Format

Send to

Choose Destination
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 25;375(8):740-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509277. Epub 2016 Jun 12.

Inotuzumab Ozogamicin versus Standard Therapy for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

Author information

1
From the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (H.M.K.); the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston (D.J.D.), and Pfizer, Cambridge (E.V.) - both in Massachusetts; Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster (M.S.), and Goethe University, Frankfurt (N.G.) - both in Germany; Institute Seràgnoli, DIMES (Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy (G.M.); Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford (M.L.), and the University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange (S.O.) - both in California; the University of Chicago, Chicago (W.S.); Pfizer, Pearl River, NY (K.W.); Pfizer, Groton, CT (T.W., M.L.P., B.S.); and Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland (A.S.A.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The prognosis for adults with relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia is poor. We sought to determine whether inotuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, results in better outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia than does standard therapy.

METHODS:

In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia to receive either inotuzumab ozogamicin (inotuzumab ozogamicin group) or standard intensive chemotherapy (standard-therapy group). The primary end points were complete remission (including complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery) and overall survival.

RESULTS:

Of the 326 patients who underwent randomization, the first 218 (109 in each group) were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of complete remission. The rate of complete remission was significantly higher in the inotuzumab ozogamicin group than in the standard-therapy group (80.7% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 72.1 to 87.7] vs. 29.4% [95% CI, 21.0 to 38.8], P<0.001). Among the patients who had complete remission, a higher percentage in the inotuzumab ozogamicin group had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (0.01% marrow blasts) (78.4% vs. 28.1%, P<0.001); the duration of remission was longer in the inotuzumab ozogamicin group (median, 4.6 months [95% CI, 3.9 to 5.4] vs. 3.1 months [95% CI, 1.4 to 4.9]; hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.96]; P=0.03). In the survival analysis, which included all 326 patients, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the inotuzumab ozogamicin group (median, 5.0 months [95% CI, 3.7 to 5.6] vs. 1.8 months [95% CI, 1.5 to 2.2]; hazard ratio, 0.45 [97.5% CI, 0.34 to 0.61]; P<0.001); the median overall survival was 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 9.2) versus 6.7 months (95% CI, 4.9 to 8.3), and the hazard ratio was 0.77 (97.5% CI, 0.58 to 1.03) (P=0.04). In the safety population, the most frequent grade 3 or higher nonhematologic adverse events with inotuzumab ozogamicin were liver-related. Veno-occlusive liver disease of any grade occurred in 15 patients (11%) who received inotuzumab ozogamicin and in 1 patient (1%) who received standard therapy.

CONCLUSIONS:

The rate of complete remission was higher with inotuzumab ozogamicin than with standard therapy, and a higher percentage of patients in the inotuzumab ozogamicin group had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease. Both progression-free and overall survival were longer with inotuzumab ozogamicin. Veno-occlusive liver disease was a major adverse event associated with inotuzumab ozogamicin. (Funded by Pfizer; INO-VATE ALL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01564784.).

PMID:
27292104
PMCID:
PMC5594743
DOI:
10.1056/NEJMoa1509277
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center