scholarly journals 354 Lenvatinib and pembrolizumab in advanced endometrial carcinoma (EC): long-term efficacy and safety update from a phase 1b/2 study

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A381-A381
Author(s):  
Vicky Makker ◽  
Carol Aghajanian ◽  
Allen Cohn ◽  
Margarita Romeo ◽  
Raquel Bratos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Efficacy Analysis ◽  
Phase 1B ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Cutoff Date

BackgroundLenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR 1–3, FGFR 1–4, PDGFRα, RET, and KIT. Pembrolizumab is an anti-programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody. We previously reported results from a cohort of 108 patients with metastatic EC (data cutoff date, January 10, 2019) who received lenvatinib + pembrolizumab as part of an ongoing multicenter, open-label, phase 1b/2 study evaluating the combination treatment in patients with selected solid tumors (NCT02501096). Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab showed a tolerable safety profile and promising antitumor activity per immune-related (ir) Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) by investigator assessment, including an objective response rate (ORR) of 38.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.7–48.7), median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7), and median overall survival (OS) of 16.7 months (95% CI, 15.0-not estimable).1 Here we present updated efficacy and safety data (data cutoff date: August 18, 2020).MethodsPatients included in the EC cohort had histologically confirmed, measurable metastatic EC and had received ≤2 prior chemotherapies (unless discussed with the sponsor). Patients received lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks). The phase 2 efficacy endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, and duration of response. Tumor assessments for primary and secondary endpoints were evaluated by investigators per irRECIST.ResultsThe 108 patients from the key efficacy analysis set for the previously reported results were all included in these updated analyses. Median follow-up duration for the study was 34.7 months. Efficacy outcomes are summarized in table 1. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 104 (96%) patients (94 [87%] grade ≤3, 10 [9%] grade ≥4). TRAEs led to study-drug interruption of 1 or both drugs in 80 (74.1%) patients and dose reductions of lenvatinib in 73 (67.6%) patients; 23 (21.3%) patients discontinued 1 or both drugs due to a TRAE. The most common grade ≥3 TRAEs were hypertension (33.3%), lipase increased (9.3%), fatigue (8.3%), and diarrhea (7.4%).Abstract 354 Table 1ConclusionsWith extended follow-up, our updated efficacy analysis continued to show clinical benefit in patients with metastatic EC who received lenvatinib + pembrolizumab. Moreover, the combination had a manageable safety profile that was generally consistent with the established safety profiles of the individual monotherapies. No new safety signals were detected. A phase 3 study of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician’s choice in advanced endometrial cancer further supports the lasting clinical benefits observed in our study.2Trial Registration www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02501096ReferencesMakker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2020;38(26):2981–2992.Makker V, Colombo N, Casado Herráez A, et al. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 study to compare Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the following ethics committees/institutional review boards (IRBs): Oregon Health & Sciences University IRB, IntegReview IRB, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center IRB, University of Pennsylvania Office of Regulatory Affairs IRB, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute IRB, The University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division IRB, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center IRB, Western IRB, Quorum Review IRB, US Oncology, Inc. IRB, CEIm - Comité de Ética de la Investigación con Medicamentos, Regional Komite for Medisinsk og Helsefagli Forskningsetikk, and REC - Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics. All participants gave informed consent before taking part in this study.ConsentNo identifying information is contained in this abstract so no permission from participants is considered necessary.

Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with high-risk (HR) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) unresponsive to Bacillus Calmette-Guérin: Extended follow-up of KEYNOTE-057 cohort A.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 451-451
Author(s):  
Arjun Vasant Balar ◽  
Ashish M. Kamat ◽  
Girish S. Kulkarni ◽  
Edward M. Uchio ◽  
Joost L. Boormans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Response ◽  
Disease Assessment ◽  
Intravesical Therapy ◽  
Bacillus Calmette Guerin ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Efficacy Analysis ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Cutoff Date

