Successful Treatment of MYC rearrangement Positive Large B Cell Lymphoma Patients with R-CHOP21 Plus Lenalidomide: Results of a Multicenter Phase II HOVON Trial

Abstract Background: Patients with MYC rearrangement positive large B cell lymphoma other than Burkitt lymphoma (MYC+ LBCL), have a dismal prognosis following standard first line therapy with R-CHOP. Retrospective studies report complete remission rates < 50% and 2-year overall survival (OS) of approximately 35%. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug and is able to down-regulate MYC and its target genes and proteins in B cells that harbor a MYC rearrangement. We report data of a prospective phase II study evaluating the efficacy of lenalidomide in combination with R-CHOP (R2CHOP) in newly diagnosed MYC+ LBCL patients. Methods: A national screening program for MYC rearrangement by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed in newly diagnosed LBCL patients. Patients with a proven MYC rearrangement, ≥ 18 year, Ann Arbor stage II-IV, were offered participation in a single arm phase II study. Treatment consisted of 6 cycles R-CHOP21 plus lenalidomide 15 mg on day 1-14, followed by two additional rituximab administrations. Use of G-CSF was mandatory. All patients received intrathecal methotrexate prophylaxis. 18F-FDG PET-CT (PET-CT) scans were performed at baseline, midterm (after 3 cycles) and end-of-treatment (EOT). Diagnostic lymphoma samples were centrally reviewed including immunohistochemical (IHC) work-up and complementary BCL2 and BCL6 FISH analysis. Cell of origin classification was determined by IHC (Hans) and by gene expression profiling (Lymph2Cx). The primary endpoint was complete metabolic response rate (CMR) on EOT PET-CT scan, according to the Deauville criteria and assessed by 2 independent nuclear medicine physicians performing central review. In case of discordance, a third adjudicator reviewed. Confirmation of bone marrow (BM) negativity at EOT for patients with positive BM at diagnosis was not required for CMR. Secondary endpoints included disease free survival (DFS), progression free survival (PFS), OS and predictive value of midterm PET-CT for EOT PET-CT scan. Data cut-off was July 4th 2018. Results: From April 2015 to February 2018, 85 patients were included at 20 hospitals. Planned interim analysis (after 26 consecutive patients completed treatment) revealed no safety concerns. At data cut-off, central data management, pathology and imaging review processes were completed for the first 60 patients. The remaining patients (60 to 85) are still on treatment or have recently finished treatment. Among the first 60 patients, 2 were declared ineligible, leaving 58 patients for this analysis (demographics and disease characteristics in table 1). Central pathology review confirmed diagnosis of MYC+ LBCL in all patients. Additional FISH analysis revealed that 41/58 patients (71%) had MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (double hit or triple hit), 11/58 (19%) had a single MYC rearrangement, 6/58 (10%) had a MYC rearrangement but no information on BCL2 and BCL6. At EOT PET-CT scan (primary endpoint), 36/58 patients (62%) were in CMR (95% confidence interval (CI) 50%-71%). 2/58 patients (3%) reached a partial metabolic response (PMR), and 20/58 patients (34%) had progressive disease (PD). At midterm PET-CT, 39/58 patients (67%) were in CMR; of these 29 were still in CMR and 10 showed PD at EOT PET-CT. 18/58 patients (31%) were in PMR at midterm; 7 of them converted to CMR, 2 remained in PMR, 9 showed PD at EOT. One patient went off protocol after two cycles due to progression. With a median follow-up of 17.2 months, 1-year estimates for OS were 79% (CI 66%-88%), for DFS 74% (CI 59%-85%), and for PFS 60% (CI 47%-72%). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AE) were seen in 26 (43%) respectively 9 patients (15%). Most common grade 3-4 AEs were gastrointestinal disorders, infections, and neutropenia. 55 serious AEs were reported in 27 patients (all hospitalization). 1 patient went off protocol due to grade 3 diarrhea. Univariate regression analyses revealed no significant prognostic factors for achieving CMR or prolonged survival yet. Conclusion: These data represent the first prospective trial worldwide for newly diagnosed MYC rearrangement positive LBCL patients. Treatment with R2CHOP demonstrates acceptable toxicity and promising efficacy with 62% CMR on centrally reviewed PET-CT scan and a 1-year OS rate of 79%. In December 2018, all 85 registered patients will have finished treatment and complete analysis of the primary endpoint and additional biological studies will be available. Disclosures Chamuleau: Gilead: Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Mous:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; JANSSEN CILAG: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lugtenburg:takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; servier: Consultancy, Research Funding; roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; GenMab: Research Funding. Kersten:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Carfilzomib Thalidomide and Dexamethasone Is Safe and Effective in the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: An Open Label Phase II Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG) MM 018/ Asian Myeloma Network (AMN) 002 Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-139174 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 39-40

Author(s):

Hang Quach ◽

Simon J Harrison ◽

Je-Jung Lee ◽

Nichloas Murphy ◽

Jae Hoon Lee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Research Funding ◽

Open Label ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Open Label Phase ◽

