.9 mo (8.1 vs 5.2 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.49-1.06]), 2.0 mo (7.0 vs 5.0 mo; HR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60-0.97]), and 2.2 mo (5.5 vs 3.3 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.36-1.45]) over placebo/cytarabine treatment, respectively. An improvement in OS was observed among patients ≥ 60 years who received post-treatment transplantation (n = 91; 19.9 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 12.2 mo with placebo/cytarbine; HR = 0.70 [95% CI: 0.43-1.13]) and those who did not (n = 360; 5.3 mo vs 3.8 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.60-0.92]). When analyzed by disease status, the greatest OS benefit was observed in patients ≥ 60 years with refractory disease (n = 210; 6.7 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 3.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.57-1.00]) and those with early relapse (n = 154; 6.5 mo vs 3.9 mo, respectively; HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.44-0.87]). In patients ≥ 60 years with late relapse (n = 87), median OS was similar in both treatment arms (9.2 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 9.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 1.06 [95% CI: 0.68-1.66]). Conclusions: After a median of 39.9 months of follow-up in the VALOR trial, the OS observed in patients ≥ 60 years of age treated with vosaroxin/cytarabine remains significantly improved versus placebo/cytarabine, with a separation of the survival curves through 48 months. The OS benefit is consistent among all older patients, even those ≥ 75 years of age, and is seen in patients with and without post-treatment transplantation. The updated survival data from VALOR continue to support the use of vosaroxin/cytarabine as a treatment option in patients ≥ 60 years of age with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi: BMS: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ritchie: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Arian: Speakers Bureau. Vey: Sunesis: Honoraria. Strickland: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Schiller: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Jabbour: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Erba: Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pigneux: Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Horst: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Agios: Consultancy; Amgen, Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Recher: Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis, Chugai: Research Funding. Cortes: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. Roboz: Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Craig: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ward: Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Employment. Smith: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stuart: Agios: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding.

  • Molecular and Pharmacologic Properties of the Anticancer Quinolone Derivative Vosaroxin: A New Therapeutic Agent for Acute Myeloid Leukemia
    Drugs, 2016
    Co-Authors: Gene C. Jamieson, Stephen A Strickland
    Abstract:

    Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that targets topoisomerase II and induces site-selective double-strand breaks in DNA, leading to tumor cell apoptosis. Vosaroxin has chemical and pharmacologic characteristics distinct from other topoisomerase II inhibitors due to its Quinolone scaffold. The efficacy and safety of vosaroxin in combination with cytarabine were evaluated in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in a phase III, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (VALOR). In this study, the addition of vosaroxin produced a 1.4-month improvement in median overall survival (OS; 7.5 months with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs. 6.1 months with placebo/cytarabine; hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.73−1.02; unstratified log-rank p $$=$$ = 0.061; stratified log-rank p $$=$$ = 0.024), with the greatest OS benefit observed in patients ≥60 years of age (7.1 vs. 5.0 months; HR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.62−0.92; p $$=$$ = 0.003) and patients with early relapse (6.7 vs. 5.2 months; HR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.59−1.00; p $$=$$ = 0.039), two AML patient groups that typically have poor prognosis. Here we review the chemical and pharmacologic properties of vosaroxin, how these properties are distinct from those of currently available topoisomerase II inhibitors, how they may contribute to the efficacy and safety profile observed in the VALOR trial, and the status of clinical development of vosaroxin for treatment of AML.

  • vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia valor a randomised controlled double blind multinational phase 3 study
    Lancet Oncology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Summary Background Safe and effective treatments are urgently needed for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative, plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Methods This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken at 101 international sites. Eligible patients with acute myeloid leukaemia were aged 18 years of age or older and had refractory disease or were in first relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle of anthracycline (or anthracenedione) plus cytarabine. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m 2 intravenously on days 1–5) or placebo plus cytarabine through a central interactive voice system with a permuted block procedure stratified by disease status, age, and geographical location. All participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival and the primary safety endpoint was 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191801. Findings Between Dec 17, 2010, and Sept 25, 2013, 711 patients were randomly assigned to vosaroxin plus cytarabine (n=356) or placebo plus cytarabine (n=355). At the final analysis, median overall survival was 7·5 months (95% CI 6·4–8·5) in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group and 6·1 months (5·2–7·1) in the placebo plus cytarabine group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·73–1·02; unstratified log-rank p=0·061; stratified p=0·024). A higher proportion of patients achieved complete remission in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group (107 [30%] of 356 patients vs 58 [16%] of 355 patients, p vs 23 [7%] of 350 in the placebo plus cytarabine group; 60-day: 70 [20%] vs 68 [19%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred at any time in 20 (6%) of 355 patients given vosaroxin plus cytarabine and in eight (2%) of 350 patients given placebo plus cytarabine. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 116 (33%) and 58 (17%) patients in each group, respectively. Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more frequent in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 [47%] vs 117 [33%]), neutropenia (66 [19%] vs 49 [14%]), stomatitis (54 [15%] vs 10 [3%]), hypokalaemia (52 [15%] vs 21 [6%]), bacteraemia (43 [12%] vs 16 [5%]), sepsis (42 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), and pneumonia (39 [11%] vs 26 [7%]). Interpretation Although there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups, the prespecified secondary analysis stratified by randomisation factors suggests that the addition of vosaroxin to cytarabine might be of clinical benefit to some patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Funding Sunesis Pharmaceuticals.

  • improved survival in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia aml treated with vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine results of a phase 3 double blind randomized controlled multinational study valor
    Blood, 2014
    Co-Authors: Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Despite 40 years of intense clinical research, there remain no new approved treatments or standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). New safe and effective salvage treatments are urgently needed. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML. Vosaroxin is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor–mediated efflux and has activity independent of p53 status. VALOR is a rigorously designed and conducted phase 3, adaptive design, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating vosaroxin plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) vs placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt) in patients with R/R AML (NCT01191801). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hr, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 IV over 10 min d 1 and 4; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Up to 2 induction and 2 consolidation cycles were administered. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] Results: Between Dec 2010 and Sept 2013, 711 patients were randomized to receive vos/cyt (n = 356) or pla/cyt (n = 355) at 124 sites; per the adaptive design, a prespecified 1-time sample size increase of 225 patients was implemented after the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.5) with vos/cyt vs 6.1 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) with pla/cyt (HR = 0.866 [95% CI: 0.73-1.02]; 2-sided unstratified log-rank P = 0.06) (Figure). The OS difference was statistically significant in a preplanned analysis accounting for the stratification factors at randomization (2-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.02). Overall, 29.5% of patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT), including 45.8% of patients Thirty-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was similar in the 2 arms (30-day: 7.9% vs 6.6%; 60-day: 19.7% vs 19.4% with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt, respectively). Most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (11.3% with vos/cyt vs 7.4% with pla/cyt), sepsis (8.7% vs 4.3%), pneumonia (7.6% vs 4.9%), bacteremia (8.5% vs 2.9%), and stomatitis (3.4% vs 1.4%). Serious and non-serious cardiac, renal, neurologic, and hepatic AEs were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Vos/cyt demonstrated improved OS and higher CR rates in patients with R/R AML without increased early mortality. In the primary OS analysis, the overall clinical benefit associated with vosaroxin may be underestimated, particularly in younger patients, due to the confounding effect of high transplant rates, a methodological limitation of AML trials. Vosaroxin-containing therapy had acceptable tolerability. VALOR results represent one of the largest datasets available in this setting, and the OS benefit was confirmed by a robust sensitivity analysis. These data support the use of this combination as a new option for salvage therapy in patients with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sayar:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy. Horst:Sunesis: Research Funding. Recher:Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Klimek:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Craig:Sunesis: Equity Ownership. Fox:Sunesis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Ward:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Acton:Sunesis: Consultancy. Mehta:Sunesis: Consultancy. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Ellen K Ritchie - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • phase 3 results for vosaroxin cytarabine in the subset of patients 60 years old with refractory early relapsed acute myeloid leukemia
    Haematologica, 2018
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Arnaud Pigneux, Hamid Sayar, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Heinz A Horst
    Abstract:

    Refractory/early relapsed (Ref/eRel) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients ≥60 years old is the most important unmet medical need in the salvage setting, where outcomes are exceptionally poor and no standard of care exists.[1][1] Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative

  • durable overall survival benefit in patients 60 years with relapsed or refractory aml treated with vosaroxin cytarabine vs placebo cytarabine updated results from the valor trial
    Blood, 2016
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Background: Prognosis for older patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is poor, with lower response rates and shorter survival compared with younger patients. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML, is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor-mediated efflux, and has activity independent of p53 status. In the phase 3 VALOR trial, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with vosaroxin plus cytarabine vs placebo plus cytarabine in a prespecified analysis in patients ≥ 60 years of age (median OS: 7.1 mo vs 5.0 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.92]; P = 0.0030). At the time of the primary analysis (September 2014), patients had been followed for a median of 24.4 months (as estimated by the reverse Kaplan-Meier method). Here, after a median follow-up of 39.9 months, we provide updated survival information for patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial. Methods: In VALOR, patients with refractory or first relapsed AML were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m 2 IV over 2 h, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 IV over 10 min, d 1, 4; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] lasting Results:As of Jan 22, 2016, 33/451 patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial were alive and in continued follow-up: 23/226 (10.2%) in the vosaroxin/cytarabine arm and 10/225 (4.4%) in the placebo/cytarabine arm. Updated OS data in patients ≥ 60 years of age was consistent with the primary analysis, demonstrating a significant improvement with the addition of vosaroxin (Figure; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.91]; P = 0.0017). The survival benefit associated with vosaroxin/cytarabine was durable, as demonstrated by the separation of the survival curves through 48 mo . At 24 and 36 mo after randomization, the estimated survival rate was twice as high with vosaroxin/cytarabine as with placebo/cytarabine in patients ≥ 60 years (17.0% vs 8.5% and 12.8% vs 6.0%, respectively). The OS benefit was consistent across various age subgroups in the population ≥ 60 years of age; in patients 60-64 years (n = 124), 65-74 years (n = 293), and 75-84 years (n = 34), vosaroxin/cytarabine treatment increased median survival by 2.9 mo (8.1 vs 5.2 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.49-1.06]), 2.0 mo (7.0 vs 5.0 mo; HR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60-0.97]), and 2.2 mo (5.5 vs 3.3 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.36-1.45]) over placebo/cytarabine treatment, respectively. An improvement in OS was observed among patients ≥ 60 years who received post-treatment transplantation (n = 91; 19.9 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 12.2 mo with placebo/cytarbine; HR = 0.70 [95% CI: 0.43-1.13]) and those who did not (n = 360; 5.3 mo vs 3.8 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.60-0.92]). When analyzed by disease status, the greatest OS benefit was observed in patients ≥ 60 years with refractory disease (n = 210; 6.7 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 3.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.57-1.00]) and those with early relapse (n = 154; 6.5 mo vs 3.9 mo, respectively; HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.44-0.87]). In patients ≥ 60 years with late relapse (n = 87), median OS was similar in both treatment arms (9.2 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 9.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 1.06 [95% CI: 0.68-1.66]). Conclusions: After a median of 39.9 months of follow-up in the VALOR trial, the OS observed in patients ≥ 60 years of age treated with vosaroxin/cytarabine remains significantly improved versus placebo/cytarabine, with a separation of the survival curves through 48 months. The OS benefit is consistent among all older patients, even those ≥ 75 years of age, and is seen in patients with and without post-treatment transplantation. The updated survival data from VALOR continue to support the use of vosaroxin/cytarabine as a treatment option in patients ≥ 60 years of age with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi: BMS: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ritchie: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Arian: Speakers Bureau. Vey: Sunesis: Honoraria. Strickland: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Schiller: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Jabbour: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Erba: Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pigneux: Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Horst: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Agios: Consultancy; Amgen, Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Recher: Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis, Chugai: Research Funding. Cortes: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. Roboz: Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Craig: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ward: Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Employment. Smith: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stuart: Agios: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding.

  • vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia valor a randomised controlled double blind multinational phase 3 study
    Lancet Oncology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Summary Background Safe and effective treatments are urgently needed for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative, plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Methods This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken at 101 international sites. Eligible patients with acute myeloid leukaemia were aged 18 years of age or older and had refractory disease or were in first relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle of anthracycline (or anthracenedione) plus cytarabine. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m 2 intravenously on days 1–5) or placebo plus cytarabine through a central interactive voice system with a permuted block procedure stratified by disease status, age, and geographical location. All participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival and the primary safety endpoint was 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191801. Findings Between Dec 17, 2010, and Sept 25, 2013, 711 patients were randomly assigned to vosaroxin plus cytarabine (n=356) or placebo plus cytarabine (n=355). At the final analysis, median overall survival was 7·5 months (95% CI 6·4–8·5) in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group and 6·1 months (5·2–7·1) in the placebo plus cytarabine group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·73–1·02; unstratified log-rank p=0·061; stratified p=0·024). A higher proportion of patients achieved complete remission in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group (107 [30%] of 356 patients vs 58 [16%] of 355 patients, p vs 23 [7%] of 350 in the placebo plus cytarabine group; 60-day: 70 [20%] vs 68 [19%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred at any time in 20 (6%) of 355 patients given vosaroxin plus cytarabine and in eight (2%) of 350 patients given placebo plus cytarabine. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 116 (33%) and 58 (17%) patients in each group, respectively. Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more frequent in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 [47%] vs 117 [33%]), neutropenia (66 [19%] vs 49 [14%]), stomatitis (54 [15%] vs 10 [3%]), hypokalaemia (52 [15%] vs 21 [6%]), bacteraemia (43 [12%] vs 16 [5%]), sepsis (42 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), and pneumonia (39 [11%] vs 26 [7%]). Interpretation Although there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups, the prespecified secondary analysis stratified by randomisation factors suggests that the addition of vosaroxin to cytarabine might be of clinical benefit to some patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Funding Sunesis Pharmaceuticals.

  • improved survival in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia aml treated with vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine results of a phase 3 double blind randomized controlled multinational study valor
    Blood, 2014
    Co-Authors: Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Despite 40 years of intense clinical research, there remain no new approved treatments or standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). New safe and effective salvage treatments are urgently needed. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML. Vosaroxin is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor–mediated efflux and has activity independent of p53 status. VALOR is a rigorously designed and conducted phase 3, adaptive design, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating vosaroxin plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) vs placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt) in patients with R/R AML (NCT01191801). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hr, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 IV over 10 min d 1 and 4; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Up to 2 induction and 2 consolidation cycles were administered. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] Results: Between Dec 2010 and Sept 2013, 711 patients were randomized to receive vos/cyt (n = 356) or pla/cyt (n = 355) at 124 sites; per the adaptive design, a prespecified 1-time sample size increase of 225 patients was implemented after the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.5) with vos/cyt vs 6.1 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) with pla/cyt (HR = 0.866 [95% CI: 0.73-1.02]; 2-sided unstratified log-rank P = 0.06) (Figure). The OS difference was statistically significant in a preplanned analysis accounting for the stratification factors at randomization (2-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.02). Overall, 29.5% of patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT), including 45.8% of patients Thirty-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was similar in the 2 arms (30-day: 7.9% vs 6.6%; 60-day: 19.7% vs 19.4% with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt, respectively). Most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (11.3% with vos/cyt vs 7.4% with pla/cyt), sepsis (8.7% vs 4.3%), pneumonia (7.6% vs 4.9%), bacteremia (8.5% vs 2.9%), and stomatitis (3.4% vs 1.4%). Serious and non-serious cardiac, renal, neurologic, and hepatic AEs were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Vos/cyt demonstrated improved OS and higher CR rates in patients with R/R AML without increased early mortality. In the primary OS analysis, the overall clinical benefit associated with vosaroxin may be underestimated, particularly in younger patients, due to the confounding effect of high transplant rates, a methodological limitation of AML trials. Vosaroxin-containing therapy had acceptable tolerability. VALOR results represent one of the largest datasets available in this setting, and the OS benefit was confirmed by a robust sensitivity analysis. These data support the use of this combination as a new option for salvage therapy in patients with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sayar:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy. Horst:Sunesis: Research Funding. Recher:Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Klimek:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Craig:Sunesis: Equity Ownership. Fox:Sunesis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Ward:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Acton:Sunesis: Consultancy. Mehta:Sunesis: Consultancy. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