451 Background: Pembrolizumab (pembro) was approved in January 2020 for treatment of HR NMIBC based on interim results from 96 patients (pts) in the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II KEYNOTE-057 (NCT02625961) study. Here we present updated efficacy and safety results with extended minimum follow-up of 26.3 mo from KEYNOTE-057 cohort A. Methods: Pts aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive HR carcinoma in situ (CIS), with or without papillary tumors, who were ineligible for or declined radical cystectomy (RC) received pembro 200 mg Q3W for up to 24 mo or until disease persistence, recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point: complete response rate (CRR). Key secondary end points: duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results: Overall, 101 pts received pembro and 96 were included in the efficacy analysis (5 patients did not meet BCG-unresponsive criteria). Median age was 73 years (range, 44-92), and pts received a median of 12.0 (range, 7.0-45.0) BCG instillations. Median time from enrollment to data cutoff date of May 25, 2020, was 36.4 mo (range, 26.3-48.5). Of 96 pts, CRR was 40.6% (95% CI, 30.7-51.1) at first evaluable disease assessment, and median DOR was 16.2 mo (range, 0.0+ to 36.2). Of 39 responders, 13 (33.3%) remained in CR ≥18 mo and 9 (23.1%) remained in CR ≥24 mo as of the data cutoff date. No pt progressed to MIBC while on study treatment based on protocol-specified disease assessments. CRR was generally consistent with the primary analysis across protocol-prespecified subgroups, including PD-L1 expression status. Forty pts (41.7%) underwent RC after discontinuation of pembro; 35 pts (88%) had no pathologic upstaging to MIBC, 2 (5%) had no available pathology data, and 3 (8%) had evidence of MIBC (all nonresponders); 1 pt had pT2N0 disease at 60 days after the last pembro dose, 1 pt had pT2N1 disease (involvement of a single perivesical lymph node) at 86 days after the last pembro dose, and 1 pt had pT3N1 disease at 457 days after the last pembro dose. For other subsequent treatments, 30 of 96 pts (31.3%) received additional intravesical therapy (eg, BCG), 27 of 96 (28.1%) underwent local procedures (eg, TURBT), and 10 of 96 (10.4%) received systemic therapy. In 101 pts, treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 67 pts (66.3%); most frequent were diarrhea, fatigue, and pruritus (10.9% each). Grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 13 pts (12.9%). Twenty-two pts (21.8%) experienced immune-related AEs; 3.0% were grade 3-4. Seven pts (6.9%) discontinued due to TRAEs. There were no grade 5 TRAEs. Conclusions: With extended follow-up, pembro continued to show durable and clinically meaningful activity in pts who had HR BCG-unresponsive CIS with or without papillary tumors and who were ineligible for or declined RC. No new safety risks were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT02625961.

Phase 1b/2, open label, multicenter, study of the combination of SD-101 and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma who are naïve to anti-PD-1 therapy.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9534-9534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed M. Milhem ◽  
Georgina V. Long ◽  
Christopher J. Hoimes ◽  
Asim Amin ◽  
Christopher D. Lao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Stage ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Stage Iiic ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Unresectable Stage ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Phase 1B ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Post Hoc

9534 Background: SD-101 is a synthetic CpG TLR9 agonist. Pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor. SYNERGY-001/KEYNOTE-184 assesses the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of SD-101 and pembrolizumab in patients naïve to anti-PD-1/L1 therapy with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma. Methods: SD-101 was evaluated as 2 mg/lesion injected into 1 to 4 lesions and 8 mg/lesion in 1 lesion as 4 weekly doses followed by 7 doses Q3W. Pembrolizumab was administered as 200 mg IV Q3W. CT scans were performed every 9 weeks. Responses were assessed per investigator using RECIST v1.1. Responses and post-hoc Kaplan-Meier analyses of PFS in the ITT population were compared for patients who received 2 mg/lesion with 8 mg/lesion. Results: 86 patients (2 mg: N = 45; 8 mg: N = 41) have been enrolled with similar baseline characteristics: median age = 66 years; male = 67%; ECOG stage 0 = 67%; disease stage: IIIC = 21%; IVM1a/b = 50%; IVM1c = 28%; LDH ≤ ULN = 71%; treatment naïve = 73%. Median follow up to date is 8.1 months in 2 mg group and 8.3 months in 8 mg group. SD-101 safety profile comprises flu-like symptoms with most frequent grade ≥3 SD-101-related AEs of headache (7%), fatigue (7%), malaise (5%), myalgia (4%), and chills (4%). Immune-related AEs were reported in 19%. ORR in 2 mg group = 71% (95% CI: 57, 82) (CR: 13%) and in 8 mg group = 49% (95% CI: 33, 65) (CR: 7%) with responses in both injected and non-injected lesions, including visceral. DOR = not reached (NR) in either group. ORR by baseline PD-L1 expression in 62 patients, 53% of whom were PD-L1 positive: 2 mg = 80%/79% (PD-L1 positive/negative); 8 mg = 62%/40% (PD-L1 positive/negative). PFS was higher in 2 mg group with median PFS in 2 mg = NR (95% CI: Not estimable [NE], NE) and in 8 mg = 10.4 months (95% CI: 4.2, NE), HR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.98), p = 0.036. 6 month PFS rate in 2 mg = 81% and in 8 mg = 60%. 6 month OS rate in 2 mg = 98% and in 8 mg = 92%. Conclusions: The TLR9 innate immune stimulant, SD-101, in combination with pembrolizumab has been well-tolerated, and is showing promising high response rates and PFS, regardless of PD-L1 expression, particularly in patients who received 2 mg SD-101. Clinical trial information: NCT02521870.

Efficacy and safety of the randomized, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 study of subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV) daratumumab (DARA) administration in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): COLUMBA.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8005-8005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Hareth Nahi ◽  
Wojciech Legiec ◽  
Sebastian Grosicki ◽  
Vladimir Vorobyev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Duration ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Geometric Means ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Administration Time ◽  
Phase 1B ◽  
Common Teaes

8005 Background: In a phase 1b trial, a SC formulation of DARA with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20; ENHANZE drug delivery technology, Halozyme, Inc.) had adequate PK, low rates of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and similar efficacy to DARA IV. This phase 3 study compared the efficacy, PK, and safety of DARA SC vs IV in pts with RRMM. Methods: DARA SC (1,800 mg DARA + rHuPH20 [2,000 U/mL]) and DARA IV (16 mg/kg IV) were given weekly for C1-2 (28-day cycles), every 2 weeks for C3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter. DARA SC (15 mL) was given over 3-5 mins at alternating left/right abdominal sites. Pts (≥18 years) must have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOT), including a PI and an IMiD, or were double refractory. Co-primary endpoints were ORR (analyzed by Farrington-Manning test, with non-inferiority = 60% retention of ORR) and pre-dose C3D1 DARA Ctrough (non-inferiority = lower bound of 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means [GM] ≥80%). Results: 522 pts were randomized (n=263 SC; n=259 IV). Median age was 67 yrs. Median baseline body weight was 73 kg. Pts received a median of 4 LOT and 100% had received both PI and IMiD; 17% had high cytogenetic risk at baseline. Median follow-up was 7.5 mos. ORR was 41% for DARA SC and 37% for DARA IV. DARA SC retained at least 89% of the benefit of DARA IV (97.5% confidence). The ratio of GM of Ctrough for DARA SC over DARA IV was 108% (90% CI, 96%-122%). A significantly lower rate of IRRs was observed with DARA SC vs DARA IV (12.7% vs 34.5%; P<0.0001). Median duration of injection was 5 mins for DARA SC and median duration of infusion was 421/255/205 mins for the first/second/subsequent DARA IV infusions. Median PFS was 5.6 mos DARA SC vs 6.1 mos DARA IV (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.26). Most common TEAEs (≥15%) were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea. Primary reasons for treatment discontinuation included progressive disease (43% SC vs 44% IV) and AEs (7% SC vs 8% IV). Conclusions: Efficacy and PK co-primary endpoints were met, demonstrating non-inferiority of DARA SC to IV. DARA SC significantly decreased IRR rate and administration time, with a comparable safety profile to DARA IV. Clinical trial information: NCT03277105.

Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide (LEN) Versus Placebo (PBO) in RBC-Transfusion Dependent (TD) Patients (Pts) with IPSS Low/Intermediate (Int-1)-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) without Del(5q) and Unresponsive or Refractory to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs): Results from a Randomized Phase 3 Study (CC-5013-MDS-005)

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 409-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valeria Santini ◽  
Antonio Almeida ◽  
Aristoteles Giagounidis ◽  
Stephanie Gröpper ◽  
Anna Jonasova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Treatment options for RBC-TD pts with lower-risk MDS without del(5q) who are unresponsive or refractory to ESAs are very limited. In a previous phase 2 study, MDS-002 (CC-5013-MDS-002), LEN was associated with achievement of RBC-transfusion independence (TI) ≥ 56 days in 26% of pts with IPSS Low/Int-1-risk MDS without del(5q) (Raza et al. Blood 2008;111:86-93). This international phase 3 study (CC-5013-MDS-005) compared the efficacy and safety of LEN versus PBO in RBC-TD pts with IPSS Low/Int-1-risk MDS without del(5q) unresponsive or refractory to ESAs. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group phase 3 study included RBC-TD pts (≥ 2 units packed RBCs [pRBCs]/28 days in the 112 days immediately prior to randomization) with IPSS Low/Int-1-risk MDS without del(5q), who were unresponsive or refractory to ESAs (RBC-TD despite ESA treatment with adequate dose and duration, or serum erythropoietin [EPO] > 500 mU/mL). Pts were randomized 2:1 to oral LEN 10 mg once daily (5 mg for pts with creatinine clearance 40–60 mL/min) or PBO. Pts with RBC-TI ≥ 56 days or erythroid response by Day 168 continued double-blind treatment until erythroid relapse, disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was RBC-TI ≥ 56 days (defined as absence of any RBC transfusions during any 56 consecutive days). Secondary endpoints included time to RBC-TI, duration of RBC-TI, RBC-TI ≥ 168 days, progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML; WHO criteria), overall survival (OS), and safety. Baseline bone marrow gene expression profiles were evaluated according to the Ebert signature (PloS Med 2008;5:e35) identified as predictive of LEN response. Clinical trial identifier: CT01029262. Results: The intent-to-treat population comprises 239 pts (LEN, n = 160; PBO, n = 79). Baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups; median age 71 years (range 43–87), 67.8% male, and median time from diagnosis 2.6 years (range 0.1–29.6). Pts received a median of 3.0 pRBC units/28 days (range 1.5–9.8) and 83.7% received prior therapy, including ESAs (78.7%). Significantly more LEN pts achieved RBC-TI ≥ 56 days versus PBO (26.9% vs 2.5%; P < 0.001; Table). The majority (90%) of pts with RBC-TI ≥ 56 days responded within 16 weeks of treatment. Median duration of RBC-TI ≥ 56 days was 8.2 months (range 5.2–17.8). Baseline factors significantly associated with achievement of RBC-TI ≥ 56 days with LEN were: prior ESAs (vs no ESAs; P = 0.005), serum EPO ≤ 500 mU/mL (vs > 500 mU/mL; P = 0.015), < 4 pRBC units/28 days (vs ≥ 4 pRBC units/28 days; P = 0.036), and female sex (vs male; P = 0.035). RBC-TI ≥ 168 days was achieved in 17.5% and 0% of pts in the LEN and PBO groups, respectively. The incidence of AML progression (per 100 person-years) was 1.91 (95% CI 0.80–4.59) and 2.46 (95% CI 0.79–7.64) for LEN and PBO pts, respectively, with median follow-up 1.6 and 1.3 years. Death on treatment occurred in 2.5% of pts on either LEN or PBO. The follow-up period was insufficient to permit OS comparison between the 2 groups. Myelosuppression was the main adverse event (AE); in the LEN versus PBO groups, respectively, grade 3–4 neutropenia occurred in 61.9% versus 11.4% of pts, and grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in 35.6% versus 3.8% of pts. Discontinuations due to AEs were reported in 31.9% LEN and 11.4% PBO pts; among the 51 LEN pts who discontinued due to AEs, 14 discontinuations were due to thrombocytopenia and 8 due to neutropenia. In the subset of pts evaluated for the Ebert signature (n = 203), the predictive power of the signature was not confirmed. Conclusions: LEN therapy was associated with a significant achievement of RBC-TI ≥ 56 days in 26.9% of pts with a median duration of RBC-TI of 8.2 months; 90% of pts responded within 16 weeks of treatment. These data were consistent with response rates seen in the MDS-002 trial. The overall safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of LEN and these data suggest LEN can be safely and effectively used in this patient population. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Santini: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Trial of Lenalidomide in non-del5q MDS. Almeida:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Giagounidis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vey:Celgene: Honoraria. Mufti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Research Funding. Mittelman:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Shpilberg:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. del Canizo:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gattermann:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ozawa:Celgene: Consultancy, not specified Other. Zhong:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Séguy:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hoenekopp:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Beach:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fenaux:Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

A Phase 3 Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide Combined with Melphalan and Prednisone In Patients ≥ 65 Years with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM): Continuous Use of Lenalidomide Vs Fixed-Duration Regimens

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 622-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Michel Delforge ◽  
John Catalano ◽  
Roman Hajek ◽  
Martin Kropff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Fixed Duration ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 622 Background: Lenalidomide is an oral IMiD® compound with a dual mechanism of action, namely tumoricidal and immunomodulatory activity, and has proven efficacy in patients with MM. The current study (MM-015) is a prospective, randomized phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of continuous lenalidomide treatment (MPR-R: melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance) vs fixed-duration regimens of melphalan and prednisone (MP) or melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Methods: 459 patients aged ≥ 65 years with NDMM, stratified by age and International Staging System (ISS) stage were randomized to receive MPR-R, MPR, or MP. During double-blind treatment, patients received melphalan 0.18 mg/kg (D1-4), prednisone 2 mg/kg (D1-4), with or without lenalidomide 10 mg/day (D1-21) for nine 28-day cycles. Following 9 cycles of MPR, patients received maintenance lenalidomide (10 mg/day; D1-21) or placebo until progression; MP patients received placebo until progression. Patients with progressive disease (PD) could enroll in the open-label extension phase (OLEP) and receive lenalidomide at 25 mg/day (D1-21) with or without dexamethasone at 40 mg/day (D1-4, 9–12, and 17–20). The primary comparison for this trial was MPR-R vs MP. Updated data from a pre-planned interim analysis at 70% of events (median follow-up of 21 months) are presented. Results: MPR-R compared with MP resulted in a higher overall response rate (ORR; 77% vs 50%, P <.001) as well as higher rates of complete response (16% vs 4%, P < .001) and very good partial response (VGPR) or better (32% vs 12%, P < .001). Responses were more rapid in patients receiving MPR-R compared with MP (median 2 vs 3 months, P < .001), and improved over time. Overall, MPR-R reduced the risk of disease progression by 58% compared with MP (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.423, P < .001) with a higher 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate (55% vs 16%). PFS was extended in patients receiving continuous lenalidomide therapy vs fixed-duration MP regardless of gender, ISS stage (stage I/II vs III), kidney function (creatinine clearance ≥ 60 vs < 60 mL/min), or baseline β2-microglobulin (≤ 5.5 vs > 5.5 mg/L). A landmark analysis comparing MPR-R and MPR initiated at the beginning of cycle 10 demonstrated that maintenance lenalidomide resulted in a 69% reduced risk of progression compared with placebo (HR = 0.314, P < .001). In addition, regardless of induction response (≥ VGPR or PR), patients who received maintenance lenalidomide had longer PFS compared with placebo. Importantly, patients relapsing during MPR-R had similar second-line treatment duration (median 55 weeks) compared with those relapsing while on placebo following MPR or MP (median 68 and 54 weeks, respectively). Additionally, PD rates during the OLEP were similar across all treatments (13% for each). Thus, outcomes of patients who relapse following continuous lenalidomide are similar to those who relapse following fixed-duration regimens, suggesting maintenance lenalidomide is not associated with more aggressive relapse. Follow-up remains too short to identify significant overall survival differences between the 3 groups. MPR-R had a manageable safety profile with minimal cumulative toxicities. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) for patients treated with MPR-R and MP were 20% and 8%, respectively. Grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia occurred in 71%, 38%, and 24% of patients receiving MPR-R and 30%, 14%, and 17% of those receiving MP; no grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was observed. Importantly, maintenance lenalidomide was as well tolerated as placebo, with few grade 3/4 AEs. During maintenance, low rates of thrombocytopenia (3% vs 2%, respectively), neutropenia (2% vs 0%), deep vein thrombosis (1% vs 0%), and fatigue (1% vs 0%) were observed. Conclusions: MPR-R achieved a higher ORR, as well as better quality and more rapid responses vs MP. Furthermore, MPR-R compared with fixed-duration regimens of MP and MPR resulted in an unprecedented reduction in the risk of progression with a manageable safety profile, and similar rates of PD in subsequent OLEP treatment. These data suggest that continuous lenalidomide therapy with MPR-R is superior to regimens of limited duration by providing sustained disease control in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Disclosures: Palumbo: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for first line use in multiple myeloma. Delforge:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho-Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Catalano:Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel Grants. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Kropff:OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Yu:Celgene: Employment. Herbein:Celgene: Employment. Mei:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Gilteritinib Versus Salvage Chemotherapy for Relapsed/Refractory FLT3-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Phase 3, Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Trial in Asia

