scholarly journals Conventional Immunochemotherapy (R-CHOEP) Vs High-Dose Immunochemotherapy (R-MegaCHOEP) in Younger Patients with High-Risk Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma: 10-Year Long-Term Follow-up of a German Lymphoma Alliance (GLA) Study

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1589-1589
Author(s):  
Fabian Frontzek ◽  
Marita Ziepert ◽  
Maike Nickelsen ◽  
Bettina Altmann ◽  
Bertram Glass ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Introduction: The R-MegaCHOEP trial showed that dose-escalation of conventional chemotherapy necessitating autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) does not confer a survival benefit for younger patients (pts) with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma in the Rituximab era (Schmitz et al., Lancet Oncology 2012; 13, 1250-1259). To describe efficacy and toxicity over time and document the long-term risks of relapse and secondary malignancy we present the 10-year follow-up of this study. Methods: In the randomized, prospective phase 3 trial R-MegaCHOEP younger pts aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk (aaIPI 2-3) aggressive B-cell lymphoma were assigned to 8 cycles of CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubcine, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone) or 4 cycles of dose-escalated high-dose therapy (HDT) necessitating repetitive ASCT both combined with Rituximab. Both arms were stratified according to aaIPI, bulky disease, and center. Primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). All analyses were calculated for the intention-to-treat population. This follow-up report includes molecular data based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC (IHC: 31/92 positive [40-100%], FISH: 14/103 positive), BCL2 (IHC: 65/89 positive [50-100%], FISH: 23/111 positive) and BCL6 (IHC: 52/86 positive [30-100%], FISH: 34/110 positive) and data on cell of origin (COO) classification according to the Lymph2CX assay (GCB: 53/88; ABC: 24/88; unclassified: 11/88). Results: 130 pts had been assigned to R-CHOEP and 132 to R-MegaCHOEP. DLBCL was the most common lymphoma subtype (~80%). 73% of pts scored an aaIPI of 2 and 27% an aaIPI of 3. 60% of pts had an initial lymphoma bulk and in 40% more than 1 extranodal site was involved. After a median observation time of 111 months, EFS at 10 years was 57% (95% CI 47-67%) in the R-CHOEP vs. 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP arm (42-61%) (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8, p=0.228), overall survival (OS) after 10 years was 72% (63-81%) vs. 66% (57-76%) respectively (p=0.249). With regard to molecular characterization, we were unable to detect a significant benefit for HDT/ASCT in any subgroup analyzed. In total, 16% of pts (30 pts) relapsed after having achieved a complete remission (CR). 23% of all relapses (7 pts) showed an indolent histology (follicular lymphoma grade 1-3a) and 6 of these pts survived long-term. In contrast, of 23 pts (77%) relapsing with aggressive DLBCL or unknown histology 18 pts died due to lymphoma or related therapy. The majority of relapses occurred during the first 3 years after randomization (median time: 22 months) while after 5 years we detected relapses only in 5 pts (3% of all 190 pts prior CR). 11% of pts were initially progressive (28 pts) among whom 71% (20 pts) died rapidly due to lymphoma. Interestingly, the remaining 29% (8 pts) showed a long-term survival after salvage therapy (+/- ASCT); only 1 pt received allogeneic transplantation. The frequency of secondary malignancies was very similar in both treatment arms (9% vs. 8%) despite the very high dose of etoposide (total 4g/m2)in the R-MegaCHOEP arm. We observed 2 cases of AML and 1 case of MDS per arm. In total 70 pts (28%) have died: 30 pts due to lymphoma (12%), 22 pts therapy-related (11 pts due to salvage therapy) (9%), 8 pts of secondary neoplasia (3%), 5 pts due to concomitant disease (2%) and 5 pts for unknown reasons. Conclusions: This 10-year long-term follow-up of the R-MegaCHOEP trial confirms the very encouraging outcome of young high-risk pts following conventional chemotherapy with R-CHOEP. High-dose therapy did not improve outcome in any subgroup analysis including molecular high-risk groups. Relapse rate was generally low. Pts with aggressive relapse showed a very poor long-term outcome while pts with indolent histology at relapse survived long-term. Secondary malignancies occurred; however, they were rare with no excess leukemias/MDS following treatment with very high doses of etoposide and other cytotoxic agents. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Figure Disclosures Nickelsen: Roche Pharma AG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: advisory board; Roche: Honoraria. Truemper:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Held:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board. Viardot:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenwald:MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lenz:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy. Schmitz:Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI) and Validation of a Proposed Novel Risk Model (BALL Score) in Real-World Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) CLL Patients Receiving Idelalisib and Rituximab

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5485-5485
Author(s):  
Massimo Gentile ◽  
Gianluigi Reda ◽  
Francesca Romana Mauro ◽  
Paolo Sportoletti ◽  
Luca Laurenti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