  • improved survival in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia aml treated with vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine results of a phase 3 double blind randomized controlled multinational study valor
    Blood, 2014
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Despite 40 years of intense clinical research, there remain no new approved treatments or standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). New safe and effective salvage treatments are urgently needed. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML. Vosaroxin is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor–mediated efflux and has activity independent of p53 status. VALOR is a rigorously designed and conducted phase 3, adaptive design, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating vosaroxin plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) vs placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt) in patients with R/R AML (NCT01191801). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hr, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 IV over 10 min d 1 and 4; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Up to 2 induction and 2 consolidation cycles were administered. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] Results: Between Dec 2010 and Sept 2013, 711 patients were randomized to receive vos/cyt (n = 356) or pla/cyt (n = 355) at 124 sites; per the adaptive design, a prespecified 1-time sample size increase of 225 patients was implemented after the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.5) with vos/cyt vs 6.1 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) with pla/cyt (HR = 0.866 [95% CI: 0.73-1.02]; 2-sided unstratified log-rank P = 0.06) (Figure). The OS difference was statistically significant in a preplanned analysis accounting for the stratification factors at randomization (2-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.02). Overall, 29.5% of patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT), including 45.8% of patients Thirty-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was similar in the 2 arms (30-day: 7.9% vs 6.6%; 60-day: 19.7% vs 19.4% with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt, respectively). Most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (11.3% with vos/cyt vs 7.4% with pla/cyt), sepsis (8.7% vs 4.3%), pneumonia (7.6% vs 4.9%), bacteremia (8.5% vs 2.9%), and stomatitis (3.4% vs 1.4%). Serious and non-serious cardiac, renal, neurologic, and hepatic AEs were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Vos/cyt demonstrated improved OS and higher CR rates in patients with R/R AML without increased early mortality. In the primary OS analysis, the overall clinical benefit associated with vosaroxin may be underestimated, particularly in younger patients, due to the confounding effect of high transplant rates, a methodological limitation of AML trials. Vosaroxin-containing therapy had acceptable tolerability. VALOR results represent one of the largest datasets available in this setting, and the OS benefit was confirmed by a robust sensitivity analysis. These data support the use of this combination as a new option for salvage therapy in patients with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sayar:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy. Horst:Sunesis: Research Funding. Recher:Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Klimek:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Craig:Sunesis: Equity Ownership. Fox:Sunesis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Ward:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Acton:Sunesis: Consultancy. Mehta:Sunesis: Consultancy. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Jeffrey E. Lancet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • phase 3 results for vosaroxin cytarabine in the subset of patients 60 years old with refractory early relapsed acute myeloid leukemia
    Haematologica, 2018
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Arnaud Pigneux, Hamid Sayar, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Heinz A Horst
    Abstract:

    Refractory/early relapsed (Ref/eRel) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients ≥60 years old is the most important unmet medical need in the salvage setting, where outcomes are exceptionally poor and no standard of care exists.[1][1] Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative

  • durable overall survival benefit in patients 60 years with relapsed or refractory aml treated with vosaroxin cytarabine vs placebo cytarabine updated results from the valor trial
    Blood, 2016
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Background: Prognosis for older patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is poor, with lower response rates and shorter survival compared with younger patients. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML, is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor-mediated efflux, and has activity independent of p53 status. In the phase 3 VALOR trial, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with vosaroxin plus cytarabine vs placebo plus cytarabine in a prespecified analysis in patients ≥ 60 years of age (median OS: 7.1 mo vs 5.0 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.92]; P = 0.0030). At the time of the primary analysis (September 2014), patients had been followed for a median of 24.4 months (as estimated by the reverse Kaplan-Meier method). Here, after a median follow-up of 39.9 months, we provide updated survival information for patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial. Methods: In VALOR, patients with refractory or first relapsed AML were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m 2 IV over 2 h, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 IV over 10 min, d 1, 4; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] lasting Results:As of Jan 22, 2016, 33/451 patients ≥ 60 years treated in the VALOR trial were alive and in continued follow-up: 23/226 (10.2%) in the vosaroxin/cytarabine arm and 10/225 (4.4%) in the placebo/cytarabine arm. Updated OS data in patients ≥ 60 years of age was consistent with the primary analysis, demonstrating a significant improvement with the addition of vosaroxin (Figure; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.62-0.91]; P = 0.0017). The survival benefit associated with vosaroxin/cytarabine was durable, as demonstrated by the separation of the survival curves through 48 mo . At 24 and 36 mo after randomization, the estimated survival rate was twice as high with vosaroxin/cytarabine as with placebo/cytarabine in patients ≥ 60 years (17.0% vs 8.5% and 12.8% vs 6.0%, respectively). The OS benefit was consistent across various age subgroups in the population ≥ 60 years of age; in patients 60-64 years (n = 124), 65-74 years (n = 293), and 75-84 years (n = 34), vosaroxin/cytarabine treatment increased median survival by 2.9 mo (8.1 vs 5.2 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.49-1.06]), 2.0 mo (7.0 vs 5.0 mo; HR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60-0.97]), and 2.2 mo (5.5 vs 3.3 mo; HR = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.36-1.45]) over placebo/cytarabine treatment, respectively. An improvement in OS was observed among patients ≥ 60 years who received post-treatment transplantation (n = 91; 19.9 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 12.2 mo with placebo/cytarbine; HR = 0.70 [95% CI: 0.43-1.13]) and those who did not (n = 360; 5.3 mo vs 3.8 mo, respectively; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.60-0.92]). When analyzed by disease status, the greatest OS benefit was observed in patients ≥ 60 years with refractory disease (n = 210; 6.7 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 3.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.57-1.00]) and those with early relapse (n = 154; 6.5 mo vs 3.9 mo, respectively; HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.44-0.87]). In patients ≥ 60 years with late relapse (n = 87), median OS was similar in both treatment arms (9.2 mo with vosaroxin/cytarabine vs 9.8 mo with placebo/cytarabine; HR = 1.06 [95% CI: 0.68-1.66]). Conclusions: After a median of 39.9 months of follow-up in the VALOR trial, the OS observed in patients ≥ 60 years of age treated with vosaroxin/cytarabine remains significantly improved versus placebo/cytarabine, with a separation of the survival curves through 48 months. The OS benefit is consistent among all older patients, even those ≥ 75 years of age, and is seen in patients with and without post-treatment transplantation. The updated survival data from VALOR continue to support the use of vosaroxin/cytarabine as a treatment option in patients ≥ 60 years of age with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi: BMS: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ritchie: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Arian: Speakers Bureau. Vey: Sunesis: Honoraria. Strickland: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Schiller: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Jabbour: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Erba: Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pigneux: Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Horst: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Agios: Consultancy; Amgen, Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Recher: Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Sunesis, Amgen, Novartis, Chugai: Research Funding. Cortes: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. Roboz: Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Craig: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ward: Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Employment. Smith: Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stuart: Agios: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding.

  • vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia valor a randomised controlled double blind multinational phase 3 study
    Lancet Oncology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Summary Background Safe and effective treatments are urgently needed for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative, plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Methods This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken at 101 international sites. Eligible patients with acute myeloid leukaemia were aged 18 years of age or older and had refractory disease or were in first relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle of anthracycline (or anthracenedione) plus cytarabine. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to vosaroxin (90 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m 2 in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m 2 intravenously on days 1–5) or placebo plus cytarabine through a central interactive voice system with a permuted block procedure stratified by disease status, age, and geographical location. All participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival and the primary safety endpoint was 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191801. Findings Between Dec 17, 2010, and Sept 25, 2013, 711 patients were randomly assigned to vosaroxin plus cytarabine (n=356) or placebo plus cytarabine (n=355). At the final analysis, median overall survival was 7·5 months (95% CI 6·4–8·5) in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group and 6·1 months (5·2–7·1) in the placebo plus cytarabine group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·73–1·02; unstratified log-rank p=0·061; stratified p=0·024). A higher proportion of patients achieved complete remission in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group (107 [30%] of 356 patients vs 58 [16%] of 355 patients, p vs 23 [7%] of 350 in the placebo plus cytarabine group; 60-day: 70 [20%] vs 68 [19%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred at any time in 20 (6%) of 355 patients given vosaroxin plus cytarabine and in eight (2%) of 350 patients given placebo plus cytarabine. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 116 (33%) and 58 (17%) patients in each group, respectively. Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more frequent in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 [47%] vs 117 [33%]), neutropenia (66 [19%] vs 49 [14%]), stomatitis (54 [15%] vs 10 [3%]), hypokalaemia (52 [15%] vs 21 [6%]), bacteraemia (43 [12%] vs 16 [5%]), sepsis (42 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), and pneumonia (39 [11%] vs 26 [7%]). Interpretation Although there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups, the prespecified secondary analysis stratified by randomisation factors suggests that the addition of vosaroxin to cytarabine might be of clinical benefit to some patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. Funding Sunesis Pharmaceuticals.

  • improved survival in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia aml treated with vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine results of a phase 3 double blind randomized controlled multinational study valor
    Blood, 2014
    Co-Authors: Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Despite 40 years of intense clinical research, there remain no new approved treatments or standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). New safe and effective salvage treatments are urgently needed. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML. Vosaroxin is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor–mediated efflux and has activity independent of p53 status. VALOR is a rigorously designed and conducted phase 3, adaptive design, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating vosaroxin plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) vs placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt) in patients with R/R AML (NCT01191801). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hr, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 IV over 10 min d 1 and 4; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Up to 2 induction and 2 consolidation cycles were administered. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] Results: Between Dec 2010 and Sept 2013, 711 patients were randomized to receive vos/cyt (n = 356) or pla/cyt (n = 355) at 124 sites; per the adaptive design, a prespecified 1-time sample size increase of 225 patients was implemented after the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.5) with vos/cyt vs 6.1 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) with pla/cyt (HR = 0.866 [95% CI: 0.73-1.02]; 2-sided unstratified log-rank P = 0.06) (Figure). The OS difference was statistically significant in a preplanned analysis accounting for the stratification factors at randomization (2-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.02). Overall, 29.5% of patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT), including 45.8% of patients Thirty-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was similar in the 2 arms (30-day: 7.9% vs 6.6%; 60-day: 19.7% vs 19.4% with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt, respectively). Most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (11.3% with vos/cyt vs 7.4% with pla/cyt), sepsis (8.7% vs 4.3%), pneumonia (7.6% vs 4.9%), bacteremia (8.5% vs 2.9%), and stomatitis (3.4% vs 1.4%). Serious and non-serious cardiac, renal, neurologic, and hepatic AEs were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Vos/cyt demonstrated improved OS and higher CR rates in patients with R/R AML without increased early mortality. In the primary OS analysis, the overall clinical benefit associated with vosaroxin may be underestimated, particularly in younger patients, due to the confounding effect of high transplant rates, a methodological limitation of AML trials. Vosaroxin-containing therapy had acceptable tolerability. VALOR results represent one of the largest datasets available in this setting, and the OS benefit was confirmed by a robust sensitivity analysis. These data support the use of this combination as a new option for salvage therapy in patients with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sayar:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy. Horst:Sunesis: Research Funding. Recher:Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Klimek:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Craig:Sunesis: Equity Ownership. Fox:Sunesis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Ward:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Acton:Sunesis: Consultancy. Mehta:Sunesis: Consultancy. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

