Personalizing Therapies With Ex Vivo Pharmacological Responses May Uncover The Differences Between IDA-DNR-MIT Among European AML Protocols
Authors: Montesinos Pau , Martinez David , Boyero Raimundo Garcia , Pérez de Oteyza Jaime , Fernandez Pascual , Serrano Josefina , Fernandez Angeles , Herrera Pilar , Alonso Arancha , Gonzalez Ataulfo , Bethancourt Concepcion , Lavilla Esperanza , Vera Juan Antonio , Navas Begoña , Rodriguez Gabriela , Lopez Juan Antonio , Bravo de Laguna Santiago Jimenez , Simiele Adriana , Gonzalez Bernardo , Hernandez Rivas Jose Angel , Cordoba Raul , Rayón Consolación , Burgaleta Carmen , Sierra Jordi , Troconiz Iñaki , Ortega Ignacio , Bosanquet Andrew G. , Primo Daniel , Hernandez-Campo Pilar , Gorrochategui Julian , Rojas Jose L. , Bennett Teresa A. , Liebana Belen , Lopez Rocio , Ballesteros Joan , Moscardo Federico , Sanz Miguel , Martínez Joaquín 
Published: October 2019

Abstract

Background and objectives
Protocols for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) 1st line patients are centered on the combination of Cytarabine and an anthracycline; Idarubicin (IDA), Daunorubicin (DNR), or Mitoxantrone (MIT). Patients may be treated with IDA, DNR, or MIT depending on the country of residence, because multiple clinical trials have not found significant differences among them. A new Personalized Medicine (PM) test developed by Vivia Biotech based on pharmacological responses in patient samples (ex vivo) is uncovering individual responses to these treatments. Our objective is to explore whether a significant % of individual patients may respond differently to IDA vs DNR vs MIT treatments, in spite that of their “on average” similar response shown by clinical trials.

Patients and Methods
Multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study of the PETHEMA group for treatment of AML. Bone Marrow (BM) samples were collected at diagnosis for 160 AML patients. Samples were incubated for 48 hours in 96-well plates, each well containing different drugs or drug combinations, each at 8 different concentrations, enabling calculation of dose response curves for each single drug (CYT, IDA, DNR, MIT) and combination used in treatments (CYT-IDA, CYT-DNR, CYT-MIT). Drug response was evaluated as depletion of AML malignant cells in each well after 48 hours incubations. Annexin V-FITC was used to quantify the ability of the drugs to induce apoptosis. Malignant cells were identified with monoclonal antibodies and light scatter properties. 1) We use the whole bone marrow sample, retaining the erythrocyte population and serum proteins, during the entire incubation period; and after 48 h leukocytes are isolated prior to evaluation by flow cytometry. 2) We have pioneered development of a proprietary automated flow cytometry platform called ExviTech. 3) Pharmacological responses are calculated using pharmacokinetic population models.

Results
Figure left panel shows dose responses for both IDA (red) and DNR (blue) in 125 AML patient samples. Although their average curves (thick red & blue) are similar, the interpatient variability of either drug is quite large. We hypothesized that some patients could show very differential sensitivities to both drugs, as illustrated by the green arrow where a patient sample is resistant to DNR (right shifted dose response curve) but sensitive to IDA (left shifted dose response curve). To identify these cases Figure right panel shows a comparison of the potency IDA vs DNR. Potency is represented by their EC50 (concentration that kills 50% of the cells). Most dots tend to line up, but red dots represent patient samples with a difference in potency between these drugs >30%. Repeating this exercise for IDA-MIT and DNR-MIT to cover all alternatives among the 3 anthracyclines identifies 40% of patients samples with >30% different potency among IDA-DNR-MIT. Repeating this exercise with the combination treatments CYT-IDA, CYT-DNR, CYT-MIT increases to 58% the population of patients whose samples have a differential sensitivity to these anthracyclines. A fraction of this 57% of patients may benefit in if treatment selection among these 3 treatments were to be aided by this ex vivo testing sensitivities. To identify which fraction would benefit we would need a trial specifically designed.

Conclusions
This preliminary results show that Vivia's PM test seems able to identify a subset of AML patients who's ex vivo pharmacological response to anthracycline drugs is significantly different. Because this ex vivo test accurately predicts the clinical response to CYT-IDA, if these selective anthracycline ex vivo responses translate to clinical responses, a fraction of this 57% subpopulation could benefit significantly from receiving 1st or 2nd line treatments based on either IDA, DNR, MIT, and their combinations. Hence this approach stands for European integration of treatment protocols, based on ex vivo individual responses data rather than nationality.

Disclosures:
Primo: Vivia Biotech: Employment. Hernandez-Campo:Vivia Biotech: Employment. Rojas:Vivia Biotech: Employment. Bennett:Vivia Biotech: Employment. Liebana:Vivia Biotech: Employment. Lopez:Vivia Biotech: Employment. Ballesteros:Vivia Biotech: Equity Ownership.