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 695-695
Author(s):  
Jianxiang Wang ◽  
Bin Jiang ◽  
Jian Li ◽  
Ligen Liu ◽  
Xin Du ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Salvage Chemotherapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Abstract Background: Due to poor prognosis, treatment options for patients with FLT3-mutated (FLT3mut+) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are refractory to therapy or have relapsed (R/R) are needed globally. Gilteritinib is approved in multiple countries, including Japan, and has recently received conditional approval in China for the treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML; in the phase 3 ADMIRAL trial, superior survival benefit and a favorable safety profile were shown for patients receiving gilteritinib compared to those receiving salvage chemotherapy (SC) (HR 0.64 [95% CI: 0.49, 0.83]; P&lt;0.001) in the R/R FLT3mut+ AML setting. While data from the Asian subpopulation of ADMIRAL have been evaluated, larger randomized, controlled trials of outcomes for treatments in a predominantly Asian population are lacking. Aim/Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety/tolerability of gilteritinib compared with SC in Asian patients with R/R FLT3mut+ AML after first-line therapy. Methods: In this phase 3, open-label, multicenter COMMODORE (NCT03182244) trial, adult patients in China, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia with R/R FLT3mut+ AML were randomized 1:1 to gilteritinib 120 mg orally per day or SC (low-dose cytarabine; mitoxantrone, etoposide, and intermediate-dose cytarabine; or fludarabine, high-dose cytarabine, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) over continuous 28-day cycles. Patients must have had an ECOG performance status score ≤2; those with acute promyelocytic leukemia, BCR-ABL-positive leukemia, clinically active central nervous system disease, or secondary AML were excluded. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and key secondary efficacy endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and complete remission (CR). Additional secondary endpoints included duration of remission, composite CR (CRc), and safety/tolerability. OS and EFS were analyzed with stratified Cox proportional hazard models, and response rates were analyzed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Results of the interim analysis are presented here. Results: As of June 30, 2020, a total of 234 patients were randomized (gilteritinib, n=116; SC, n=118). Median age was 51.5 and 49.5 years in the gilteritinib and SC groups, respectively; most patients had not previously received FLT3 inhibitors (87.9% and 93.2%, respectively). Baseline FLT3 mutations in the gilteritinib vs SC groups were: FLT3-ITD (91.4% vs 83.1%), FLT3-TKD (6.0% vs 11.9%), and both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-TKD (2.6% vs 5.1%). Median follow-up duration for OS was 11.1 months for gilteritinib and 6.9 months for SC. Median OS was significantly longer in the gilteritinib group (9.0 months) compared with the SC group (4.7 months; HR 0.549 [95% CI: 0.379, 0.795]; P=0.00126; Figure); 1-year survival rates were 33.3% and 23.2%, respectively. Patients on gilteritinib had significantly longer EFS than those receiving SC (median EFS 2.8 vs 0.6 months; HR 0.551 [95% CI: 0.395, 0.769]; P=0.00004). A higher proportion of patients achieved CR on gilteritinib (16.4%) compared with SC (10.2%; P=0.17690); CRc rates were 50.0% and 20.3% (P&lt;0.00001). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) in the gilteritinib (97.3%) vs SC (94.2%) groups were comparable; rates for serious AEs were higher for gilteritinib (73.5%) vs SC (61.5%). When adjusted for treatment exposure, AE rates were lower with gilteritinib (grade ≥3, 55.56 events/patient-year [E/PY]; serious, 6.19 E/PY) than with SC (grade ≥3, 164.00 E/PY; serious, 12.40 E/PY). The most common AEs occurring in the gilteritinib group were anemia (76.1%), thrombocytopenia (46.9%), pyrexia (41.6%), and increased blood lactate dehydrogenase (41.6%); for SC, the most common AEs were anemia (64.4%), decreased white blood cell count (41.3%), and thrombocytopenia (38.5%). AEs leading to death occurred in 22 (19.5%) and 15 (14.4%) of patients receiving gilteritinib or SC, respectively. Conclusions: Gilteritinib significantly prolonged OS and EFS compared with SC in patients with R/R FLT3mut+ AML in Asia. When adjusted for treatment exposure, safety/tolerability was favorable for gilteritinib compared with SC. The results of the COMMODORE trial further validate and affirm the clinical efficacy and safety data from the ADMIRAL trial, reinforcing the significant benefit of gilteritinib in R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: AbbVie: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Jiang: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Li: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Liu: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Du: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Jiang: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Hu: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Yuan: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Current Employment. Sakatani: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kadokura: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Current Employment. Takeuchi: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Current Employment. Izuka: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Current Employment. Girshova: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Tan: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Wong: Astellas Pharma, INc.: Research Funding. Khuhapinant: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Martynova: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding. Hasabou: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Current Employment. Tiu: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Current Employment.