  • improved survival in patients with first relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia aml treated with vosaroxin plus cytarabine versus placebo plus cytarabine results of a phase 3 double blind randomized controlled multinational study valor
    Blood, 2014
    Co-Authors: Farhad Ravandi, Ellen K Ritchie, Gary J Schiller, Stephen A Strickland, Hamid Sayar, Harry P. Erba, Jeffrey E. Lancet, Michael Craig, Elias Jabbour, Arnaud Pigneux
    Abstract:

    Introduction: Despite 40 years of intense clinical research, there remain no new approved treatments or standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). New safe and effective salvage treatments are urgently needed. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer Quinolone Derivative that is active in AML. Vosaroxin is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptor–mediated efflux and has activity independent of p53 status. VALOR is a rigorously designed and conducted phase 3, adaptive design, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating vosaroxin plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) vs placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt) in patients with R/R AML (NCT01191801). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hr, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 IV over 10 min d 1 and 4; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Up to 2 induction and 2 consolidation cycles were administered. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] Results: Between Dec 2010 and Sept 2013, 711 patients were randomized to receive vos/cyt (n = 356) or pla/cyt (n = 355) at 124 sites; per the adaptive design, a prespecified 1-time sample size increase of 225 patients was implemented after the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.5) with vos/cyt vs 6.1 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) with pla/cyt (HR = 0.866 [95% CI: 0.73-1.02]; 2-sided unstratified log-rank P = 0.06) (Figure). The OS difference was statistically significant in a preplanned analysis accounting for the stratification factors at randomization (2-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.02). Overall, 29.5% of patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT), including 45.8% of patients Thirty-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was similar in the 2 arms (30-day: 7.9% vs 6.6%; 60-day: 19.7% vs 19.4% with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt, respectively). Most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (11.3% with vos/cyt vs 7.4% with pla/cyt), sepsis (8.7% vs 4.3%), pneumonia (7.6% vs 4.9%), bacteremia (8.5% vs 2.9%), and stomatitis (3.4% vs 1.4%). Serious and non-serious cardiac, renal, neurologic, and hepatic AEs were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Vos/cyt demonstrated improved OS and higher CR rates in patients with R/R AML without increased early mortality. In the primary OS analysis, the overall clinical benefit associated with vosaroxin may be underestimated, particularly in younger patients, due to the confounding effect of high transplant rates, a methodological limitation of AML trials. Vosaroxin-containing therapy had acceptable tolerability. VALOR results represent one of the largest datasets available in this setting, and the OS benefit was confirmed by a robust sensitivity analysis. These data support the use of this combination as a new option for salvage therapy in patients with R/R AML. Disclosures Ravandi:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sayar:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy. Horst:Sunesis: Research Funding. Recher:Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Klimek:Sunesis: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Craig:Sunesis: Equity Ownership. Fox:Sunesis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Ward:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Acton:Sunesis: Consultancy. Mehta:Sunesis: Consultancy. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Related terms

Quinolone Derivative - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts