A Phase 1 Study of the Oral CDK9 Inhibitor Voruciclib in Combination with Venetoclax in Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Background: Venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents (HMA) or low dose cytarabine is the standard of care for patients (pts) with newly diagnosed AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. However, responses are transient, and loss of response is associated with poor outcome. The antiapoptotic protein Mcl-1 promotes cell survival in AML and its overexpression is associated with resistance to venetoclax. Voruciclib, a potent oral CDK9 inhibitor (CDK9i), indirectly decreases Mcl-1 protein expression, and has synergistic activity with venetoclax in AML preclinical models. In the initial part of this study in 40 pts with R/R AML and B-cell malignancies, voruciclib at doses up to 200 mg administered on days 1-14 in a 28-day cycle was well tolerated, had no dose limiting toxicities (DLTs), and showed biologic and clinical activity in heavily pretreated pts (Blood 2023:142; Supp 1:4286). We hypothesized that voruciclib in combination with venetoclax may achieve greater antileukemic effect.

Methods: Pts with R/R AML were eligible if aged ≥18 years, ECOG performance status ≤1, adequate organ function, and no prior CDK9i therapy. Dose escalation followed a 3+3 design, and DLTs were assessed in Cycle 1. Voruciclib was administered at 7 dose levels between 50 mg and 300 mg on days 1-14 of 28-day cycles. Venetoclax was administered at 200 mg on days 1-21 and 400 mg on days 22-28. Disease response was assessed by the 2017 ELN criteria. Mcl-1 protein expression and phosphorylation of RNA Pol II^Ser2 were evaluated in PBMC in cycle 1. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03547115).

Results: Enrollment in this portion of the study is complete with 41 pts. Median age was 67 years (range 34-89). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 2 (range 1-7), with 93% of pts having received venetoclax and HMAs, 51% having received an anthracycline, and 20% having had prior allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). 2017 ELN risk was adverse in 73% of pts and intermediate in 17%.

The median duration on therapy was 1.5 months (range 0.2 to 9+). No DLTs were observed, and based on PK/PD analysis, dose escalation was stopped at 300 mg without reaching the maximum tolerated dose. The most common adverse events (all grades/grade ≥3) were nausea (32%/0%), febrile neutropenia (27%/24%), dyspnea (22%/2%) diarrhea (22%/2%), hypokalemia (22%/5%) and thrombocytopenia (22%/20%). Seven pts died during treatment, 5 due to an infection and 2 due to hemorrhagic events.

Anti-leukemic activity was observed in 10 (31%) of 32 pts treated with voruciclib at doses from 100-300 mg; 2 pts had CRi (one referred to HSCT and one with 6 months of remission prior to progression), 1 pt had MLFS (ongoing at 9 months), and 7 pts had stable disease lasting ≥3 months. Among 25 pts with circulating peripheral blood blasts, 18 (75%) showed a significant reduction of circulating blasts by day 14 of the first cycle; however, circulating blasts increased again in 8 of 18 pts during single agent venetoclax administration on days 15 to 28.

Voruciclib pharmacokinetics (PK) was dose proportional. At 300 mg steady state, mean AUC_0-24 was 21,526 ng x hr/mL and mean C_trough was 644 ng/mL, exceeding concentrations needed for target inhibition in preclinical models. Voruciclib did not affect venetoclax PK. Pharmacodynamic studies including Mcl-1 protein expression and RNA Pol II^Ser2 phosphorylation in PBMC by flow cytometry showed on target effects and is reported separately.

Conclusion: The combination of voruciclib with venetoclax is well-tolerated and has activity in pts with AML and disease progression after venetoclax. Because of the rebound in peripheral blasts after 14 days off voruciclib, voruciclib administered on days 1-21 per cycle merits further evaluation.