Grade 3

Background: The combination of carfilzomib with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and dexamethasone is active in multiple myeloma (MM). Carfilzomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (KTd) has been studied in upfront MM treatment but has not been studied in the setting of relapsed/refractory myeloma (RRMM). The ALLG MM018/ AMN002 is an open-label phase II study of KTd in patients with RRMM. This study was conducted across 16 sites across Australia, New-Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Method: Patients with RRMM with 1-3 prior lines of treatment were given carfilzomib [K: 20mg/m2 IV cycle 1 days 1 and 2, 56mg/m2 (36mg/m2 for patients age ≥75 years) from cycle 1 day 8 onwards], thalidomide (T: 100mg po nocte) and dexamethasone [dex: 40mg (20mg for patients age ≥75 years) po weekly], in a 28-day cycle. After 12 cycles, T was omitted, and K was given on days 1,2,15,16 and dex days 1,15 every 28-day cycles for a further six cycles. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were ORR, overall survival, adverse events, and quality of life (QoL). The study had an 80% power to detect a ≥70% PFS at 6.5 months compared to historical ≤50% PFS at 6.5 months expected with Td (Kropff, M. et al. Haematologica 2012), at a significance level of 0.05. Results: This study has completed accrual. Eighty-three patients [median age of 66 years (42-85)] were enrolled with a median follow up of 15.9 (0.9-26) months. ORR rates were 86.4% (≥VGPR 70.2%). Median PFS was 20m (95% CI 15.9-26m). PFS at 6.5 months was 76.2% (95% CI 73.6-84.9%). Median OS has not been reached, and was 75% at 20 months. The most common grade ≥3/4 AEs were peripheral neuropathy (16%), upper respiratory tract infections (12%), dyspnoea (14%), and hypertension (10%). Grade ≥3/4 cardiac AEs occurred in 6%. The median carfilzomib dose that was delivered was 70.7% (32.8-92.6%) of the target dose. Thus far, 41% of patients have completed the intended 18 cycles of treatment. 21% of patients ceased therapy early. The most common reason for early treatment cessation was disease progression (30%) and adverse events (15%). Fifteen patients (18%) have died, 11 were due to MM, two from infection, one from an ischaemic cardiac event, and one from a traffic accident. QoL, as measured by the EQ-5D-5L instrument, remained stable throughout treatment. Conclusion: The ALLG MM018/AMN 002 study has met its primary endpoint. The KTd schedule as outlined in this study is efficacious in patients with RRMM, resulting in a prolonged PFS and a safety profile in line with previous reports for each of carfilzomib and thalidomide. KTd is an active option in jurisdictions where the cost of other IMiDs prohibits regulatory funding. Comparisons of efficacy and adverse events between the Caucasian and Asian populations will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Quach: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Glaxo Kline Smith: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Harrison:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: wrt panobinostat; Haemalogix: Consultancy. Augustson:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Campbell:Amgen, Novartis, Roche, Janssen, Celgene (BMS): Research Funding; AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche, Amgen, CSL Behring, Novartis: Consultancy. Soo:Hanmi: Research Funding. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Zella 201: A Biomarker-Guided Phase II Study of Alvocidib Followed By Cytarabine and Mitoxantrone in MCL-1 Dependent Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-115018 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 30-30 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Joshua F Zeidner ◽

Tara L Lin ◽

Carlos E Vigil ◽

Andrew Dalovisio ◽

Eunice S. Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Research Funding ◽

Clinical Activity ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Frontline Therapy ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Stage 1

Abstract Background Multiple studies have shown the clinical activity of alvocidib followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone in newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML. Alvocidib's anti-leukemic pharmacologic activity appears to be predominantly due to the inhibition of transcriptional regulator, CDK9, resulting in suppression of CDK9-regulated genes, such as the BCL-2 family member, MCL-1. Pre-treatment bone marrow samples from newly diagnosed AML patients revealed an increased sensitivity to alvocidib in those with MCL-1 dependence of ≥40% as measured by a BH3 profiling biomarker assay (J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 suppl; 7062). Thus, we hypothesized that alvocidib, followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone, may be preferentially active in those with MCL-1 dependence (≥ 40%). Here, the findings from stage 1 of the Zella 201 trial in which this biomarker assay is used to select for patients with MCL-1 dependence, are reported. Aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alvocidib, in combination with cytarabine and mitoxantrone, in MCL-1 dependent R/R AML patients. Methods The key eligibility criteria were: ages 18-65 years; refractory to 1-2 cycles of induction therapy, or in first relapse AML with complete remission (CR) duration ≤ 2 years; ≥ 40% myeloblast MCL-1 dependency determined by BH3 profiling; ECOG PS 0-2; and no major organ dysfunction. Patients who received prior allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) were eligible, if it was greater than two months after SCT and there was no active GVHD. Treatment consisted of alvocidib 30 mg/m2 as a 30-minute IV bolus followed by 60 mg/m2 over 4 hours on Days 1-3, cytarabine 667 mg/m2/day by continuous IV infusion days 6-8, and mitoxantrone 40 mg/m2 IV on day 9 starting 12 hours after completing cytarabine. Up to 3 additional cycles of the same regimen (with or without mitoxantrone) were permittedin responders. The primary endpoint was the rate of CR+CR with incomplete recovery (CRi). Stage I was determined to be positive if ≥13 CRs were seenin the first 23 evaluable patients. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival, event-freesurvival, the combinedresponse rate and safety assessed by adverse events and laboratory results. Results A total of 163 patients were screened, of which 47 (29%) were determined to be MCL-1 dependent. Of these, 25 patients were enrolledin Stage 1 (Table 1), with 21 evaluable for response. Median MCL-1 dependence score was 55% (range: 41-98%). Of the 21 evaluable patients, 11 (52%) were refractory to frontline therapy (resistant disease or CR < 90d). The overall CR/CRi rate in evaluable patients was 62% (13/21) meeting the primary endpoint of stage 1. Seven out of 11 (64%) patients with primary refractory disease achieved a CR and five of these patients proceeded to an alloSCT. Overall, 10 patients received a post-study alloSCT. The most common NCI CTCAE ≥Grade 3treatment-emergent nonhematologic AEs noted in >1 patient in the safety population (n=25) were tumor lysis syndrome (20% Grade 3, 8% Grade 4); diarrhea (24% Grade 3); increased AST (12% Grade 3, 8% Grade 4), sepsis (16% Grade 5, 4% Grade 4); and peripheral edema, (8% Grade 3). To date, overall 30- and 60-day mortality rates were 16% and 20%, respectively, due to sepsis (n=4), and mitral valve rupture (n=1). Conclusion Our findings indicate that alvocidib given beforecytarabine and mitoxantrone in MCL-1-dependent AML has clinical activity, particularly in those refractory to frontline therapy. Given these findings, stage 2 of the Zella 201 trial has been initiated,randomizing patients to alvocidib, cytarabine, and mitoxantrone versus cytarabine and mitoxantrone alone in MCL-1 dependent R/R AML. Furthermore, a Phase Ib study of alvocidib followed by 7+3 induction in newly diagnosed AML (Zella 101) is being conducted. Disclosures Zeidner: Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Fees; Takeda: Other: Travel fees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Asystbio Laboratories: Consultancy; Tolero: Honoraria, Other: Travel Fees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Lin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Wang:Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Montesinos:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Anthony:Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Bearss:Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment.

Download Full-text

Bosutinib Vs Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) in the BFORE Trial: 18 Month Follow-up

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.896.896 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 896-896

Author(s):

Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini ◽

Michael W. Deininger ◽

Michael J. Mauro ◽

Charles Chuah ◽

Dong-Wook Kim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Research Funding ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: Bosutinib is a potent SRC/ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treatment of adults with CML resistant or intolerant to prior therapy. Here we compare the efficacy and safety of first-line bosutinib versus imatinib in patients with chronic phase (CP) CML enrolled in BFORE after ≥18 months of follow-up. Methods: BFORE (NCT02130557) is an ongoing, multinational, open label phase 3 study that randomized 536 patients 1:1 to 400 mg QD bosutinib (n=268) or 400 mg QD imatinib (n=268 [3 not treated]). The prespecified primary endpoint was major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as Philadelphia chromosome‒positive (Ph+) patients with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts, and excluding Ph- patients and those with unknown Ph status and/or BCR-ABL transcript type (mITT: BOS, n=246; IM, n=241). Efficacy results refer to the mITT population unless otherwise noted. Results: MMR rate was higher with bosutinib versus imatinib at 18 months (56.9% vs 47.7%; P=0.042). Among all randomized patients (ITT) 18-month MMR rates were higher for bosutinib (56.7% vs 46.6%; P <0.02). Earlier analyses (Table) showed complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rate by 12 months (77.2% vs 66.4%; P=0.0075) was significantly higher with bosutinib versus imatinib. Rates of BCR-ABL1 transcript ratio ≤10% (International Scale) at 3 months (75.2% vs 57.3%), as well as MR4 at 12 months (20.7% vs 12.0%) and MR4.5 at 12 months (8.1% vs 3.3%), were all higher with bosutinib versus imatinib (all P <0.025). By comparison at 18 months, rates of MR4 (24.4% vs 18.3%) and MR4.5 (11.4% vs 7.1%) were consistent with this trend. Also after ≥18 months follow-up, time to MMR (hazard ratio=1.36, based on cumulative incidence; P=0.0079) and time to CCyR (hazard ratio=1.33; P=0.0049) were shorter for bosutinib (Figure). Cumulative incidence of transformation to accelerated/blast phase disease at 18 months was 2.0% and 2.9% for bosutinb and imatinib, respectively, of which 2 bosutinib and 4 imatinib patients discontinued treatment due to transformation. Additional treatment discontinuations due to suboptimal response/treatment failure occurred in 11 (4.1%) and 35 (13.2%) of bosutinib and imatinib patients, respectively. Dose increases happened in 20% of bosutinib-treated and 31% of imatinib-treated pts There were 2 deaths and 9 deaths in the bosutinib and imatinib arms, respectively. One patient taking bosutinib died within 28 days of last dose, while 4 patients taking imatinib died with that period from last dose. Overall survival at 18 months was 99.6% vs. 96.6% for bosutinib and imatinib groups, respectively. Grade ≥3 diarrhea (8.2% vs 0.8%) and increased alanine (20.9% vs 1.5%) and aspartate (10.1% vs 1.9%) aminotransferase levels were more frequent with bosutinib. Cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and cerebrovascular events were infrequent in both arms (3.4%, 1.9%, and 0.4% bosutinib vs 0.0%, 1.1%, and 0.8% imatinib; grade ≥3: 1.5%, 0%, and 0.4% vs 0%, 0%, and 0.4%). There were no deaths in the bosutinib arm and 1 death in the imatinib arm due to treatment-emergent vascular events. Treatment discontinuations due to drug-related toxicity occurred in 15.3% and 9.4% of bosutinib and imatinib patients, respectively. Conclusion: After 18 months of follow-up,the MMR benefit seen with bosutinib over imatinib was sustained. These results are in line with observations at 12 months where patients taking bosutinib had significantly higher response rates (primary endpoint) and achieved responses sooner than those on imatinib. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profiles. These results suggest that bosutinib may be an important treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CP CML. Disclosures Gambacorti-Passerini: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Deininger: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, CTI BioPharma Corp, Gilead, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Blue Print, Galena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy. Mauro: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Chuah: Avillion: Honoraria; Chiltern: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Novartis: Honoraria. Kim: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Il-Yang: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Milojkovic: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria. le Coutre: BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Honoraria. García Gutiérrez: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Crescenzo: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Leip: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bardy-Bouxin: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hochhaus: Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Brümmendorf: Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cortes: Sun Pharma: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Prospective Pilot Study of Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Patients with Newly Diagnosed or Relapsed/Refractory POEMS Syndrome