Efficacy and safety of the combination of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) in patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastases (CheckMate 204).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9501-9501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hussein Abdul-Hassan Tawbi ◽  
Peter A. J. Forsyth ◽  
F. Stephen Hodi ◽  
Christopher D. Lao ◽  
Stergios J. Moschos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Neurologic Symptoms ◽  
Melanoma Brain Metastases ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Cutoff Date

9501 Background: We previously reported efficacy and safety of NIVO+IPI in patients (pts) with untreated, asymptomatic, melanoma brain metastases (MBM) from the CheckMate 204 study. Here, we provide the first report of NIVO+IPI in pts with symptomatic MBM, and report updated data in pts with asymptomatic MBM. Methods: In this phase II trial, pts with ≥1 measurable, nonirradiated MBM 0.5–3.0 cm were enrolled into two cohorts: (1) those with no neurologic symptoms or steroid Rx (asymptomatic; cohort A); and (2) those with neurologic symptoms, whether or not they were receiving steroid Rx (symptomatic; cohort B). In both cohorts, pts received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W × 4, then NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W until progression or toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (CBR; proportion of pts with complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] + stable disease [SD] ≥6 mo). As of the clinical cutoff date on May 1, 2018, all treated pts (101 in cohort A and 18 in cohort B) had been followed for ~6 mo or longer. Results: In this updated analysis of cohort A (median follow-up of 20.6 mo), the CBR was 58.4% (Table). In cohort B, pts received a median of 1 NIVO+IPI dose and 2 of 18 pts (11%) received all 4 doses. At a median follow-up of 5.2 months in cohort B, intracranial objective response rate was 16.7% and the CBR was 22.2%. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 54.5% of pts in cohort A and in 55.6% of pts in cohort B (6.9% and 16.7% in the nervous system, respectively), with one death related to treatment in cohort A (immune-related myocarditis). Conclusions: In pts with asymptomatic MBM, our updated results show a high rate of durable intracranial responses, further supporting NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment in this population. Intracranial antitumor activity was observed with NIVO+IPI in pts with symptomatic MBM, but further study is needed to understand the biologic mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy and to improve treatments in this challenging population. Clinical trial information: NCT02320058. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document