scholarly journals Final Report of a Phase II Study of Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in Patients (pts) with Previously Untreated Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS)

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 232-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽  
Koji Sasaki ◽  
Guillermo Montalban-Bravo ◽  
Kristy R. Bodden ◽  
Prithviraj Bose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Response To Therapy ◽  
Stopping Rules ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Genetics Research ◽  
Number Of Cycles

Abstract Introduction: The hypomethylating agents (HMA) are the standard of care for a majority of patients with higher-risk MDS. SGI-110 is a second generation HMA that molecularly is a dinucleotide derivative of decitabine and therefore a more potent inhibitor of DNA methyltransferase activity. SGI-110 is currently being studied in front-line AML and second-line MDS multicenter studies. Here we present results of a single arm phase II trial of SGI-110 for patients with previously untreated MDS. Methods: Patients, age 18 or older, with adequate renal and hepatic functions, with int-2 or high risk MDS by IPSS or more than 10% blasts in bone marrow were eligible. One prior cycle of azacitidine or decitabine was allowed. No prior other therapies were allowed. SGI-110 was administered at a dose of 60 mg/m2 SC daily x 5 days every 4 weeks. The study was designed with stopping rules for response, toxicity, and mortality (first 3 months). A maximum of 100 patients could be treated. Results: From 11/14/2014 to 7/31/2018, 94 patients have been treated. Median age was 69 years (22.7-91.9), 72 patients (77%) had INT-2, 13 patients (14%) high risk. Median % of marrow blasts was 10 (range, 0-20). Median white blood cell count and platelet count were 2.5 (×106/L), and 52 (×106/L) respectively. Twenty two patients (23%) were diploid, 36 (38%) complex, and 33 (35%) others. Mutation distribution was as follows: TP53, 29 (31%); ASXL1, 26 (28%); TET2, 20 (21%); RUNX1, 19 (20%); RAS, 12 (13%); DNMT3A, 10 (11%); EZH2, 9 (10%); SRSF2, 6 (7%); PHF6, 4 (4%); BCOR, 3 (3%); CEBPA, 3 (3%); SF3B1, 3 (3%); IDH2, 3 (3%); BRAF, 2 (2%); CBL 2 (2%); MPL, 2 (2%); NPM1, 2 (2%); U2AF1, 2 (2%); WT1, 2 (2%); CREBBP, 1 (1%); ETV6, 1 (1%); FLT3-ITD, 1 (1%); GATA2, 1 (1%); IDH1, 1 (1%); SETBP1, 1 (1%); ZRSR2, 1 (1%). The median number of cycles received was 5 (range 1 - 32). Ninety four (100 %) patients are evaluable for toxicity. Early mortality was 0%. Common toxicities were fatigue (61%), infection (46%), nausea (27%), pain (19%), and constipation (16%), mucositis (16%), dyspnea (15%), local injection toxicity (15%), and diarrhea (12%). Eighty seven (93%) patients were evaluable for response. The median number of cycles to response was 3 (range 1 - 11). Overall response rate was 53 (61%); CR 19 (22%), CRp 3 (3%), HI 31 (36%), SD 5 (6%), NR 27 (31%), and died 2 (2%). With a median follow-up of 15 months, the median OS was 15 months and the median EFS was 14 months (Figure 1). By UVA, higher ACE-27 score showed tendency of lower rates of response (p=0.063; hazard ratio [HR], 1.383; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.982-1946). However, MVA did not show any prognostic factors for response. By MVA characteristics associated with survival were: complex karyotype (p=0.036; HR, 2.345; 95% CI, 1.055-5.210), and response to therapy (p=0.003; HR, 0.272; 95% CI, 0.114-0.648). In conclusion: SGI-110 is well tolerated in previously untreated MDS. ORR appears to be better than expected compared to azacitidine or decitabine. Longer follow-up and randomized trials will be needed to understand effect on survival. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Sasaki: Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria. Bose:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding. Daver:Pfizer: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Kiromic: Research Funding. Ravandi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria; Orsenix: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Cortes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding. DiNardo:Celgene: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Medimmune: Honoraria. Pemmaraju:SagerStrong Foundation: Research Funding; Affymetrix: Research Funding; plexxikon: Research Funding; daiichi sankyo: Research Funding; samus: Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; cellectis: Research Funding; stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding. Kadia:Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Double Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Blockade with Nivolumab and Ipilimumab with or without Azacitidine in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS)

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1831-1831 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽  
Guillermo Montalban-Bravo ◽  
Koji Sasaki ◽  
Naval G. Daver ◽  
Elias J. Jabbour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Genetics Research ◽  
Number Of Cycles

Abstract Introduction: Myeloid cells express PD1 and CTLA-4. Expression of these molecules is enhanced by azacitidine (AZA). Treatment of patients (pts) with nivolumab (Nivo) and anti-PD1 antibody or ipilimumab (Ipi) and anti-CTLA-4 antibody results in the upregulation of CTLA-4 in patients treated with Nivo and reversely of PD1 in patients treated with Ipi, potentially as a mechanism of evasion. In view of the activity of Nivo and Ipi in MDS (Garcia-Manero, ASH 2016), we hypothesized that dual combination of Nivo + Ipi with AZA could have significant activity in high risk MDS. Methods: To study this, we designed a basket exploratory phase 2 trial of ICPI in MDS. Patients with MDS age 18 or older with adequate renal and hepatic function without history of autoimmune disorders were eligible. Patients were divided into front-line and HMA-failure cohorts. Front-line patients were treated with AZA 75mg/m2 iv daily days 1-5 of a 28 day cycle with Nivo 3 mg/kg iv on days 6 and 20 + Ipi 3 mg/kg iv on day 6. Patients with HMA failure where treated with Nivo 3 mg/kg iv on days 1 and 15 + Ipi 3 mg/kg iv on day 1 of a 28 day cycle. The study design allowed for AZA add-back after 6 cycles of therapy if there was no response or progression. The maximum size per cohort was 20 pts. The primary endpoint was to determine the safety of Nivo or Ipi as single agents or in combination with AZA. Secondary objectives included overall response rate (ORR) and assessment of biological activity. Responses were evaluated following the revised 2006 IWG criteria. The study included stopping rules for response and toxicity. Results: The median follow up was 4.7 months [range 0-10 months]. From January 2017 to April 2018, 14 patients were treated, 6 pts on front-line cohort and 8 on HMA failure. The median age was 69 years [range 52-80]. A total of 4 (29%) pts had Int-1 risk, 6 (43%) had Int-2 and 4 (29%) had High risk by IPSS. Next generation sequencing on whole bone marrow extracted DNA was performed using a 28 gene panel in 5 pts and an 81-gene panel in 9 pts. Cytogenetic abnormalities and identified mutations are shown in Table 1. Median number of marrow blasts was 10 [range 1-16]. Median Hgb was 9.5g/dL [range 7.3-10.9 g/dL], median WBC was 1.5x109/L [range 0.9-4.7] and platelets was 29x109/L [range 8-117]. A total of 13 pts are evaluable for response at the time of analysis. A total of 3 (38%) pts in the HMA failure cohort received AZA after 6 cycles of therapy. The median number of cycles was 4 [range 1-10] with a median number of cycles to response of 3 [range 1-4]. The overall response rate was 50% (3/6) in the frontline cohort, all of them complete responses, and 29% (2/7) in the HMA failure cohort, including 1 complete response and 1 hematological improvement. Adverse events are shown in Table 2. Treatment with Ipi or NIvo had to be held due to rash in 2 pts, due to elevation of creatinine in 2 pts. Early mortality was observed in 1 patient and this was due to pneumonia complicated with respiratory failure and renal failure. The median overall survival is NR in the frontline cohort and is 8.4 months in the HMA failure cohort (Figure 1). Conclusion: Preliminary results suggest double immune checkpoint inhibitor blockade with Ipi and Nivo in combination with AZA in the frontline setting, or in pts with HMA failure is associated with a tolerable safety profile and clinical activity. Disclosures Sasaki: Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria. Daver:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy. DiNardo:Abbvie: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Medimmune: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Ravandi:Xencor: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Honoraria; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Bose:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:plexxikon: Research Funding; daiichi sankyo: Research Funding; stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; samus: Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; cellectis: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Research Funding; Affymetrix: Research Funding. Cortes:novartis: Research Funding. Kadia:Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Konopleva:Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Oral Clofarabine in the Treatment of Patients with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 118-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Faderl ◽  
Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽  
Zeev Estrov ◽  
Farhad Ravandi ◽  
Gautam Borthakur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Myelodysplastic Syndrome ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Optimal Dose ◽  
Oral Formulation ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Molecular Characteristics ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Abstract 118 Clofarabine (CLO) is a second generation deoxyadenosine nucleoside analog with activity in patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Early reports also suggestedactivity of iv CLO in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), but the role of CLO in MDS therapy remains largely undefined. Due to the molecular characteristics of CLO it can also be administered as an oral formulation with a bioavailability of around 50%. As an oral agent has obvious advantages over parenteral administrations, we designed a phase 2 study to evaluate the activity and safety of oral CLO in patients with MDS. Pts were eligible if they had MDS and ≥ 5% blasts (including RAEB-t by FAB) or IPSS intermediate-2 and high-risk, and CMML. Hematopoietic growth factor support prior to and during the study was permitted. Thirty-two pts (2 RA, 11 RAEB-1, 11 RAEB-2, 2 RAEB-t, 5 CMML-1, 1 CMML-2) were treated. Twenty-two pts (69%) had intermediate-2 or high-risk disease by IPSS. Median age was 70 yrs (range 53–86). Overall, ≥ 27 pts (84%) were older than 60 yrs. Thirteen pts (41%) had a history of a prior malignancy and 20 pts (66%) failed prior hypomethylator therapy (6 pts azacitidine, 12 pts decitabine, 2 pts both). Cytogenetics were intermediate and poor in 9 (28%) and 10 (31%) pts, respectively. The starting dose of CLO was 40 mg/m2 orally daily × 5 days every 4–6 weeks (6 pts), which was decreased due to toxicities to 30 mg/m2 orally daily × 5 days (19 pts), and eventually 20 mg/m2 orally daily × 5 days (7 pts). Twenty-eight pts (88%) received treatment in an outpatient facility and almost all pts (94%) received anti-infectious prophylaxis. Responses of 31 evaluable pts are summarized in the Table: Among 20 pts who failed prior hypomethylator therapy responses were CR in 2 (10%), HI in 2 (10%), and CB in 2 (10%). The median number of cycles to response was 1 (range 1–3). Of 10 pts who received further consolidation cycles, the median number was 1 (range 1–8+). No pts died within 6 wks of induction. Acute renal failure occurred in 4 pts (1 pt 40 mg/m2, 3 pts 30 mg/m2) in the context of myelosuppresssion-associated infectious complications; 4 pts died. Common adverse events were nausea/vomiting, rashes, reversible transaminase elevations and hyperbilirubinemia, and fatigue and were mainly ≤ grade 2. The most frequent ≥ grade 3 toxicity were reversible elevations of transaminases. Myelosuppression was ubiquitous, but prolonged myelosuppression (> 42 days) was rare in responding pts. Infectious episodes occurred in 16 pts and were more frequent in pts receiving CLO at 40 or 30 mg/m2. Oral CLO has an ORR of 46% in pts with higher-risk MDS. Responses are lower in pts failing prior hypomethylator therapy. The optimal dose and schedule to balance activity and toxicity remain to be defined. Disclosures: Faderl: Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Clofarabine in MDS. Kantarjian:Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding.

A Phase II Add-on Study of Vorinostat (VOR) in Higher Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome with Failure of Hypomethylating Agents (HMA): The GFM Azavor Study

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2900-2900
Author(s):  
Thomas Prebet ◽  
Jacques Delaunay ◽  
Eric Wattel ◽  
Thorsten Braun ◽  
Pascale Cony-Makhoul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Stage Design ◽  
Early Evaluation ◽  
Positive Results

Abstract Background: Azacitidine (AZA) is the current standard of care for patients treated for higher risk MDS, but 40-50% patients do not respond and most responders eventually relapse. Median survival after AZA failure is only 5 months and no standard of care is defined for this population. Preclinical studies and positive results of phase I-II trials support a synergistic effect of the histone deacetylase (HDAC) vorinostat (VOR) and AZA in terms of response, although no survival advantage of the combination has as yet been demonstrated. We hypothesized that adding VOR to AZA in patients with primary or secondary AZA resistance could rescue response and prolong survival. Methods: inclusion criteria inGFM AZAVOR study (NCT 01748240) were: 1/IPSS int 2 or high risk MDS at the time of initiation of AZA 2/treatment with at least 6 cycles of AZA and either failure to achieve any response or loss of response (per IWG2006 criteria) 3/a maximum of 3 months between AZA failure and inclusion with no other treatment in between. Patients received VOR 300mg bid from day 3 to day 9 of each cycle. AZA was given at standard 75mg/m2/d day 1 to 7 or at the maximum previously tolerated dose in case of dose reduction. Patients were evaluated after 6 cycles and responding patients treated until progression. The trial used a two-stage design, and accrual was to be stopped if less than 3 responses were seen in the first 14 evaluable patients. Results 21 patients were included between march 2013 and September 2014. Nineteen patients were treated (1 patient died and 1 progressed before treatment). Median age was 72 years. All pts had higher risk MDS and had received a median of 6 cycles of AZA before entering the trial. The median number of AZA+ VOR cycles administered was 3 (range: 1-12). No unexpected SAEs were seen, and the most common AEs were infection, thrombocytopenia, GI toxicities, and fatigue. After 6 cycles of treatment, only 2 patients (11%) achieved response (1 erythroid hematological improvement, 1 partial remission), , which, per protocol, triggered the stop of accrual. At last follow-up, 18 patients were off study and one patient was still on treatment. Nine patients stopped treatment because of progression (42%), 4 stopped treatment for lack of response (21%), 2 stopped treatment because of intolerance (11%), 1 patient stopped at his request (5%), and 1 patient died of complications of cytopenias while on treatment (5%). Median overall survival was 13 months. Conclusion This is the first report of an add-on study in high risk MDS, a strategy that may be useful for the early evaluation of drugs for which synergy with AZA is expected. Our results show that the proposed regimen of AZA +VOR can be used safely. However, the observed response rate was not above the "background" response rate expected from AZA alone continuation in a comparable patient population, indicating that the addition of VOR cannot reverse resistance to AZA. Disclosures Prebet: CELGENE: Research Funding. Off Label Use: lenalidomide. Wattel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; PIERRE FABRE MEDICAMENTS: Research Funding; CELGENE: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NOVARTIS: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cony-Makhoul:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Fenaux:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Vey:Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Biweekly cetuximab and irinotecan as second-line therapy to patients with platinium-resistant gastroesophageal cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15624-e15624 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. K. Bjerregaard ◽  
K. R. Schønnemann ◽  
H. A. Jensen ◽  
L. W. Vestermark ◽  
T. P. Hansen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Haematological Toxicity ◽  
Median Number ◽  
National Board ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
The Cost

