Here’s a groundbreaking revelation that could reshape how we approach certain blood cancers: a recent clinical trial has uncovered a promising treatment for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), but it’s leaving acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients in a lurch. The combination of omacetaxine and venetoclax has shown remarkable benefits for MDS patients, yet it falls short for those battling AML, sparking a critical debate about its broader applications. But here’s where it gets controversial: could this disparity in outcomes mean we’ve been overlooking fundamental differences in how these cancers respond to treatment? Let’s dive in.
In a phase 1b/2 trial (NCT04874194), researchers explored the safety and efficacy of combining omacetaxine and venetoclax (Venclexta) in patients with relapsed/refractory AML and MDS, both carrying the RUNX1 mutation. The results were striking—while the treatment demonstrated clinical benefits for MDS patients, it failed to show statistically significant improvements for AML patients. This highlights the urgent need for further research to understand why these closely related conditions respond so differently.
The study enrolled 24 patients, with 22 diagnosed with AML and 2 with MDS. The median age was 72, and 71% were male. All participants had the RUNX1 mutation, with a median variant allele frequency of 41%. Interestingly, 5 patients had two RUNX1 mutations, and one had three distinct mutations, adding complexity to the genetic landscape.
Among the 21 patients evaluated for efficacy, 19 had AML and 2 had MDS. Neither of the AML patients responded to the treatment, while both MDS patients achieved complete responses—one with unilineage recovery and the other with bilineage recovery. This stark contrast raises questions: Is the RUNX1 mutation a more critical target in MDS than in AML, or are there other factors at play?
The median overall survival (OS) across all patients was 4 months, with a 1-year OS rate of 17%. Patients received a median of 1 cycle of treatment, which was generally well-tolerated. Common side effects included infections and fatigue, with no reported cases of tumor lysis syndrome. However, mortality rates at 30 and 60 days were 8% and 21%, respectively, all attributed to progressive AML. This underscores the aggressive nature of AML and the limitations of current treatments.
The dosing regimen involved 1.25 mg of omacetaxine daily for 3 days and 400 mg of venetoclax daily for 14 days. Co-occurring mutations were frequent, particularly in ASXL1 (46%), SRSF2 (33%), TET2 (33%), and PTPN11 (21%). Patients had a median of 5 mutations, including RUNX1, reflecting the genetic complexity of these diseases.
Most AML patients (64%) had secondary AML, either therapy-related or stemming from a prior hematologic neoplasm. The two MDS patients were classified as having excess blasts 1 and 2, respectively. All participants had received extensive prior treatment, with a median of 4 previous lines of therapy, emphasizing the challenge of managing these relapsed/refractory cases.
The study’s authors, led by DiNardo et al., noted that MDS cells with the RUNX1 mutation appear particularly sensitive to omacetaxine-mediated protein translation inhibition. This finding aligns with the positive responses observed in MDS patients. However, the lack of response in AML patients suggests that additional mechanisms may be at play in this more aggressive disease.
A follow-up phase 1 study (NCT04926285) is currently investigating venetoclax with escalating doses of omacetaxine in AML patients, aiming to address the gaps identified in this trial. The authors concluded that while omacetaxine-based combinations show promise for MDS, especially in RUNX1-mutated cases, their role in heavily pretreated AML patients remains uncertain.
But here’s the burning question: Could this treatment’s success in MDS pave the way for personalized therapies, or are we still missing key pieces of the puzzle? Share your thoughts in the comments—do you think this combination has untapped potential, or is it a dead end for AML? And what other factors should researchers consider in future trials?
Stay informed and join the conversation—subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates on practice-changing data in community oncology.
