The Acute Myeloid Leukemia Channel on VJHemOnc is an independent medical education platform, supported with funding from BMS (Silver), and through an educational grant from Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Supporters have no influence on the production of content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given.
SOHO 2024 | Responses to olutasidenib in patients with AML who have failed treatment with venetoclax
Jorge Cortes, MD, Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta, GA, discusses responses to olutasidenib in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) following venetoclax failure. He highlights that prior venetoclax exposure does not reduce the response to olutasidenib, with over a third showing durable responses lasting more than two years. This interview took place at the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO 2024) congress in Houston, TX.
These works are owned by Magdalen Medical Publishing (MMP) and are protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All rights are reserved.
Transcript
Well, the patients who’ve failed venetoclax, it’s an important subset of patients because the reality is nowadays most patients start with azacitidine and venetoclax, patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, because you don’t have to wait for mutations. And patients with IDH1 mutations respond very well to azacitidine-venetoclax, but it’s not curative. So this subset analysis shows that when you use olutasidenib after a patient has already received venetoclax and lost the response or didn’t respond, you get the same benefit as in patients that have never been treated with venetoclax, meaning it doesn’t reduce the possibility of responding to olutasidenib...
Well, the patients who’ve failed venetoclax, it’s an important subset of patients because the reality is nowadays most patients start with azacitidine and venetoclax, patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, because you don’t have to wait for mutations. And patients with IDH1 mutations respond very well to azacitidine-venetoclax, but it’s not curative. So this subset analysis shows that when you use olutasidenib after a patient has already received venetoclax and lost the response or didn’t respond, you get the same benefit as in patients that have never been treated with venetoclax, meaning it doesn’t reduce the possibility of responding to olutasidenib. We still see more than a third of patients responding, most of these responses are actually CRs, not just CRHs. They’re durable responses, very durable, more than two years duration of response. It’s a small subset of patients, but I think it’s a very important practical piece of information because that’s the reality of what we do. So it just gives us confidence that olutasidenib can work in that setting.
Read more...
