Ziftomenib in Relapsed or Refractory NPM1-Mutated AML

Author(s): Eunice S. Wang, MD¹; Pau Montesinos, MD²; James Foran, MD³; Harry Erba, MD⁴; Eduardo Rodríguez-Arbolí, MD⁵; Kateryna Fedorov, MD⁶; Maël Heiblig, MD⁷; Florian H. Heidel, MD⁸; Jessica K. Altman, MD⁹; Maria R. Baer, MD¹⁰; Lionel Ades, MD¹¹; Kristen Pettit, MD¹²; Pierre Peterlin, MD¹³; Cristina Papayannidis, MD¹⁴; Céline Berthon, MD¹⁵; Roland B. Walter, MD¹⁶; Mithun V. Shah, MD, PhD¹⁷; Suresh Balasubramanian, MD¹⁸; Mohamad Khawandanah, MD¹⁹; Olga Salamero Garcia, MD²⁰; Julie Bergeron, MD²¹; Yazan F. Madanat, MD²²; Gail J. Roboz, MD²³; Matthew Ulrickson, MD²⁴; Robert L. Redner, MD²⁵; James McCloskey, MD²⁶; Arnaud Pigneux, MD²⁷; Adolfo de la Fuente Burguera, MD²⁸; Amitava Mitra, PhD²⁹; Harris S. Soifer, PhD²⁹; Marilyn Tabachri, BSN²⁹; Zijing Zhang, PhD²⁹; Marcie Riches, MD²⁹; Daniel Corum, PhD²⁹; Mollie Leoni, MD²⁹; Ghayas C. Issa, MD³⁰; Amir T. Fathi, MD³¹;

Source: DOI: 10.1200/JCO-25-01694

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

Ziftomenib 600 mg daily achieved a CR/CRh rate of 22% (61% MRD-negative among responders) and an overall response rate (ORR) of 33% in heavily pretreated R/R NPM1-mutated AML, with a median duration of response (DOR) of 4.6 months and median overall survival (OS) of 6.6 months (18.4 months in responders). Efficacy was consistent across subgroups, including prior venetoclax and FLT3/IDH co-mutations, and safety was manageable with on-target differentiation syndrome in 25% (15% grade 3; no grade 4–5), low myelosuppression, rare QTc prolongation (3%), and only 3% discontinuations for drug-related AEs. This non-cytotoxic, oral menin inhibitor offers meaningful activity in a high-risk population and is a practical option while we await combination data.

PURPOSE

Ziftomenib—a potent, highly selective, oral menin inhibitor—was well tolerated and demonstrated encouraging clinical activity as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory NPM1-mutated (NPM1-m) and KMT2A-rearranged AML in the KOMET-001 phase I trial.

METHODS

In the registration-enabling phase II part of KOMET-001, patients with relapsed/refractory NPM1-m AML received ziftomenib 600 mg once daily. The primary end point was the rate of complete remission with full hematologic recovery (CR)/CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh).

RESULTS

From January 26, 2023, to May 13, 2024, 92 patients (median age, 69 years [range, 33-84]) were treated. The primary end point was met, with a CR/CRh rate of 22% (95% CI, 14 to 32; P = .0058); 61% were negative for measurable residual disease. Overall response rate was 33% (95% CI, 23 to 43), with a median duration of 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 7.4). Prespecified subgroup analyses showed comparable CR/CRh regardless of previous therapy, including venetoclax, or type of comutations. Median overall survival was 6.6 months (95% CI, 3.6 to 8.6). Common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were febrile neutropenia (26%), anemia (20%), and thrombocytopenia (20%). Differentiation syndrome occurred in 25% of patients (15% grade 3; no grade 4-5) and was manageable with protocol-defined mitigation. Three patients (3%) discontinued treatment because of ziftomenib-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Ziftomenib demonstrated significant clinical benefit and deep responses in patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory NPM1-m AML. Ziftomenib was well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with previous studies, including manageable differentiation syndrome, lack of clinically significant QTc prolongation, and low rates of myelosuppression.

Author Affiliations

¹Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY; ²Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain; ³Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; ⁴Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; ⁵Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS/CSIC), University of Seville, Seville, Spain; ⁶Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; ⁷Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Lyon, France; ⁸Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; ⁹Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; ¹⁰University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; ¹¹Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France; ¹²University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; ¹³CHU de Nantes-Hôtel-Dieu, Nantes, France; ¹⁴IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Istituto di Ematologia “Seràgnoli”, Bologna, Italy; ¹⁵CHU Lille, Lille, France; ¹⁶Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA; ¹⁷Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; ¹⁸Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; ¹⁹University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma, OK; ²⁰Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron and Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Universitat Autonoma of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; ²¹Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montréal, QC, Canada; ²²University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; ²³Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY; ²⁴Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, AZ; ²⁵University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA; ²⁶Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ; ²⁷Bordeaux Haut-Leveque University Hospital, Pessac, France; ²⁸MD Anderson Cancer Center Madrid, Madrid, Spain; ²⁹Kura Oncology, Inc, San Diego, CA; ³⁰The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; ³¹Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Orca-T vs allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Precision-T): a multicenter, randomized phase 3 trial Open Access

This is an impressive advance in allo transplant, Orca-T cutting moderate–severe cGVHD dramatically (≈13% vs 44%) and nearly doubling cGVHD-free survival at 1 year (78% vs 38%) while also lowering NRM and serious infections is hard to ignore. Overall survival (OS) isn’t statistically different yet, but the combination of better disease control, less toxicity, and preserved immune reconstitution makes this feel like a meaningful step toward safer, more “engineered” transplants rather than just better immunosuppression.

Asciminib demonstrates superior efficacy and safety in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in the ASC4FIRST trial Open Access

This is starting to look like a real frontline disruptor in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), asciminib showing a pretty striking ~22% absolute improvement in MMR at 96 weeks vs investigator-selected TKIs (and nearly 30% over imatinib) with a cleaner tolerability profile makes a strong case for moving beyond ATP-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) upfront. The efficacy signal is consistent across depths of response and durability looks excellent, with fewer discontinuations, overall survival (OS) will take time, but this feels very competitive as a new standard option.

Fixed-Duration versus Continuous Treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

CLL17 shows that fixed‑duration venetoclax–obinutuzumab or venetoclax–ibrutinib is noninferior to continuous ibrutinib upfront, with 3‑year PFS ≈80% across all arms. The big difference is depth of response, undetectable MRD was 73% with venetoclax–obinutuzumab, 47% with venetoclax–ibrutinib, and 0% with ibrutinib. Toxicities tracked with mechanism (more cytopenias/infusion reactions with ven‑obinutuzumab, more cardiac events with ibrutinib). Overall, this strongly supports time‑limited therapy as a frontline standard for many chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients.

BRUIN CLL-313: Randomized Phase III Trial of Pirtobrutinib Versus Bendamustine Plus Rituximab in Untreated Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma

Pirtobrutinib demonstrated superiority over bendamustine rituximab in IRC assessed progression free survival (PFS) in treatment naïve CLL/SLL, with a 24 month PFS rate of 93.4% versus 70.7%. Overall survival trends favored pirtobrutinib, despite the study design allowing for crossover. Who would have thought this was coming????

Acalabrutinib treatment for older (aged ≥80 years) and/or frail patients with CLL: primary end point analysis of the CLL-Frail trial Open Access

Acalabrutinib in patients aged ≥80 years demonstrated 12-month progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of 93.3% and 95.7%, respectively, after a median follow-up of 19 months. Adverse events were severe but rarely included major bleeding or atrial fibrillation. Patient-reported quality of life improved, including amerlioration of frailty.