e15624 Background: There is no established 2nd line therapy for patients (pts) with advanced gastroesophageal (GE) cancer. In 2004, the Danish government initiated a national health programme for pts with advanced cancer. Non- proven therapy may be offered after approval by an expert panel appointed by the National Board of Health that subsequently finances the cost of treatment. This programme has had a major impact on the management of cancer pts in Denmark and has accelerated the introduction and implementation of new therapies. Inspired by the excellent results in colorectal cancer a combination of cetuximab and irinotecan (CetIri) was chosen for platinum-resistant GE cancer. While awaiting approval of a phase II protocol CetIri was offered at a single institution. We report our preliminary experience with biweekly CetIri as 2nd line therapy in pts with GE cancer. Methods: All pts had histologically confirmed GE cancer (adeno- or squamous cell carcinoma) and all pts had previously received first line platinum based therapy. Pts received CetIri (cetuximab 500 mg/m2and irinotecan 180 mg/m2day 1) every 2nd week until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response rate was evaluated by the investigator according to RECIST every 8th week. Toxicity was prospectively evaluated according to NCIC-CTC 3.0. Results: From December 2007 to August 2008, 31 consecutive pts was treated with CetIri. Median age was 62 years (33–76). Median performance status was 1 (0–2). Localisation of primary was: Esophagus 10%, GE junction 64%, gastric 26%. Twenty-seven pts (87%) had adenocarcimona. Median number of cycles were 6 (1–21). Most important grade 2–4 toxicities were non-haematological toxicity as diarrhea (25%), nausea (21%) and vomiting (11%). Three pts (11%) had grade 3 leukopenia, 1 had febrile neutropenia. Two pts had PR. Median PFS was 3.2 months. Fourteen pts (45%) received at least 6 courses (3 month of therapy). After a median follow-up of 6 month 5 pts continue CetIri without sign of PD. Conclusions: Biweekly CetIri is a convenient and well-tolerated 2nd line regimen in pts with GE cancer. Predictive factors are needed to select which pts will benefit from therapy. A confirmatory phase II study is ongoing. [Table: see text]

Updated results from a randomized phase II dose-ranging study of the JAK2-selective inhibitor SAR302503 in patients with myelofibrosis (MF).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7109-7109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Animesh Dev Pardanani ◽  
Catriona H. M. Jamieson ◽  
Nashat Y. Gabrail ◽  
Claudia Lebedinsky ◽  
Guozhi Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Night Sweats ◽  
Dose Ranging ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Dose Reductions ◽  
Unacceptable Toxicity

7109 Background: We previously reported results of treating MF patients with 3 cycles of 300, 400, or 500 mg of SAR302503 (NCT01420770; Blood 2012;120:21 Abs 2837). This is a report of efficacy and safety after 6 cycles. Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF and splenomegaly were eligible. SAR302503 is administered orally, once a day in consecutive 4-week cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Spleen response (≥35% reduction in spleen volume vs baseline) was assessed by MRI/CT (blinded independent central review). Results: 31 patients were enrolled (n=10 in the 300 and 400 mg groups; n=11 to 500 mg). Risk status was balanced in all but the 300 mg group (70% high-risk). Most patients were JAK2V617F positive (90%) and blood transfusion independent (81%). Spleen response rates at the end of cycle (EOC) 6 (secondary end point) were 30% (3/10) in the 300 mg group, 60% (6/10) with 400 mg, and 55% (6/11) with 500 mg compared with EOC 3 rates of 30%, 50%, and 64%, respectively. One patient on 500 mg who had a spleen response at EOC 3 (39% reduction), but not at EOC 6 (25% reduction) had dose reductions to 200 mg due to anemia. Median number of cycles was 13 (range, 2–17) and 24 patients have been on treatment >12 months. SAR302503 reduced baseline constitutional symptoms at the EOC 3, with the greatest responses for night sweats in 14/15 patients (93%), itching 10/14 (71%), early satiety and abdominal pain, each in 10/18 (56%). Most common adverse events were anemia and diarrhea, with grade 3–4 rates of 58% and 13%, respectively. The rate of grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia was 16%. There was no grade 3–4 neutropenia. The diarrhea rate tended to decrease after the first 2 treatment cycles. There have been no reports of withdrawal syndrome after stopping SAR302503. Median JAK2V617F allele burden was 93% at baseline, 87% at the EOC 3, and 78% at EOC 6 in 19/26 patients who had available samples. The expression of 22 of 97 cytokines was significantly regulated (≥1.5 fold difference; p<0.05) after cycle 1. Conclusions: In this Phase II trial, continued treatment with SAR302503 was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in splenomegaly. Symptom data will be updated. Clinical trial information: NCT01420770.

scholarly journals Preliminary Results from a Phase II Study of the Combination of Azacitidine and Pembrolizumab in Patients with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 464-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly S. Chien ◽  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Gautam Borthakur ◽  
Courtney D. DiNardo ◽  
Naval G. Daver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Myelodysplastic Syndrome ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
International Prognostic Scoring System ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Genetics Research ◽  
Ongoing Phase