The CLL-IPI score, which combines genetic, biochemical, and clinical parameters, represents a simple worldwide model able to refine risk stratification for CLL patients. This score, developed in the era of chemo-immunotherapy, has not been gauged extensively in R/R-CLL patients treated with novel targeted agents, such as BCR and BCL2 inhibitors. Soumerai et al (Lancet Hematol 2019) assembled a novel risk model for OS in the setting of R/R-CLL receiving targeted therapies in clinical trials. This model, consisting of four accessible markers (β2M, LDH, Hb, and time from initiation of last therapy; BALL score), is able to cluster 3 groups of CLL patients with significantly different OS. This multicenter, observational retrospective study aimed to validate the proposed Soumerai (BALL) and/or CLL-IPI scores for R/R-CLL real-world patients treated with idelalisib and rituximab (IDELA-R). The primary objectives were to determine whether: i) the CLL-IPI retains its prognostic power also in R/R patients treated with IDELA-R; ii) the BALL score is of prognostic value for IDELA-treated R/R-CLL patients, and iii) the BALL score is predictive of PFS. This study, sponsored by Gilead (ISR#IN-IT-312-5339), included CLL patients collected from 12 Italian centers, who received IDELA-R (idelalisib 150 mg b.i.d. and a total of 8 rituximab infusions intravenously) outside clinical trials as salvage therapy with available data for the calculation of the CLL-IPI and BALL scores at the time of treatment start. OS was estimated for all subgroups of both scores. Additionally, risk-specific PFS was assessed. Kaplan-Meier curve, log-rank test, and Cox regression analyses were performed. The prognostic accuracy of the predictive model was assessed by Harrell's C-index. Overall, 120 CLL patients were included in this analysis. The majority of patients were Binet stage B and C (94.2%). The median age was 75 years and 83 cases (69.2%) were male. The median number of previous therapies was 3 (range 1-9) Baseline patient features are listed in Table 1. After a median follow-up of 1.6 years (1 month to 5.8 years), 33 patients had died and 39 experienced an event (death or progression). CLL-IPI scoring (115/120 evaluable cases) indicated that 6 patients (5.2%) were classified as low-risk, 24 (20.9%) as intermediate-risk, 58 (50.4%) as high-risk, and 27 (23.5%) as very high-risk. Stratification of patients according to the CLL-IPI score did not allow prediction of significant differences in OS. Thus, low-risk patients had a 2-year OS probability of 75% (HR=1), with an intermediate-risk of 68% (HR=2.9, 95%CI 0.37-23.3, P=0.3), high-risk of 83% (HR=1.58, 95%CI 0.2-12.5, P=0.66), and very high-risk of 63% (HR=5.9, 95%CI 0.78-45.2, P=0.86). Next, we tested a modified CLL-IPI by assigning a more balanced score to the original CLL-IPI variables (Soumerai et al, Leukemia Lymphoma 2019), partially overlapping previous results. Specifically, modified CLL-IPI high-risk group showed a significantly different OS as compared with intermediate- and low-risk groups. However, differently from the original report no difference was observed between low- and intermediate-risk). According to the BALL score (120/120 evaluable cases), 33 patients (27.5%) were classified as low-risk, 68 (56.7%) as intermediate-risk, and 19 (15.8%) as high-risk. Stratification of patients according to the BALL score predicted significant differences in terms of OS. Thus, low-risk patients had a 2-year OS probability of 92% (HR=1), intermediate-risk of 76% (HR=5.47, 95%CI 1.3-23.7, P=0.023), and high-risk of 54% (HR=15.1, 95%CI 3.4-67, P<0.0001) (Figure 1). Harrell's C-statistic was 0.68 (P<0.001) for predicting OS. To note, BALL score failed to significantly stratify patients in terms of PFS. As for Soumerai et al (Leukemia Lymphoma 2019), the original CLL-IPI score did not retain discriminative power in term of OS in R/R-CLL patients receiving IDELA-R. The modified CLL-IPI failed to stratify low- and intermediate-risk groups, likely due to the number of cases analysed in the current cohort and the heterogeneous IDELA-containing regimens included in the Soumerai study (Soumerai et al, Leukemia Lymphoma 2019). The CLL-IPI was designed for CLL patients treated with first-line chemo-immunotherapy. Herein, we confirm the prognostic power of the BALL score in this real-world series for OS, while losing the predictive impact of patient outcomes in terms of PFS. Disclosures Mauro: Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coscia:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Varettoni:ABBVIE: Other: travel expenses; Roche: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: travel expenses. Rossi:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Janseen: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board. Gaidano:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Myeloablative Fractionated Busulfan Conditioning Regimen with Sorafenib in Patients with AML: Results of Phase I Clinical Trial

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 556-556
Author(s):  
Uday R. Popat ◽  
Roland Bassett ◽  
Peter F. Thall ◽  
Amin M. Alousi ◽  
Gheath Alatrash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
License Agreement ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Post Transplant ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Abstract Background: Myeloablative conditioning can be given safely to older patients by administering busulfan over a longer period (fractionated busulfan regimen) than the standard four-day regimen. (Popat, et al Lancet Haematology 2018). This longer conditioning regimen duration allows the addition of oral targeted agents like sorafenib, which may be synergistic with conditioning chemotherapy and thus further improve disease control. Therefore, we added sorafenib to fludarabine and fractionated busulfan regimen (f-bu) in a phase 1 dose-finding trial studying 4 different doses of sorafenib with f-bu (NCT03247088). Here we report the results of this trial. Methods: Between 3/2018 and 6/2021, 24 patients with AML aged 18 to 70 years with adequate organ function and 8/8-HLA matched related or unrelated donors were enrolled prospectively. The dose of sorafenib was varied among the four values 200, 400, 600, and 800 mg administered from day -24 to -5. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade 3 or higher regimen-related non-hematologic, non-infectious, non-GVHD toxicity occurring between day -24 and day 3. The Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method (BMA-CRM) with target DLT probability 0.30 was used to choose doses for successive cohorts of 3 patients. The first cohort was treated at the lowest sorafenib dose 200, with all successive cohorts' doses chosen adaptively by the BMA-CRM. The doses and schedules of busulfan and fludarabine were fixed, with f-Bu dose targeting an area under the concentration vs time curve (AUC) of 20,000 ± 12% μmol.min given over 3 weeks. The first two doses of busulfan (80 mg/m2 IV each) were administered on days -20 and -13 on an outpatient basis. The last four Bu doses were calculated to give a total course AUC of 20,000 ± 12% μmol.min and were given as inpatient following each dose of Flu 40 mg/m2 on days -6 through -3. GVHD prophylaxis was post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) 50mg/kg on days 3 and 4 and tacrolimus. Recipients of unrelated donor grafts also received MMF. All patients were eligible to receive post-transplant maintenance sorafenib after engraftment. Results: The median age was 52 years (range, 30-70). Disease status was CR in 16 (66.6%) patients, CRi in 5 (20.8%), and advanced in 3 (12.5%). Adverse risk karyotype was present in 10 (41.7%) patients. MRD was present in 13 (54.2%). 9 (38%) had mutated flt3. The donor was unrelated in 14 (58%), and peripheral blood stem cells were the graft source in 21(87.5%). Due to the absence of DLTs, the BMA-CRM assigned 200mg, 400mg, 600mg, and 800mg of sorafenib, respectively, to the first 4 cohorts, and the next 4 cohorts were given 800mg. Only 2 dose-limiting skin toxicities were seen, one in cohort 3 with 600mg of sorafenib and the second in cohort 6 with 800mg of sorafenib. 800mg was the final recommended phase 2 dose. The median follow-up in 20 surviving patients was 7.6 months and 1-year progression free survival was 89% (95% CI 75-100%). Other outcomes are summarized in Table 1. Conclusion: Sorafenib can be safely added to the fractionated busulfan regimen. Early data on efficacy appear promising, with an 89% PFS at 1 year of follow up. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Popat: Bayer: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Hosing: Nkarta Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rezvani: Bayer: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; AvengeBio: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; Navan Technologies: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; GSK: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; Virogin: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; Affimed: Other: License agreement and research agreement; education grant, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Other: Educational grant, Research Funding; Caribou: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; GemoAb: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; Takeda: Other: License agreement and research agreement, Patents & Royalties. Qazilbash: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Daver: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hanmi: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; FATE Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sevier: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novimmune: Research Funding; Trovagene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Data Monitoring Committee member; Dava Oncology (Arog): Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy; STAR Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Newave: Research Funding. Ravandi: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Xencor: Honoraria, Research Funding; Taiho: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Prelude: Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Shpall: Magenta: Consultancy; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Magenta: Honoraria; Adaptimmune: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Navan: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Patents & Royalties; Affimed: Patents & Royalties; Axio: Consultancy. Mehta: CSLBehring: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Triangle: Autologous Transplantation after a Rituximab/Ibrutinib/ara-c Containing Induction in Generalized Mantle Cell Lymphoma - a Randomized European MCL Network Trial

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2816-2816 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dreyling ◽  
Marco Ladetto ◽  
Jeanette K. Doorduijn ◽  
Eva Gine ◽  
Mats Jerkeman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mantle Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a distinct subtype of lymphoma with a wide variation of clinical course. Based on randomized trials of our network, current standard of care is a cytarabine-containing immunochemotherapy induction (Hermine, Lancet 2016) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT; Zöllner, ICML 2019) and rituximab maintenance for 3 years (Le Gouill, NEJM 2018). In relapsed MCL the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib achieves high response rates and ongoing remissions (Wang, NEJM 2013; Dreyling, Lancet 2016). This approach achieved especially longer remission durations in earlier treatment lines (Rule, Hamatologica 2019). We aim to clarify whether ibrutinib added to induction and as maintenance with or without autologous stem cell transplantation might improve outcome. Study design and methods: In this international, randomized three-arm phase III trial (EudraCT-no. 2014-001363-12) young, fit patients ( up to 65 years) with histologically confirmed, untreated mantle cell lymphoma advanced stage II-IV qualify for 1:1:1 randomization after written informed consent according to ICH/EU GCP. In the control arm A, patients receive an alternating R-CHOP/R-DHAP induction followed by myeloablative consolidation (either BEAM or THAM: TBI, high dose Ara-C and melphalan). In arm A+I Ibrutinib is added to the R-CHOP cycles (560 mg day 1-19) and applied as maintenance (continuous dosing) for 2 years. In arm I the same induction and maintenance is applied but high dose consolidation and autologous SCT is skipped. A rituximab maintenance (single doses every 2 months up to 3 years) may be added in all study arms according to national clinical routine. The primary study aim is to show superiority of one of three study arms as future standard of care based on the comparison of the investigator-assessed failure-free survival (FFS), i.e. to investigate if the addition of ibrutinib improves the efficacy of standard 1st line treatment, and can even challenge the use of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous SCT. Secondary study aims include the efficacy of the three treatment arms and the safety and tolerability of ibrutinib during induction immuno-chemotherapy and maintenance. Accordingly, overall and complete response rates, progression-free and overall survival will be determined as well as adverse events during induction immuno-chemotherapy and follow-up including the cumulative incidence rates of SPMs. In addition, minimal residual disease is regularly determined based on patient-specific PCR assay according to the standardized Biomed-2 procedure. Results: As of July 30th, 511 of up to 870 patients have been randomized from 12 different European countries. In a meanwhile completed safety run-in of the initial 50 patients, feasibility of the two experimental arms was confirmed with no major differences in hematological and other toxicities and no major delays during induction. Disclosures Dreyling: Acerta: Other: Scientific advisory board; Novartis: Other: Scientific advisory board; Mundipharma: Other: Scientific advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: Scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Other: Scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Other: Scientific advisory board; Roche: Other: Scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ladetto:Roche: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria. Doorduijn:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gine:Janssen: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding. Jerkeman:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mey:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hutchings:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kolstad:Merck: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Trneny:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gomes da Silva:AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Siences: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Klapper:Roche, Takeda, Amgen, Regeneron: Honoraria, Research Funding. Unterhalt:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Hoster:Janssen: Research Funding; Roche Pharma AG: Other: Travel Support.

scholarly journals Identification of Two CAR T-Cell Populations Associated with Complete Response or Progressive Disease in Adult Lymphoma Patients Treated with Axi-Cel

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 779-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zinaida Good ◽  
Jay Y. Spiegel ◽  
Bita Sahaf ◽  
Meena B. Malipatlolla ◽  
Matthew J. Frank ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cells ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Car T Cells ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Car T ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL). Long-term analysis of the ZUMA-1 phase 1-2 clinical trial showed that ~40% of Axi-cel patients remained progression-free at 2 years (Locke et al., Lancet Oncology 2019). Those patients who achieved a complete response (CR) at 6 months generally remained progression-free long-term. The biological basis for achieving a durable CR in patients receiving Axi-cel remains poorly understood. Here, we sought to identify CAR T-cell intrinsic features associated with CR at 6 months in DLBCL patients receiving commercial Axi-cel at our institution. Using mass cytometry, we assessed expression of 33 surface or intracellular proteins relevant to T-cell function on blood collected before CAR T cell infusion, on day 7 (peak expansion), and on day 21 (late expansion) post-infusion. To identify cell features that distinguish patients with durable CR (n = 11) from those who developed progressive disease (PD, n = 14) by 6 months following Axi-cel infusion, we performed differential abundance analysis of multiparametric protein expression on CAR T cells. This unsupervised analysis identified populations on day 7 associated with persistent CR or PD at 6 months. Using 10-fold cross-validation, we next fitted a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (lasso) model that identified two clusters of CD4+ CAR T cells on day 7 as potentially predictive of clinical outcome. The first cluster identified by our model was associated with CR at 6 months and had high expression of CD45RO, CD57, PD1, and T-bet transcription factor. Analysis of protein co-expression in this cluster enabled us to define a simple gating scheme based on high expression of CD57 and T-bet, which captured a population of CD4+ CAR T cells on day 7 