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127366 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1846-1846

Author(s):

Angela Dispenzieri ◽

Michelle Mauermann ◽

Betsy Laplant ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

Ronald S. Go ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Research Funding ◽

Poems Syndrome ◽

Refractory Disease ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Impairment Score ◽

Grade 3

Background: POEMS syndrome is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome caused by an underlying plasma cell disorder. The combination of a proteasome inhibitor, an IMiD and corticosteroid is known to be highly effective among patients with myeloma. Methods: We conducted a pilot using a 28-day oral regimen of ixazomib (4 mg days 1, 8, 15), lenalidomide (25 mg days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22). Aspirin and acyclovir were used for prophylaxis. Eligibility included a diagnosis of POEMS syndrome, a plasma VEGF 2x normal, a PS < 3. There were two groups [gp] (intended enrollment 15 per gp): Gp 1, 3 cycles for pts destined for high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant; Gp 2, 13 cycles for patients (pts) who had relapsed or refractory disease. Primary endpoint was VEGF complete response (CR=normalization) after 3 cycles. Secondary endpoints included safety, hematologic response, and overall survival at 3 and 12 months. Other domains including PET response (50% reduction in sum of SUVmax from baseline), clinical responses including neurologic response were also studied. Neurologic assessments were done using the modified neurological impairment score (mNiS+7POEMS), the overall neuropathy limitation scale, and the polyneuropathy disability score. To date, 13 pts enrolled since 10/31/2016-4 to Gp 1 and 9 to Gp 2. 11 pts were analyzed (2 dropped out before receiving any therapy). Data were frozen as of 07/15/2019. Results: Median age was 55; 73% were male. Of the evaluable patients, three were newly diagnosed (Gp 1), and 8 had relapsed or refractory disease (Gp 2). 72% met primary endpoint of VEGF CR (Table). At 3 months, the following improvements were seen: VEGF, 10/11; hematologic, 1/3; PET 1/3; neurologic impairment score, 3/11. By 12-months according to the modified nerve impairment scale, 3/6 had achieved objective improvement and 2/6 stable disease. With a median follow-up of 16 months, 2 patients have died of progressive disease and another patient progressed on therapy (Gp 2) with an extravascular leak progression. 27% of patients had grade 3+hematologic AE; 81% had grade 3-4 non-hematologic AE. These included: rash, respiratory infection, diarrhea, and hypotension in 2 each; atrial fibrillation, edema, dyspnea, and thromboembolism in 1 each. 5 pts had non-objective worsening of their neuropathy. Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that Ixa-Len-Dex is an effective and tolerable regimen for patients with POEMS syndrome. Longer follow-up will be important to determine durability of this approach and for neurologic assessment given the slow rate of remyelination. Figure Disclosures Dispenzieri: Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding. Leung:Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Research Funding. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz:Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: No drugs approved for POEMS syndrome. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone

Download Full-text

Long Term Outcome of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Rd) Vs Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Vs Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) As Induction Followed By Lenalidomide-Prednisone (RP) Vs Lenalidomide (R) As Maintenance in a Community-Based Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Population: Updated Analysis of EMN01 Phase III Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.901.901 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 901-901

Author(s):

Sara Bringhen ◽

Massimo Offidani ◽

Pellegrino Musto ◽

Anna Marina Liberati ◽

Giulia Benevolo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Community Based ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

Abstract Introduction : Rd and MPR showed to be effective combinations in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). Cyclophosphamide is a less toxic alkylating alternative agent. EMN01 is the first trial to formally compare these three different Lenalidomide-based combinations. Maintenance with Lenalidomide has been recently approved in patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Few data are available about the best combination as maintenance in patients not eligible for ASCT. Methods : 662 pts with NDMM were randomized to receive 9 28-day cycles of Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those >75 years), MPR (lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in >75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days) or CPR (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day in >75 years pts; prednisone 25 mg every other day). After induction, pts were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (R; 10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (RP; R, 10 mg/day for 21 days and P, 25 mg every other day), until disease progression. Results : Pts characteristics were well balanced in all groups; 217 pts in Rd, 217 in MPR and 220 in CPR arms could be evaluated. After a median follow-up of 63.7 months, median PFS was 23.2 months in MPR, 18.9 months in CPR and 18.6 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.02; MPR vs Rd p=0.08). Median overall survival (OS) was 79.9 months in MPR, 69.4 months in CPR and 68.1 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.98; MPR vs Rd p=0.64). The most common grade ≥3 adverse event (AEs) was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR and 25% in Rd pts (p<0.0001). Grade ≥3 non hematologic AEs were similar among arms. At the end of induction, 402 pts were eligible for maintenance, 198 in the RP and 204 in the R groups. PFS from start of maintenance was 22.2 months in the RP group and 17.6 in the R group, with 20% reduced the risk of death/progression for pts receiving RP maintenance (HR 0.81, p=0.07; Figure 1). A subgroup analysis was performed to determine the consistency of RP vs R treatment effect in different subgroups using interaction terms between treatment and cytogenetic abnormalities, ISS, age, sex, induction treatment and response before maintenance (Figure 1). No difference in OS was observed (HR 1.02, p=0.93) but the OS analysis was limited by the low number of events. Median duration of maintenance was 23.0 months in RP pts and 20.5 months in R pts, 14% and 13% of pts discontinued due to AEs, in RP and R groups, respectively. Conclusion : This phase III trial compared 2 different Lenalidomide-containing induction regimens and 2 different Lenalidomide-containing maintenance regimens in an elderly community-based NDMM population. MPR prolonged PFS by approximately 5 months, yet the higher incidence of hematologic toxicity should be carefully considered. The addition of low-dose prednisone to standard lenalidomide maintenance reduced the risk of death/progression by 20%, with a good safety profile. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Bringhen: Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Karyipharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Musto: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Gaidano: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. De Sabbata: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Binding Site: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hájek: Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