Abstract Background: The survival of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) after hypomethylating agent (HMA) failure is poor at about 4 to 6 months. The exposure of CD34 positive cells from patients with MDS to HMA has been shown to result in increased expression of PD-1 and PD-L1, with a sequential increase in the expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 particularly in patients that have failed HMA (Yang H, Leukemia 2014). Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting PD-1, thus blocking its interaction with ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, that has been FDA-approved for certain solid tumors. Consequently, we designed an ongoing phase II clinical trial to evaluate the safety and clinical activity of the combination of azacitidine and pembrolizumab in patients with higher-risk MDS. Methods: Adult patients with intermediate-1 or higher disease by the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) were eligible for the study. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who had not received prior therapy and those who had not responded to, progressed on, or relapsed after HMA therapy, with a goal enrollment of 20 patients per cohort. Patients received azacitidine 75 mg/m2 IV or SQ daily for 7 days on a 28-day cycle and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV starting on cycle 1 day 1 and every 3 weeks thereafter independent of azacitidine dosing schedule. The endpoints were overall response rate and safety. Patients were discontinued from the clinical trial if there was disease progression, unacceptable adverse experiences, intercurrent illness preventing further administration of study treatment, confirmed positive serum pregnancy test, noncompliance, loss to follow-up, completion of 24 months of uninterrupted treatment with pembrolizumab or 35 administrations of the study medication (whichever occurred later), lack of efficacy, or any other reason leading to the investigator's decision for withdrawal. Clinical trial information: NCT03094637. Results: At data cut-off (July 2018), 18 patients have been treated with azacitidine and pembrolizumab with a median follow-up time of 16 weeks and 9 patients continuing on treatment in cycles 1-6. Twelve patients were enrolled in the HMA failure cohort and 6 patients in the previously untreated MDS cohort. Of the 12 patients evaluable for response, 7 were in the HMA failure cohort and 5 in the previously untreated MDS cohort. In the HMA failure cohort, 1 patient achieved CR, 1 patient demonstrated hematological improvement with mCR or CRi, and 5 patients progressed. In the previously untreated MDS cohort, 1 patient attained CR, 2 patients exhibited hematological improvement, 1 patient showed progression, and 1 patient died due to treatment-unrelated causes. The most frequently observed mutations in the 5 responding patients were TET2 in 3 patients and ASXL1, DNMT3A, and RUNX1 in 2 patients each. Three of the responders had diploid cytogenetics, 1 had del(10), and 1 had complex karyotype. Treatment was overall well-tolerated. Most common treatment-related adverse events (all grades) were neutropenia (22%); elevated ALT, elevated AST, anemia, and injection site reactions (17%); and constipation, joint pain, anorexia, pneumonitis, and pneumonia (11%). Conclusions: In this ongoing phase II trial, preliminary data suggest that azacitidine and pembrolizumab was relatively safe and may have antitumor activity in patients who failed HMA. Disclosures Cortes: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding. DiNardo:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Medimmune: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Daver:Sunesis: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Kiromic: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding. Jain:Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellectis: Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novimmune: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novimmune: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Characteristics and Outcome of Myelofibrosis Patients on Long-Term Ruxolitinib Therapy (≥3 years)

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 19-20
Author(s):  
Lucia Masarova ◽  
Prithviraj Bose ◽  
Naveen Pemmaraju ◽  
Lingsha Zhou ◽  
Sherry A. Pierce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Median Duration ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response To Therapy ◽  
International Prognostic Scoring System ◽  
Duration Of Therapy ◽  
Grant Support

Introduction: The JAK1/2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib, was approved in the USA in 2011 for the treatment of patients with myelofibrosis (MF) with intermediate and high-risk IPSS score (International Prognostic Scoring System). In the approval phase 3 COMFORT 1 - 2 studies, about 50% patients were taking ruxolitinib for at least 3 years, respectively. Objective: We sought to evaluate the characteristics and outcome of MF patients on long-term ruxolitinib therapy (≥3 years) at our center. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients with MF who were treated with ruxolitinib for ≥3 years. Cytogenetic were classified into risks according to Gangat et all, JCO, 2011. Descriptive statistics were used for nominal and continues variables, captured at the time of ruxolitinib start. Duration of therapy and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, from the start of ruxolitinib initiation until the last day of initial ruxolitinib therapy, the date of last follow-up or death, respectively. Response to therapy was according to IWG-MRT 2013 criteria. Results: Among 437 patients who initiated therapy with ruxolitinib at our center, 136 (31%) remained on therapy for ≥3 years and represent current cohort. Ninety-one patients (67%) were newly diagnosed; the remaining patients presented after a median of 28 months (range, 4-228) from MF diagnosis. Median time to initiate ruxolitinib from presentation to our center was 1 month (range, 0.3-123) for all patients. However, the time was longer for patients who presented &gt; 3 months from MF diagnosis (median of 11.5 months; range, 3.5-123). Patient's characteristics (n = 136) at the time of ruxolitinib initiation are summarized in Table 1. Median age was 67 years (range, 32-84), and 76 (56%) of patients were males. Half of the patients had high risk IPSS score, &gt; 80% had systemic symptoms or splenomegaly. Eighty six percent of patients had diploid or favorable karyotype. JAK2 mutation was detected in 87% of tested patients. Median duration of ruxolitinib therapy was 72 months (95% CI: 66-78). Over the median follow-up of 83 months (range, 36-174), 63 patients (46%) died. Currently, 48 (35%) patients are still on ruxolitinib; 88 discontinued therapy after a median time of 55 months (range, 47-63). By 5th and 7th year of therapy, out of 136 patients that were treated for at least 3 years, 35% and 65% percent of patients discontinued treatment. The reasons for discontinuation included allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT, n 5), cytopenia (n 6), progression of MF (n 38), progression to accelerate phase (n 2) or acute leukemia (n 7), patient's choice (n 11), and death (n 23: infection 4, cardiac 3, cancer 3, others 16). Overall, 101 patients (74%) achieved IWG-MRT response, represented in majority by clinical improvement (CI) in spleen (n 90, 84%) and CI in TSS (n 51, 71%), respectively. The remaining patients achieved clinical benefit not qualifying for overall IWG-MRT response. Median duration of IWG-MRT response was 55 months (95% CI: 48-63). Responses were ongoing in 29 patients (29% of initial responders) at the time of last follow-up. Median duration of therapy was 75 months (95% CI: 68-82) for responders vs 60 months (95% CI: 39-79) for non-responders, p = 0.74. Median OS from the start of ruxolitinib was 90 months (95% CI: 76-104), Figure 1. Median OS for patients who were on ruxolitinib for ≥5 years (n = 73) was 106 months (95% CI: 80-137). Univariate and multivariate analysis for factors associated with OS is shown in Table 2. After ruxolitinib discontinuation, 25 patients received subsequent treatment at our center: SCT in 6, another JAK inhibitor in 11, other investigational agents in 3, chemotherapy in 5 patients. Median OS from ruxolitinib discontinuation was 20 months (95% CI: 12-28). Conclusion: Our data with the longest follow-up of patients receiving ruxolitinib for ≥3 years confirm the long-term benefit of this therapy with a median OS approaching 8 years since ruxolitinib treatment initiation. Disclosures Bose: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; MustangBio: Honoraria; Affymetrix: Other: Grant Support, Research Funding; Plexxikon: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; LFB Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Roche Diagnostics: Honoraria; SagerStrong Foundation: Other: Grant Support; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Kantarjian:Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding.

Final Report of GFM-VOR2007 Study: a Phase I/II Study of Vorinostat and Low Dose Cytarabine (LDAC) for MDS Patients with Azacitidine (AZA) Failure

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 3825-3825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Prebet ◽  
Thorsten Braun ◽  
Odile Beyne-Rauzy ◽  
Eric Wattel ◽  
Francois Dreyfus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Therapeutic Index ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Sequential Administration

Abstract Abstract 3825 INTRODUCTION: AZA is the standard of care for patients (pts) treated for high risk MDS. Outcome of patients with AZA failure is poor with no standard treatment currently available (Prebet, JCO, 2012), and alternative strategies are required for this population. Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor with clinical activity in MDS and leukemia, although response rate remains low when used as single agent (Garcia-Manero Blood 2008). By contrast, combinations with cytotoxic or targeted therapies seem promising. METHODS: In this study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT00776503), we combined LDAC (10mg/m2/d in the first cycle, then 20 mg/m2/d) for 14 days SC every 28 day cycle and escalating doses of vorinostat. Two schedules of vorinostat, (400mg/day orally) beginning on day 1 (arm A) or on day 14 (arm B), were tested in 3 cohorts receiving escalating treatment duration (7days, 10 days and 14 days per cycle) with a classical 3+3 phase I schedule. 7 additional pts were included at the dose level recommended by the DSMB for each cohort (arm A and B). Inclusion criteria were age >18, MDS or AML with 20–30% blasts, IPSS≥1.5, prior failure of AZA. Toxicity was assessed using CTCAE V3. Patients with clinical benefit could continue on therapy after cycle 3 until progression. RESULTS: A total of 42 pts were included and 40 were treated, 23 pts in arm A and 17 pts in arm B. 2 pts died before the beginning of treatment. Median age was 74 years (range 46– 88), median number of previous treatments was 2 (1–3), and median number of cycles of previous AZA treatment was 11 (range 1–25). All pts were IPSS Int-2 (n=21) or High risk MDS (n=19). A total of 137 cycles of treatment was administered with a median number of 3 cycles/pt and 11 pts received more than 3 cycles (28%). The recommended dose was determined for arm A at 10 days of vorinostat and for arm B at 14 days. During cycle 1, dose limiting toxicities were grade 3 fatigue (n=2), grade 4 bilirubin (n=1), and grade 4 infection (n=2), all in arm A. The most frequent non-limiting toxicities were myelosuppression (37/40), infections (8/40) moderate fatigue (23/40) and mild GI toxicities (25/40). Response was centrally reviewed according to IWG 2006 criteria. Overall response rate was 17% in 35 evaluable pts including 2 CRi, 2 HI and 2 marrow CR. Median duration of response of 3 months (range [2–6+]). There were 2 responders in arm A (1 in the 7 day cohort and 1 in the 14 day cohort) and 4 responders in arm B (1 in the 7 day cohort, 2 in the 10 day cohort, 1 in the 14 day cohort) including the 2 CRi. 18 pts remained stable without HI and 11 progressed during treatment. Median overall survival of the cohort was 9.2 months and 1-year probability of survival was 36%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that 400 mg/day vorinostat can be combined to LDAC and given for 10 days (arm A) to 14 days (arm B) with acceptable side effects. It also suggests that the sequential administration might be associated with an increased therapeutic index since longer vorinostat therapy duration could be tolerated. Response rate remains modest but survival compared favorably with conventional care in this group of patients with dismal outcome. Disclosures: Fenaux: Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Final Results Of Phase II Study Of Pomalidomide (Pom) In GEP-Defined High Risk Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 3191-3191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saad Z Usmani ◽  
Kelly Stratton ◽  
Emily Hansen ◽  
Qing Zhang ◽  
Susan B. Panozzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Plasma Cells ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Prognostic Features ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background Pom is an IMiD® immunomodulatory agent now FDA approved for treatment of patients who have received > 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide (Len) and bortezomib (Bor), and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last line of therapy. There is limited data evaluating efficacy of Pom in high risk RRMM. Herein, we are reporting the final report on a phase II clinical trial employing Pom in high risk RRMM with prior exposure and/or refractoriness to Len. Methods High risk RRMM was defined by having high risk on gene expression profiling (GEP70 or GEP80 signatures), elevated LDH, or having abnormal metaphase cytogenetics. Cycle #1 Pom was given at 4mg orally Days 1-21 q 4 weeks; in the absence of > PR by IMWG criteria after 2 cycles, dexamethasone (Dex, 4-20 mg orally q week) and/or Bor (1.3 mg/m2 IV days 1,4,8,11) and/or Vorinostat (Vor, 100-200 mg po days 1-21 q 4 weeks) could be added; in the absence of > PR by IMWG criteria after 4 cycles, cyclophosphamide (Cy, 300 mg/m2 q week) could be added. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) at 1 year, secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates and duration of response (DoR). Cox regression modeling was employed for univariate and multivariate analyses, Kaplan-Meier curves were used for OS and PFS. Best response was defined as the best response achieved while enrolled (regardless of prior progression, or relapse). Pharmacogenomic analyses using GEP were performed on 18 patients with paired baseline and 48hr post-Pom, using CD138-purified bone marrow plasma cells. Results 71 patients with HRMM were enrolled between May 2010 and August 2012. Baseline patient characteristics included age > 65 years in 45%, cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) in 86%, GEP70 high risk in 14/34 (41%), GEP80 high risk in 28/34 (82%), extramedullary disease in 3/71 (4%) and secondary plasma cell leukemia in 2/71 (3%). 68/71 patients (96%) had a prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), 30/71 (42%) had > 2 ASCT. Patients had received a median of 5 prior lines of therapy (range 1-10). There were 58 (82%) patients with Len-refractory (Len-R) MM, 64 (90%) with Bor-refractory (Bor-R) MM and 53 (75%) with dual-refractory (dual-R) MM prior to enrollment. 34 (48%) patients received > 6 cycles of treatment, 9(13%) received > 12 cycles. Patients who received > 6 cycles, had addition of Dex(67%), Bor+Dex(18%), Bor+Dex+Cy(12%), Bor+Dex+Cy+Vor(3%). As of July 2013, 45 patients (63%) discontinued therapy primarily due to progression or death. 20 (28%) patients achieved > PR as best response (1 Len-R, 2 Bor-R, 6 in dual-R), with median DoR for patients > PR of 1 month (range 0.5-18 months). 58 patients (5 Len-R, 8 Bor-R, 43 dual-R) had > stable disease, giving an overall disease control rate of 82%. Slight PFS benefit was observed in younger patients (HR=0.64, 95% CI: (0.39, 1.06), p=0.098). An increased risk for OS was observed among patients with LDH >= 190 U/L (HR=4.62, 95% CI: (2.28, 9.38), p<0.001), C-reactive protein >= 8 mg/L (HR=2.13, 95% CI: (1.03, 4.40), p= 0.041), hemogloblin < 10 g/dL (HR=3.47, 95% CI: (1.66, 7.27), p<0.001), and albumin < 3.5 g/dL (HR=2.83, 95% CI: (1.38, 5.79), p=0.005). The most common toxicities > grade 3 were leukopenia (75%), thrombocytopenia (60%), anemia (44%), infections (26%), dyspnea (19%), hypophosphatemia (20%) and hypocalcemia (19%). OS and PFS at 12 months were 63% and 13%, respectively. Pre/48hr-post POM GEP analyses showed that expression levels of 55 probe-sets (48 genes) were significantly changed in response to POM treatment (false discovery rate 0.01). These genes were related to cell adhesion, inflammatory and hypersensitivity response, such as GAS6, ITGB1, ITGB7, LYN, RAC1, PYCARD, CORO1B, F11R, and DKK1, all with higher expression values observed post POM. IRF4, one of the targets of cereblon (CRBN) previously reported to be critical for myeloma cell survival, was down-regulated post POM treatment (p=0.001,FDR=0.09), suggesting a unique CRBN-dependent anti-myeloma activity for POM Conclusion Pom demonstrates good anti-myeloma activity in a heavily pretreated, GEP-defined high risk RRMM in combination with other anti-myeloma drugs. Given the efficacy in patients with poor prognostic features, there is precedence to evaluate Pom as an IMiD of choice in combination with other novel agents in front line setting for GEP-defined high risk MM. Disclosures: Usmani: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. van Rhee:Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding. Barlogie:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MyelomaHealth: Patents & Royalties.

