Background: Induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimen. However, many patients experience a relapse or exhibit refractory disease (R/R). There is an urgent need for more effective regimens to reverse anthracycline resistance in these patients. Methods: In this paper, Twenty-seven R/R AML patients with anthracycline resistance consecutively received chidamide in combination with anthracycline-based regimen as salvage therapy at the Chinese PLA General Hospital. Results: Of the 27 patients who had received one course of salvage therapy, 13 achieved a complete response and 1 achieved a partial response. We found that the HDAC3-AKT-P21-CDK2 signaling pathway was significantly upregulated in anthracycline-resistant AML cells compared to non-resistant cells. AML patients with higher levels of HDAC3 had lower event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates. Moreover, anthracycline-resistant AML cells are susceptible to chidamide, a histone deacetylase inhibitor which can inhibit cell proliferation, increase cell apoptosis and induce cell-cycle arrest in a time- and dose-dependent manner. Chidamide increases the sensitivity of anthracycline-resistant cells to anthracycline drugs, and these effects are associated with the inhibition of the HDAC3-AKT-P21-CDK2 signaling pathway. Conclusion: Chidamide can increase anthracycline drug sensitivity by inhibiting HDAC3-AKT-P21-CDK2 signaling pathway, thus demonstrating the potential for application.

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation after unmanipulated haploidentical stem cell transplantation (SCT) frequently occurs, causing life-threatening morbidities and transplantation failure. Pre-emptive therapy upon the detection of CMV viremia using antiviral agents is currently the standard of care but it was associated with significant toxicity. The CMV antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte therapy was limited by the time-consuming manufacture process and relatively low success rate. More effective and safer approaches for the treatment of CMV reactivation after haploidentical SCT are in urgent need. Methods: A single-arm, open-label, phase I clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of CMV-targeting T cell receptor-engineered T (CMV-TCR-T) cell therapy as the first-line pre-emptive therapy for patients with CMV reactivation after haploidentical peripheral blood SCT (PBSCT) was conducted in the Chinese PLA General Hospital. Six patients with CMV reactivation after haploidentical SCT were adoptively transferred by one to three doses of SCT donors-derived CMV-TCR-T cells. This trial was a dose-escalation study with doses ranging from 1×10³ CMV-TCR-T cells/kg body weight per dose to 5×10⁵ CMV-TCR-T cells/kg per dose. Results: Except for the grade 1 cytokine release syndrome observed in one patient and mild fever in two patients, no other adverse events were observed. Four patients had response within a month after CMV-TCR-T cell infusion without the administration of any antiviral agents. The other two patients who initially did not respond to CMV-TCR-T cell therapy had salvage ganciclovir and foscarnet administration and then had rapid CMV clearance. The CMV-TCR-T cells displayed overall robust expansion and persistence in the peripheral blood after infusion. The CMV-TCR-T cells were first detected in the peripheral blood of these patients 3–7 days after the first dose of CMV-TCR-T infusion, rapidly expanded and persisted for at least 1–4 months, providing long-term protection against CMV reactivation. In one patient, the CMV-TCR-T cells started to expand even when the anti-graft-versus-host disease reagents were still being used, further indicating the proliferation potential of CMV-TCR-T cells. Conclusions: Our study first showed CMV-TCR-T cell as a highly feasible, safe and effective first-line pre-emptive treatment for CMV reactivation after haploidentical PBSCT. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05140187).

The oncogenic fusion protein AML1-ETO retains the ability of AML1 to interact with the enhancer core DNA sequences, but blocks AML1-dependent transcription. Previous studies have shown that post-translational modification of AML1-ETO may play a role in its regulation. Here we report that AML1-ETO-positive patients, with high histone lysine methyltransferase Enhancer of zeste homolog 1 (EZH1) expression, show a worse overall survival than those with lower EZH1 expression. EZH1 knockdown impairs survival and proliferation of AML1-ETO-expressing cells in vitro and in vivo. We find that EZH1 WD domain binds to the AML1-ETO NHR1 domain and methylates AML1-ETO at lysine 43 (Lys43). This requires the EZH1 SET domain, which augments AML1-ETO-dependent repression of tumor suppressor genes. Loss of Lys43 methylation by point mutation or domain deletion impairs AML1-ETO-repressive activity. These findings highlight the role of EZH1 in non-histone lysine methylation, indicating that cooperation between AML1-ETO and EZH1 and AML1-ETO site-specific lysine methylation promote AML1-ETO transcriptional repression in leukemia.

Newly diagnosed patients with high-risk acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) often experience poor clinical outcomes and low complete remission rates. Ruxolitinib with corticosteroids showed promising efficacy in improving response and failure free survival in our phase I study. This study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04061876) sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of combining ruxolitinib (RUX, 5 mg/day) with corticosteroids (1 mg/kg/day methylprednisolone, RUX/steroids combined group) versus using methylprednisolone alone (2 mg/kg/day, steroids-only group). Newly diagnosed patients with intermediate- or high-risk aGVHD were included, with risk levels classified by either the Minnesota aGVHD Risk Score or biomarker assessment. Patients were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups: 99 patients received RUX combined with methylprednisolone, while the other 99 received methylprednisolone alone as the initial treatment. The RUX/steroids group showed a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) on day 28 (92.9%) compared to the steroids-only group (70.7%, Odds Ratio [OR] = 5.8; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 2.4–14.0; P < 0.001). Similarly, the ORR on day 56 was higher in the RUX/steroids group (85.9% vs. 46.5%; OR = 7.07; 95% CI, 3.36–15.75; P < 0.001). Additionally, the 18-month failure-free survival was significantly better in the RUX/steroids group (57.2%) compared to the steroids-only group (33.3%; Hazard Ratio = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.31–0.68; P < 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) frequencies were comparable between both groups, with the exception of fewer grade 4 AEs in the RUX/steroids group (26.3% vs. 50.5% P = 0.005). To our knowledge, this study is the first prospective, randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that adding ruxolitinib to the standard methylprednisolone regimen provides an effective and safe first-line treatment for newly diagnosed high-risk acute GVHD.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is one of the most aggressive hematopoietic malignancies. Patients still suffer from refractory/relapsed disease after anthracycline-based therapy, which leads to a poor prognosis. N⁶-Methyladenosine (m⁶A) is the most abundant post-transcriptional modification in eukaryotes, the imbalance of which is reported to be associated with various pathological processes, including drug resistance. However, the relationship between m⁶A modification and drug resistance has not been well defined in AML. In this study, we analyzed the sequencing data of HL60 and its Adriamycin-resistant cell line HL60/ADR. We found a total of 40,550 m⁶A-methylated peaks, representing 15,640 genes in HL60, and 38,834 m⁶A-methylated peaks, representing 15,285 genes in HL60/ADR. KEGG pathway analysis showed that pathways were enriched in the FoxO signaling pathway, p53 signaling pathway, and Notch signaling pathway. MeRIP-seq results showed that the fold enrichment of the global m⁶A level in HL60/ADR was higher than that in HL60, and dot blot assay results indicated that the global m⁶A level was elevated in HL60/ADR cells compared with that in HL60 cells. Further analysis revealed that the expression level of METTL3 was elevated in HL60/ADR cells compared with that in HL60 cells. After a combined treatment of STM2457 (an inhibitor of METTL3) and Adriamycin, the proliferation of HL60/ADR was inhibited. Thus, we hypothesized that the abnormality of m⁶A modification played an important role in Adriamycin-resistant AML.

Background: Ruxolitinib is newly approved for glucocorticoid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients undergoing allo-geneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), and voriconazole is commonly used in allo-HSCT recipients for the prophylaxis or treatment of invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Drug–drug interaction (DDI) may occur between them because their metabolic pathways overlap and can be inhibited by voriconazole, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozymes 3A4 and 2C9. Objective: In the present study, we aimed to investigate the DDI between ruxolitinib and voriconazole in patients with hematological malignancies. Methods: A total of 12 patients with hematologic malignancies were enrolled in this single-arm, single-center, Phase I/II, fixed sequence self-control study. All subjects received 5 mg ruxolitinib alone, followed by the co-administration of ruxolitinib and voriconazole. The plasma concentrations of the two drugs were determined by two well-validated high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods. Phoenix WinNonlin software was used to compare the differences in maximum plasma concentration (C_max), time to C_max (T_max), terminal elimination half-life (T_1/2), and apparent plasma clearance (CL/F), as well as area under the curve from time zero to last (AUC_last) and AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC_inf) between the two periods. Results: After pre-treatment with voriconazole, no significant change existed in T_max, while C_max, T_1/2, AUC_last, and AUC_inf of ruxolitinib were significantly increased by 50.4%, 81.3%, 110.1%, and 118.3%, respectively, and CL/F was significantly decreased to 43.6% compared with patients receiving ruxolitinib alone. Conclusion: Our findings confirmed a moderate inhibitory DDI between ruxolitinib and voriconazole as voriconazole decreased the elimination and increased the exposure of ruxolitinib in patients with hematologic malignancies. We recommended a dose reduction regimen when voriconazole and ruxolitinib were coadministered. Drug monitoring might help determine the ruxolitinib treatment concentration for aGVHD patients, improve efficacy, and reduce toxicity.