PreVent-ACaLL Short-term combined acalabrutinib and venetoclax treatment of newly diagnosed patients with CLL at high risk of infection and/or early treatment, who do not fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria for treatment. A randomized study with extensive immune phenotyping

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-121907 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4304-4304

Author(s):

Caspar Da Cunha-Bang ◽

Rudy Agius ◽

Arnon P. Kater ◽

Mark-David Levin ◽

Anders Österborg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Severe Infection ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Risk Of Infection ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Educational Grant ◽

Travel Grant ◽

Grade 3

Background Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) have an increased risk of infections both prior to and upon treatment. Infections are the major cause of death for these patients, the 5-year incidence of severe infection prior to treatment is approximately 32 % with a 30-day mortality of 10 % (Andersen et al., Haematologica, 2018). Chemoimmunotherapy is still 1st line standard of treatment for patients without del17p or TP53 mutation despite association with neutropenia, immunesuppression and infections. The combination of BTK inhibitors and the bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax has demonstrated synergy in vitro and in vivo, while translational data indicate that the CLL-related immune dysfunction can be improved on treatment with reduced risk of infections. Employing the Machine-Learning based CLL treatment infection model (CLL-TIM) that we have developed, patients with a high (>65%) risk of infection and/or need of CLL treatment within 2 years of diagnosis can be identified (CLL-TIM.org). The significant morbidity and mortality due to infections in treatment-naïve CLL warrants trials that challenge the dogma of only treating symptomatic CLL. Thus, we initiated the randomized phase 2 PreVent-ACall trial of 12 weeks acalabrutinib + venetoclax to reduce risk of infections. Methods Design and statistics A phase 2, randomized, open label, multi-center clinical trial for newly diagnosed patients with CLL. Based on the CLL-TIM algorithm, patients with high risk of severe infection and/or treatment within 2 years from diagnosis can be identified. Approximately 20% of newly diagnosed CLL patients will fall into this high-risk group. First patient in trial planned for September 2019, primary outcome expected in 2021. Only patients identified as at high risk, who do not currently fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria are eligible. Patients will be randomized between observation in terms of watch&wait according to IWCLL guidelines or treatment. Primary endpoint Grade ≥3-Infection-free survival in the treatment arm compared to the observation arm after 24 weeks (12 weeks after end of treatment). Study treatment Acalabrutinib 100 mg BID from cycle 1 day 1 for 12 weeks. Venetoclax, ramp up during the first five weeks starting cycle 1 day 1, thereafter 400 mg once daily for a total of 12 weeks counted from cycle 1 day 1. Patients A sample size of 25 patients in each arm, 50 patients in total. Major inclusion criteria CLL according to IWCLL criteria ≤1 year prior to randomizationHigh risk of infection and/or progressive treatment within 2 years according to CLL-TIM algorithmIWCLL treatment indication not fulfilledAdequate bone marrow functionCreatinine clearance above 30 mL/min.ECOG performance status 0-2. Major exclusion criteria Prior CLL treatmentRichter's transformationPrevious autoimmune disease treated with immune suppressionMalignancies other than CLL requiring systemic therapies or considered to impact survivalRequirement of therapy with strong CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 inhibitors/inducers or anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonistsHistory of bleeding disorders, current platelet inhibitors / anticoagulant therapyHistory of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage within 6 months Trial registry number EUDRACT NUMBER: 2019-000270-29 Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT03868722 Perspectives: As infections is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with CLL prior to any treatment, we aim at changing the natural history of immune dysfunction in CLL. The PreVent-ACaLL trial includes an optional extension into a phase 3 part with the primary outcome of grade ≥3 infection-free, CLL treatment-free survival two years after enrollment to address the unmet need of improved immune function in CLL for the first time. Figure Disclosures Da Cunha-Bang: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Grant; Roche: Other: Travel Grant. Levin:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant ; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant . Österborg:BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Kancera AB: Research Funding. Niemann:Novo Nordisk Foundation: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel grant; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: acalabrutinib and venetoclax in combination for CLL.

Download Full-text

Superiority of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone Versus Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as Initial Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.3884.3884 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 3884-3884

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

Suzanne Hayman ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

Francis Buadi ◽

Morie A Gertz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Initial Therapy ◽

High Dose ◽

Toxicity Profile ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3884 Poster Board III-820 Background and Objective Thalidomide/dexamethasone (thal/dex) combination has shown high activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar SV. at al, J Clin Oncol 2006;24:431-436). In newly diagnosed patients, lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) has demonstrated superiority compared with high-dose dexamethasone alone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Although both thal/dex and len/dex are active in newly diagnosed MM, no randomized trial has been reported comparing these two regimens, and unfortunately none are ongoing or planned. We compared the efficacy and the toxicity of thal/dex and len/dex as primary therapy in 411 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the Mayo Clinic. Patients and methods 411 consecutive patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2008, who received induction with thal/dex (n=183) or len/dex (n=288) were retrospectively studied. Thalidomide was given at a dose ranging from 100 mg/day to 400 mg/day continuously; the lenalidomide dose was 25 mg/day, days 1-21 on a 28-day cycle. All patients received dexamethasone, either at high-dose (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20) or at low-dose (40 mg orally day 1, 8, 15, 22); each cycle was repeated every 4 weeks. In addition, a case-matched subgroup analysis that adjusted for age, gender and transplantation status was performed among patients who received high-dose dexamethasone comparing the thal/dex (n=72) and len/dex (n=72) groups. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and all comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and by the Cox proportional hazards model. Results On intention-to-treat analysis, of 411 patients, 80.3% versus 61.2% patients, respectively in the len/dex group and in the thal/dex group (p < 0.001), achieved at least a partial response. A significant difference between the 2 groups was found in terms of both very good partial response or better (34.2% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001) and complete response rate (13.6% vs 3.3%, p < 0.001). Duration of therapy was significantly longer in len/dex patients as compared to thal/dex patients: 36.7% vs 12.6% of patients who did not stop treatment to receive SCT were still receiving therapy at 1 year (p < 0.001).Time-to-progression was significantly better in the len/dex group than in patients receiving thal/dex (median 27.4 vs 17.2 months, HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p = 0.019). Similarly, progression-free-survival was significantly higher in len/dex patients (median 26.7 vs 17.1 months, HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98; p = 0.036). This translated into an increase in overall survival (OS) (median not reached for len/dex group compared to 57.2 months in thal/dex patients, HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.018). Survival advantages were evident in patients presenting with International Staging System Stage (ISS) I/II (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.00; p = 0.052) at diagnosis but not in patients with ISS stage III in subgroup analysis. There was a trend toward better OS in len/dex group compared to thal/dex group both for patients who underwent transplant and for patients who did not. A similar rate of patients experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event (57.5% vs 54.6% in len/dex and thal/dex groups, respectively, p = 0.568). However, the toxicity profile was different in the two groups: major grade 3-4 toxicities of len/dex were hematological, in particular neutropenia (14% with len/dex vs 0.6% with thal/dex, p<0.001) while the most common toxicities in thal/dex were venous thromboembolism (15.3% vs 9.2%, p = 0.058) and peripheral neuropathy (10.4% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001). The data on efficacy and safety shown above were also confirmed in the subgroup case-matched analysis which included only high-dose dexamethasone patients. Conclusions This cohort study shows the superiority of len/dex in terms of response rates and survival, compared to thal/dex. The toxicity profile of the 2 regimens is different and len/dex treatment, although more active, was not associated with increased toxicity (grade 3-4 AEs). These data need to be carefully evaluated and randomized prospective phase III studies are necessary to confirm these results and determine the optimal initial therapy for MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drugs in combination to standard care. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Bergsagel:amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; merck: Research Funding; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

ENESTxtnd: Impact Of Nilotinib Dose Re-Escalation In Patients (pts) With Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.4009.4009 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 4009-4009

Author(s):

Jeff H. Lipton ◽

Luis Meillon ◽

Vernon Louw ◽

Carolina Pavlovsky ◽

Lee-Yung Shih ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Dose Intensity ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Study Dose ◽