scholarly journals A Phase II Trial of the Combination of Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2749-2749
Author(s):  
Omar Nadeem ◽  
Robert A. Redd ◽  
Julia Prescott ◽  
Kelsey Tague ◽  
Veronica Romines ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Bone Marrow ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Induction Phase ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Study Therapy

Abstract Background: Early therapeutic intervention in high-risk SMM (HR-SMM) has demonstrated benefit based on previous studies that included treatment with lenalidomide or lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Mateos et al. N Engl J Med 2013; Lonial et al. J Clin Oncol 2020). Combination therapy with triplets has shown higher rates of deep response and improved outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma, including the combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (Moreau et al. N Eng J Med 2016). We present our results of phase II study of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone in HR-SMM. Methods: Patients enrolled on the study met eligibility for high-risk SMM based on the defined criteria proposed by Rajkumar et al. (Blood 2014). The treatment plan was designed to be administered on an outpatient basis where patients receive 9 cycles of induction therapy of ixazomib (4mg) at days 1, 8, and 15, in combination with lenalidomide (25mg) at days 1-21 and dexamethasone at days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The induction phase was followed by ixazomib (4mg) and lenalidomide (15mg) maintenance for another 15 cycles. A treatment cycle was defined as 28 consecutive days for a total of 24 months period. Bone marrow samples of all patients were obtained before starting therapy for baseline assessment for minimal residual disease (MRD) testing, whole-exome sequencing (WES), and RNA sequencing of plasma and bone marrow microenvironment cells. Moreover, blood samples were obtained at screening and before each cycle for isolating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Results: Sixty-one patients have been enrolled in this study from February 2017 to 2020. The median age of the patients at enrollment was 64 years (range, 40 to 84), with 33 males (54.1%). The analysis was conducted on patients who have completed at least 2 cycles of therapy (n=55). Thus far, 42 (69%) patients have completed the planned 24 cycles of therapy. High-risk cytogenetics (defined as the presence of t(4;14), 17p deletion, and 1q gain) were found in 14 patients out of the 33 evaluable (42.4%) Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) results. The median number of cycles completed was 24 cycles (range: 2-24). According to the new IMWG risk stratification model (20-2-20), baseline markers showed that 32 patients (58%) were high risk, 18 (33%) were intermediate risk, and 5 (9%) were low risk. The most common grades 3 or greater toxicities were neutropenia (20%), hypophosphatemia (13%), leukopenia (11%), rash (9%), lymphocytopenia (5%), and thrombocytopenia (5%). Stem cells were collected from all eligible patients by the end of the induction phase. No patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. At the time of data cut off, the overall response rate (partial response or better) in participants who completed at least 2 cycles of treatment was 90.9% (50 of 55), with 12 complete responses (CR, 21.8%), 10 very good partial responses (VGPR, 18.2%), 28 partial responses (50.9%), and 4 minimal responses (MR, 7.3%). ORR in patients who completed the induction phase (≥9 cycles) was 92.3% (n= 48 of 52), with 22 (40%) deep remissions including 12 (23.1%) and 10 (19.2%) having achieved a CR and VGPR, respectively. All patients who had a CR have also achieved a stringent CR. No patients developed progression to overt or active MM while on study therapy. After completion of study therapy, 4 patients progressed to active MM during follow up, 3 additional patients developed biochemical progression and started a new course of therapy but did not meet CRAB criteria and 7 patients confirmed biochemical PD and remain off therapy. Conclusions: The combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is an effective all oral well-tolerated intervention in high-risk smoldering myeloma that demonstrated an ORR of &gt;90% and deep remission in &gt;40% of patients. While no patients progressed to overt MM while on therapy, some developed progression after completion of planned study therapy, indicating the possible need for higher intensification of therapy or maintenance therapy beyond 2 years in this high-risk group of patients. Longer follow-up for disease outcome is ongoing. Disclosures Nadeem: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mo: Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Consultancy; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVIE: Consultancy. Sperling: Adaptive: Consultancy. Richardson: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ghobrial: AbbVie, Adaptive, Aptitude Health, BMS, Cellectar, Curio Science, Genetch, Janssen, Janssen Central American and Caribbean, Karyopharm, Medscape, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda, The Binding Site, GNS, GSK: Consultancy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document