Dose Reductions

Abstract Background Frontline nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID) provides superior efficacy vs imatinib in pts with CML-CP, with good tolerability. Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials—Extending Molecular Reponses (ENESTxtnd) is evaluating the kinetics of molecular response to frontline nilotinib 300 mg BID in pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP, as assessed in national and local laboratories, and is also the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nilotinib dose optimization (including dose re-escalation in pts who require dose reductions due to adverse events [AEs] and dose increase in pts with less than optimal response). Here, we present results of a preplanned, interim analysis (IA) based on the first 20% of pts who completed 12 mo of treatment or discontinued early. Methods ENESTxtnd (NCT01254188) is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3b clinical trial of nilotinib 300 mg BID in adults with CML-CP newly diagnosed within 6 mo of study entry. The primary endpoint is rate of MMR by 12 mo. Molecular responses were monitored by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR) at local laboratories at baseline, at 1, 2, and 3 mo, and every 3 mo thereafter. Bone marrow cytogenetic analyses were performed locally at baseline, 6 mo, and end of study. Dose reductions were allowed for grade ≥ 2 nonhematologic AEs and grade 3/4 hematologic AEs. Pts with dose reductions could attempt to re-escalate (successful re-escalation defined as ≥ 4 wk on nilotinib 300 mg BID with no dose adjustments for any AE) and remain on study. Dose increase to nilotinib 400 mg BID was allowed in cases of BCR-ABL > 10% on the International Scale (BCR-ABLIS) at 3 mo or later, no major molecular response (MMR; BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.1%) at 12 mo, loss of MMR, or treatment failure. Results This IA includes 85 pts treated in 12 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Lebanon, Mexico, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Taiwan, and South Africa). Median age was 49 y (range, 19-85 y), and 58% of pts were male. Median time since diagnosis was 35 days (range, 2-157 days). Prior to study entry, 64 pts (75%) received hydroxyurea, and 3 pts (4%) received imatinib (all for ≤ 2 wk). At the data cutoff, 68 pts (80%) had treatment ongoing, and the remaining 17 had discontinued due to AEs/laboratory abnormalities (n = 8; nonhematologic AEs [n = 5], biochemical abnormalities [n = 2], and hematologic abnormalities [n = 1]), loss to follow-up (n = 2), administrative problems (n = 2), intolerance to the protocol-proposed dose (n = 2), suboptimal response (n = 1), withdrawal of consent (n = 1), or protocol deviation (n = 1). Median time on treatment was 13.8 mo (range, 1 day-18 mo). Median actual dose intensity of nilotinib was 597 mg/day (range, 165-756 mg/day), and 85% of pts had an actual dose intensity of > 400 mg/day to ≤ 600 mg/day. Of 30 pts with dose reductions due to AEs, 19 (63%) successfully re-escalated to nilotinib 300 mg BID. Nine pts (11%) dose escalated to nilotinib 400 mg BID due to lack of efficacy. The primary endpoint of MMR by 12 mo was achieved by 57 pts (67%; 99.89% CI, 49%-82%). Complete cytogenetic response by 6 mo was achieved by 48 pts (56%). Median BCR-ABLIS decreased over time, with a median value of 0.05% (range, 0.00%-41.36%) at 12 mo (Figure). Most pts (91%) achieved early molecular response (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 10% at 3 mo). Of the 8 pts (9%) with BCR-ABLIS > 10% at 3 mo (4 of whom were then dose escalated), 3 achieved MMR by 12 mo (1 of whom had been dose escalated). By the data cutoff, no pt had progressed to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and there had been no deaths on study. Nilotinib was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen in other frontline studies. Drug-related nonhematologic AEs (≥ 10% of pts) were rash (31%), constipation (13%), and headache (13%). Newly occurring or worsening grade 3/4 hematologic or biochemical abnormalities (≥ 10% of pts) were neutropenia (17%), thrombocytopenia (17%), increased lipase (13%), and increased bilirubin (12%). Conclusions These results demonstrate that dose-optimized nilotinib affords high rates of molecular response in pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Further, they support the feasibility of nilotinib dose re-escalation in pts who require temporary dose reductions due to AEs, with 63% of dose-reduced pts able to successfully re-escalate to nilotinib 300 mg BID and safely continue therapy. Disclosures: Lipton: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Meillon:Bayer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Louw:Novartis: Congress attendance support Other, Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Congress attendance support, Congress attendance support Other, Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Pavlovsky:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Jin:Novartis: Employment. Acharya:Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.: Employment. Woodman:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hughes:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL: Research Funding. Turkina:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

A Phase III Study Of ASCT Vs Cyclophosphamide-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone and Lenalidomide-Prednisone Maintenance Vs Lenalidomide Alone In Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.763.763 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 763-763 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Antonio Palumbo ◽

Francesca Gay ◽

Andrew Spencer ◽

Francesco Di Raimondo ◽

Adam Zdenek ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Study Endpoint ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

Abstract Background High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves survival in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents challenged the role of ASCT at diagnosis. We conducted a multicenter 2X2 randomized trial comparing conventional chemotherapy plus lenalidomide with ASCT followed by maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone (RP) or lenalidomide (R) alone in newly diagnosed young MM (NDMM) patients. Methods Eligible patients with NDMM ≤ 65 years were enrolled. All patients received Rd induction (four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg day 1–21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg day 1,8,15,22) followed by stem cell mobilization. Patients were randomized to receive consolidation with CRD [six 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 day 1,8,15), dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) and lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21)] or MEL200-ASCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support). Patients were randomly assigned to receive subsequent maintenance with RP (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21 plus prednisone 50 mg every other day) or R alone (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21). Primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, responses and overall survival (OS). Data cut off was May 30th, 2013. Results Three-hundred and eighty-nine patients were enrolled in the trial. Patient characteristics were well balanced between CRD (n=194) and MEL200-ASCT (n=195), and between R (n=195) and RP (n=194) arms. Median follow-up was 31 months. In the intent to treat (ITT) analysis, the median PFS was not reached with MEL200-ASCT and 28 months with CRD (the respective 3-year PFS was 60% vs. 38%, HR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.49-0.85, P=0.003). Median time from enrolment to maintenance was 14 months. In the population of patients eligible for maintenance, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 73% for RP and 56% for R patients (HR= 0.57, 95%CI: 0.34-0.93; P=0.03). In the subgroup of patients who received MEL200-ASCT, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 83% for patients who received RP and 64% for those who received R alone (HR=0.36 95%CI: 0.15-0.87, P=0.02). In the subgroup of patients who received CRD, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 64% for patients who received RP and 47% for those who received R alone (HR=0.75, 95%CI: 0.40-1.39, P=0.36). At present, no differences in OS were noticed between patients randomised to received CRD or MEL200-ASCT, and between patients who received RP or R maintenance. As expected, the rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (85% vs. 26%, P<0.001) and non-hematologic (35% vs. 19%, P=0.003) adverse events (AEs) were higher in the MEL200-ASCT arm compared with the CRD arm. The main non-hematologic AEs were infections (18% vs. 5%, P=0.001) and gastrointestinal AEs (18% vs. 3%, P<0.001). Rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (8% vs. 7%, P=0.85) and non-hematologic (12% vs. 13%, P=0.88). AEs were similar in the RP and R arms. The main non-hematologic AEs in both RP and R groups were infections (3% vs. 3%). At present, 6 second primary malignancies and 3 cases of cutaneous basalioma have been reported. Conclusions MEL200-ASCT significantly prolonged PFS in comparison with CRD. At present no difference in OS was reported, this may be due to the low number of events and to the length of follow-up. The increase in toxicity with MEL200-ASCT did not adversely impact on efficacy. The addition of prednisone to lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression in comparison with lenalidomide alone, without increasing the toxicity. Updated data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larocca:Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Pomalidomide, Cyclophosphamide, and Dexamethasone Is Superior to Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Myeloma: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Phase II Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.303.303 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 303-303 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Rachid Baz ◽

Thomas G. Martin ◽

Melissa Alsina ◽

Kenneth H. Shain ◽

Hearn J. Cho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Overall Response ◽

Best Response ◽

Randomized Phase Ii ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone results in an overall response rate of 33% and median PFS of 4.2 months in patients with prior lenalidomide and bortezomib (Richardson et al. Blood 2014). In this randomized phase II trial, we compared pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm B) versus the addition of oral weekly cyclophosphamide to pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm C) in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We have previously reported that the recommended phase II dose of cyclophosphamide with standard-dose pomalidomide + dexamethasone was 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had relapsed and refractory MM after at least 2 prior therapies and were lenalidomide refractory. Patients had a platelet count ≥ 50,000/mm3 and ANC ≥ 1,000/mm3 (patients with ≥50% bone marrow plasmacytosis were allowed if platelet count was ≥ 30,000/mm3and ANC could be supported with GCSF during screening and therapy). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive pomalidomide 4 mg PO D1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg PO D1, 8, 15, 22 (20 mg if older than 75 years) (arm B) with or without oral cyclophosphamide 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle (arm C). Patients randomized to arm B were allowed to cross over to arm C in the event of disease progression. Thromboprophylaxis was mandated with aspirin, warfarin, or LMWH. The primary endpoint was overall response rate using IMWG criteria. Secondary endpoints included an evaluation of PFS, OS and safety of the two arms. Results: Between 7/2012 and 3/2014, 36 patients were randomized to arm B and 34 to arm C. Patients characteristics were not different between the 2 arms (table below). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (2-12). All patients were lenalidomide refractory and none received prior pomalidomide. After a median follow up of 15 months, the overall response rate (partial response or better) was 39% and 65% (p=0.03) for arm B and C, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (minimal response or better) was 64% and 79% (p=0.2) for arm B and C, respectively. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI 2.3-5.9) for arm B and 9.2 months (95% CI 4.6-16) for arm C (log rank p=0.04). As of July 2014, 28 patients had died (16 arm B, 12 arm C) with median overall survival of 10.5 versus 16.4 months (p=0.08) for arm B and C, respectively. Hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in arm C, although this was not statistically significant (see table). Thirteen patients crossed over and oral weekly cyclophosphamide was added to their tolerated dose of pomalidomide dexamethasone. For those patients, the best response was as follows: 2 PR, 2 MR, and 6 SD, 3 PD. Conclusions: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone in combination with oral weekly cyclophosphamide resulted in a superior response rate and PFS compared to pomalidomide-dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. The increased hematologic toxicities, as a result of the addition of oral cyclophosphamide, were manageable. Table Arm B (N=36) Arm C (N=34) P value Age, years, median (range) 63 (50-78) 64 (47-80) 0.7 Male, n (%) 23 (64) 18 (53) 0.3 Number of prior therapies, median (range) 4 (2-12) 4 (2-9) 0.5 Bortezomib refractory, n (%) 28 (78) 24 (71) 0.3 Carfilzomib refractory, n (%) 16 (44) 13 (38) 0.5 Prior high-dose therapy, n (%) 27 (75) 28 (82) 0.6 Prior alkylating agent, n (%) 32 (89) 32 (94) 1 B2-microglobulin, median (range) 3.2 (1.6-10) 3.6 (1.5-13.9) 0.5 Serum creatinine, median (range) 1 (0.5-2.3) 0.9 (0.6-2.1) 0.6 High-risk cytogenetics, n (%) 5 (24) 6 (28) 0.8 Deletion 17p, n (%) 3 (14) 4 (20) 0.8 t(4;14), n (%) 3 (14) 3 (14) 0.9 Trisomy or tetrasomy 1q, n (%) 11 (55) 6 (33) 0.4 Best response (partial response or better), n (%) 14 (39) 22 (65) 0.03 Clinical benefit rate (MR or better), n (%) 23 (64) 27 (79) 0.2 Grade 3/4 neutropenia, n (%) 12 (33) 17 (50) 0.2 Grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia, n (%) 4 (11) 6 (18) 0.5 Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, n (%) 2 (5) 5 (15) 0.2 Grade 3/4 anemia, n (%) 3 (8) 7 (20) 0.2 Grade 3/4 pneumonia, n (%) 4 (11) 3 (9) 1 Grade 3/4 fatigue, n (%) 2 (5) 4 (12) 0.4 Number of serious adverse events 17 20 Disclosures Baz: Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karypharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide cyclophosphamide dexamethasone in relapsed refractory myeloma. Martin:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Alsina:Triphase: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Shain:Onyx / Amgen: Research Funding; Treshold: Research Funding. Chari:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria.

Download Full-text