with greater expansion in patients experiencing a durable CR (mean±s.e.m. CR: 26.13%±2.59%, PD: 10.99%±2.53%, P = 0.0014). In contrast, the second cluster was associated with PD at 6 months and had high expression of CD25, TIGIT, and Helios transcription factor with no CD57. A CD57-negative Helios-positive gate captured a population of CD4+ CAR T cells was enriched on day 7 in patients who experienced progression (CR: 9.75%±2.70%, PD: 20.93%±3.70%, P = 0.016). Co-expression of CD4, CD25, and Helios on these CAR T cells highlights their similarity to regulatory T cells, which could provide a basis for their detrimental effects. In this exploratory analysis of 25 patients treated with Axi-cel, we identified two populations of CD4+ CAR T cells on day 7 that were highly associated with clinical outcome at 6 months. Ongoing analyses are underway to fully characterize this dataset, to explore the biological activity of the populations identified, and to assess the presence of other populations that may be associated with CAR-T expansion or neurotoxicity. This work demonstrates how multidimensional correlative studies can enhance our understanding of CAR T-cell biology and uncover populations associated with clinical outcome in CAR T cell therapies. This work was supported by the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. Figure Disclosures Muffly: Pfizer: Consultancy; Adaptive: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Miklos:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mackall:Vor: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Roche: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Adaptimmune LLC: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Glaxo-Smith-Kline: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Allogene: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apricity Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Obsidian: Research Funding; Lyell: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: Founder, Research Funding; Nektar: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; PACT: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bryologyx: Other: Scientific Advisory Board.

ABVD Versus Escalated Beacopp in Advanced Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Results from a Retrospective, Multicenter European Study

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1565-1565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Mondello ◽  
Irene Dogliotti ◽  
Jan-Paul Bohn ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Simone Ferrero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advanced Stage ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Purpose: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease even in advanced-stage, with &gt;90% of long-term survivors. Currently, the standard of care is ABVD (doxorubicin, etoposide, vinblastine and dacarbazine), as it is less toxic and as effective as other more intensive chemotherapy regimens. Alternatively, BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone) has been proposed as front-line intensified regimen with a better initial disease control and prolonged time to relapse when compared to ABVD. However, this advantage is associated with higher rates of severe hematologic toxicity, treatment-related deaths, secondary neoplasms and infertility. To date, the debate regarding which regimen should be preferred as first line for advanced-stage HL is still ongoing. To shed some light on this open question we compared efficacy and safety of both regimens in clinical practice. Patients and Methods: From October 2009 to October 2018, patients with HL stage III-IV treated with either ABVD or BEACOPP escalated (BEACOPPesc) were retrospectively assessed in 7 European cancer centers. Results: A total of 372 consecutive patients were included in the study. One-hundred and ten patients were treated with BEACOPPesc and 262 with ABVD. The baseline characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly, except for a higher rate of high-risk patients in the BEACOPPesc group in contrast to the ABVD one (47% vs 18%; p= 0.003). Complete response rate (CR) assessed by PET imaging at the end of the second cycle was 67% and 78% for the ABVD and BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.003), respectively. Thirteen patients of the ABVD group achieved stable disease (SD) and 6 had a progression disease (PD). On the other hand, 4 of the patients in the BEACOPPesc group progressed, another 2 interrupted therapy because life-threatening toxicity. At the end of the therapy, CR was 76% in the ABVD group and 85% in the BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.01). A total of 20% patients in the ABVD group and 14% patients in the BEACOPPesc group received consolidation radiotherapy on the mediastinal mass at the dose of 30Gy. After radiotherapy, the number of patients with CR increased to 79% and 87% in the two groups (p= 0.041), respectively. Thirty-nine patients (35%) in the BEACOPPesc group required dose reduction of chemotherapy due to toxicity compared to 12 patients (5%; p= &lt;0.001) in the ABVD group. Overall, the rate of severe toxicities was higher in the BEACOPPesc group in comparison with the ABVD cohort. In particular, there was a significant increased frequency of acute grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events (neutropenia 61% vs 24%; anemia 29% vs 4%; thrombocytopenia 29% vs 3%), febrile neutropenia (29% vs 3%), severe infections (18% vs 3%). Myeloid growth factors were administered to 85% and 59% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD group. Blood transfusions were required in 51% and 6% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD cohort. Progression during or shortly after treatment occurred in 5 patients in the BEACOPPesc group (4%) and in 16 patients in the ABVD group (6%; p= 0.62). Among the 96 patients who achieved a CR after BEACOPPesc and radiotherapy, 8 relapsed (8%), compared to 29 of 208 patients in the ABVD group (14%; p= 0.04). At a median follow-up period of 5 years, no statistical difference in progression free survival (PFS; p=0.11) and event-free survival (EFS; p=0.22) was observed between the BEACOPPesc and ABVD cohorts. Similarly, overall survival (OS) did not differ between the two groups (p=0.14). The baseline international prognostic score (IPS &lt;3 vs ≥ 3) significantly influenced the EFS with an advantage for the high-risk group treated with BEACOPPesc (Figure 1A; p=0.03), but not the PFS (Figure 1B; p=0.06) and OS (Figure 1C; p=0.14). During the follow-up period, in the BEACOPPesc group one patient developed myelodysplasia and one acute leukemia. Second solid tumors developed in one patient in the ABVD group (lung cancer) and one in BEACOPPesc group (breast cancer). Conclusion: We confirm that the ABVD regimen is an effective and less toxic therapeutic option for advanced-stage HL. Although BEACOPP results in better initial tumor control especially in high-risk patients, the long-term outcome remains similar between the two regimens. Disclosures Ferrero: EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Martinelli:BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Willenbacher:European Commission: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Myelom- und Lymphomselbsthilfe Österreich: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; IQVIA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; oncotyrol: Employment, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Fujimoto: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tirol Program: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Central Nervous System Involvement By Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2426-2426
Author(s):  
Nicole McLaughlin ◽  
Jonas Paludo ◽  
Yucai Wang ◽  
David J. Inwards ◽  
Nora Bennani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cns Involvement ◽  
Extranodal Involvement ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Abstract Background: While extranodal involvement by mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is relatively common, involvement of the central nervous system (CNS) is rare (&lt;5% of cases), with limited treatment options. We report the outcomes of 36 patients (pts) with CNS involvement compared to 72 matched control MCL pts without CNS involvement. Methods: MCL pts with CNS involvement seen at Mayo Clinic between 1/1995-9/2020 were identified using the Mayo Data Explorer tool. CNS involvement was defined by tissue biopsy confirmed CNS MCL, CSF analysis demonstrating lymphoma cells, and/or neuroimaging findings compatible with CNS involvement. A 2:1 control group of MCL pts without CNS involvement, matched by age (+/- 2 years) and year of diagnosis (+/- 1 year), was selected among all MCL cases. Medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, treatment modalities, and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time to event analysis. Wilcoxon test was used to compare continuous variables and Chi square test was used for categorical variables. Results: Out of 1,753 pts with MCL, 36 (2%) had evidence of CNS involvement, including 4 pts with CNS involvement at initial MCL diagnosis. Baseline characteristics of pts with CNS involvement (CNS MCL group) and those without CNS involvement (control group) are shown in Table 1. At MCL diagnosis, non-CNS extranodal involvement was seen in 30 (83%) pts in the CNS MCL group (24 pts with 1 site and 6 pts with ≥ 2 sites), with bone marrow being the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=24, 67%). For the control group, 54 (75%) pts had extranodal involvement (44 pts with 1 site and 10 pts with ≥ 2 sites), and bone marrow was also the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=50, 69%). Notably, advanced stage disease (stage 3-4) was more commonly seen in the CNS MCL group (n=32, 97%) than in the control group (n=59, 83%) (p=0.04) at MCL diagnosis. Blastoid variant was present in a higher proportion of pts in the CNS MCL group (n=11, 31%) compared to the control group (n=8, 11%) (p=0.02). The CNS MCL group also presented with a higher median serum LDH at diagnosis (239 U/L [range 153-1901] vs. 187 U/L [range 124-588], p=0.02), and higher Ki-67 (40% [range 15-100] vs. 30% [range 10-90], p=0.04) compared to the control group. The most common frontline treatment regimen was anthracycline-based therapies (i.e. R-CHOP, Nordic regimen, R-hyperCVAD) for both groups (58% in CNS MCL group and 56% in control group). 14 (39%) pts in the CNS MCL group underwent autologous stem cell transplant in CR1 vs. 31 pts (43%) in the control group. Similar use of rituximab maintenance was seen in both groups (31% in CNS MCL group and 25% in control group). Median total lines of therapy from initial MCL diagnosis was 3 (range 1-9) in CNS MCL group and 2 (range 1-9) in the control group. The median follow-up from MCL diagnosis was 134 months (95% CI:119-163) for the entire cohort. Median OS from MCL diagnosis was 50.3 months (95% CI: 20.9-71.1) for the CNS MCL group compared to 97.1 months (95% CI: 82.6-192.7; p=&lt;0.001) for the control group (Figure 1). Median time from MCL diagnosis to CNS involvement was 25 months (range 0-167). Median OS from CNS involvement was 4.7 months (95% CI: 2.3-6.7). At last follow up, 31 (86%) pts were deceased from the CNS MCL group, compared to 38 (52%) pts in the control group. For the CNS MCL group, the causes of death were CNS lymphoma in 10 (32%) pts, systemic lymphoma in 9 (29%) pts, treatment-related complication in 7 (23%) pts, and other/unknown in 5 (16%) pts. For the control group, the causes of death were systemic lymphoma in 15 (39%) pts, treatment-related in 2 (5%) pts, and other/unknown in 21 (55%) pts. Conclusion: In pts with MCL, CNS involvement is associated with worse outcomes as evident by a shorter median OS from initial MCL diagnosis (50 months vs. 97 months). Involvement of the CNS by lymphoma is an important contributor for the shorter OS as suggested by the median OS of only 5 months from CNS involvement. Advanced stage, blastoid variant, elevated LDH, and elevated Ki67 at MCL diagnosis were features more commonly seen in the CNS MCL cohort. Validation of risk factors at initial MCL diagnosis associated with CNS involvement and exploring the role of CNS prophylaxis are important topics for further investigation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Phase I Trial Using CD19/CD22 Bispecific CAR T Cells in Pediatric and Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 744-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liora M Schultz ◽  
Lori S Muffly ◽  
Jay Y. Spiegel ◽  
Sneha Ramakrishna ◽  
Nasheed Hossain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cells ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Car T Cells ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Car T ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells targeting either CD19 or CD22 have yielded striking complete remission (CR) rates of 70%-90% in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but CD19 negative and CD22 low relapse limits the curative potential of these single-antigen CAR T cell approaches. We hypothesized that a bivalent CAR-T construct that can target CD19 and/or CD22 would prevent antigen negative/low relapse. Here we present the combined single institution experience to date of pediatric and adult patients with R/R ALL treated with this novel bispecific CAR. Methods: We conducted parallel Phase I clinical trials of CD19/CD22 bispecific CAR T cells in pediatric and adult patients with relapsed/refractory ALL. We utilized lentiviral transduction of a bivalent CAR construct incorporating the fmc63 CD19 and m971 CD22 single chain variable fragments (scFvs) and a 41BB costimulatory endodomain. After lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, patients were infused with fresh or cryopreserved CAR T cells manufactured using a 7-11 day process. Two dose levels were tested during dose escalation: Dose level 1 was 1x106 CAR T cells/kg and dose level 2 was 3x106 cells/kg. Primary objectives assessed the ability to successfully manufacture CAR19/22 CAR T cells and safety while response at Day 28 post-infusion was a secondary objective. Blood, bone marrow and cerebrospinal fluid samples were obtained at protocol defined intervals for correlative biology studies. Results: Nineteen patients have been enrolled (10 pediatric; 9 adult) with a median age of 23 years (range, 2-68) and median of 4 (range, 2-11) prior lines of leukemia-directed therapy. Ten patients received prior HCT, 9 were treated with prior Blinatumomab, 3 with prior CD19 directed CAR T cells and 4 with prior Inotuzumab. Fourteen patients (8 pediatric, 6 adult) have been infused to date with CD19/CD22 bispecific CAR T cells; 7 were treated at dose level 1 (DL1) and 7 at dose level 2 (DL2). Successful manufacturing of cells at target dose levels was achieved in all patients. Twelve patients have reached day 28 and are included in the safety and response analysis presented here. Nine of 12 (75%) experienced cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and 2/12 (17%) developed immune-effector cell neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). The CRS and ICANS were all grade 1 or 2 across both dose levels and across pediatric and adult patients except for one adult with high disease burden who experienced grade 4 CRS and grade 4 ICANS, both of which were reversible. No differences in toxicities were seen across the patient age spectrum and there were no cases of treatment-related mortality within 28 days following CAR T infusion. Eleven of 12 (92%) patients achieved a CR, 10 of whom achieved CR at day 28 and one with a PR of extramedullary disease at day 28 which improved to CR by day 180 without further leukemia-directed intervention. One patient had primary progressive disease prior to day 28. Peak CAR expansion as detected by peripheral blood flow cytometry reached a median level of 11.13% (DL1) and 29.1% (DL2) CAR T of CD3+ cells with a range of 0.7-22.54% and 3.8-86.96%, respectively. To date, 3 patients (1 pediatric and 2 adult patients) have relapsed, all with retention of CD19. Post-remission practice differed across pediatric and adult patients; Six pediatric patients reaching day 28 underwent consolidative hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) whereas no adult patients received subsequent HCT. One patient died from complications post HCT while in remission. Therefore, the overall survival for all infused patients was 92% with a median follow-up of 9.5 months from time of infusion (range, 1-20). Conclusion: The combined pediatric and adult phase I trials of bispecific CD19/CD22 targeting CAR T cells in relapsed/refractory ALL demonstrates safety and tolerability at two dose levels. Expanded accrual at dose level 2 is ongoing and clinical outcomes will be updated. This work additionally demonstrates feasibility of delivering unified B-ALL CAR T cell therapy across age boundaries. Multi-parametric CyTOF studies permitting CAR T cell phenotyping in conjunction with single cell TCR tracking, proteomics, epigenomics and cytokine profiling are ongoing and will be used to further characterize persisting CAR T cells and define inter-product and inter-patient variability. Disclosures Muffly: Pfizer: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy; Adaptive: Research Funding. Majzner:Xyphos Inc.: Consultancy; Lyell Immunopharma: Consultancy. Feldman:Octane Biotech, Inc.: Employment; Personalized Medicine Initiative Science: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Miklos:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mackall:Obsidian: Research Funding; Lyell: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: Founder, Research Funding; Nektar: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; PACT: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bryologyx: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Vor: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Roche: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Adaptimmune LLC: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Glaxo-Smith-Kline: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Allogene: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apricity Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Predictive Factors of Response and Survival of Lenalidomide and Rituximab As Initial Treatment of Follicular Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1533-1533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Strati ◽  
Ralph J. Johnson ◽  
Sheryl G Forbes ◽  
Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽  
Felipe Samaniego ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advanced Stage ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Baseline Characteristics

Introduction. The combination of rituximab and lenalidomide (R2) is active in patients with untreated indolent lymphoma. Recent randomized trials (RELEVANCE) have demonstrated similar efficacy when compared to standard chemo-immunotherapy backbones. Long term follow up of patients receiving R2 as well as predictors of long term remission and survival have yet to be published. Methods. We prospectively evaluated patients with low grade advanced stage FL who received R2 as initial treatment at our institution between 07/2008 and 10/2014. Lenalidomide was given at 20 mg (day 1-21, in a 28 day cycle) for 6 cycles with rituximab monthly. Lenalidomide starting dose was 10 mg if baseline creatinine clearance was &lt; 60 mL/min. Patients with an objective response continued with 10-20 mg of lenalidomide with rituximab for up to 12 more cycles. Response was evaluated according to 2014 Lugano criteria. Results. One-hundred and one patients were included in the analysis, baseline characteristics are shown in the Table. Median number of provided cycles was 7 (range, 1-20). Median dose of lenalidomide was 20 mg (range, 5-20 mg), and 29 (29%) patients required a dose reduction. Fifty-six (55%) patients experienced grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicities, the most common (&gt; 5%) being neutropenia (39%), skin rash (20%), myalgia (16%) and fatigue (16%). Seven (7%) patients discontinued treatment before completion, after a median time of 4 months (range, 1-10 months): 4 because of toxicity (arterial thrombosis in 2, respiratory failure in 1, and skin rash in 1), and 3 because of progression. Ninety-eight patients were evaluable for response, while 3 patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity before first response assessment. Overall response rate was 98%, CR rate 90% (both achieved after a median of 6 months [range, 3-22 months]), and CR rate at 30 months (CR30) was 80%. Only female sex associated with a higher CR rate (96% vs 83%, p=0.05), while no baseline characteristic associated with CR30 rate. After a median follow-up of 88 months (95% confidence interval, 84-92 months), 31 (31%) patients progressed and/or died, 7-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 63%, and 13% of patients had a PFS &lt; 24 months (PFS24). Failure to achieve CR was the only factor associated with significantly decreased PFS (10 months vs not reached, p&lt;0.001) and higher likelihood of PFS24 (46% vs 5%, p&lt;0.001). No association was observed with baseline characteristics, including FLIPI and FLIPI-2 score. At most recent follow-up, transformation was reported in 3 (3%) patients, after 30, 32 and 42 months, respectively. Two (2%) patients have died, 1 of unrelated comorbid health conditions, 1 of progressive disease, and 7-year overall survival was 98%. Second cancers (excluding transformation) were diagnosed in 8 (8%) patients, after a median of 55 months (range, 3-105 months). These included: breast adenocarcinoma (2), melanoma (2), pancreatic adenocarcinoma (1), esophageal adenocarcinoma (1), and therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia. Discussion. Long-term follow-up show very favorable outcomes for patients with advanced stage FL receiving R2 as initial treatment, independent of traditional prognostic factors relevant to patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy, including FLIPI and FLIPI-2 score. Combination strategies, aimed at increasing depth of response to R2, may further improve outcomes observed with this regimen. Table. Disclosures Nastoupil: Bayer: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria. Westin:Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Wang:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aviara: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; VelosBio: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding. Neelapu:Pfizer: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fowler:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: lenalidomide and rituximab are not yet FDA-approved as frontline treatment for patients with FL

Reduced-Intensity Induction with Dasatinib Vs. Hypercvad + 2nd Generation TKIs with MRD-Guided Follow-up Therapy Leads to Comparable Rates of MRD-Negative Remission While Reducing Transfusions and Neutropenia in Ph+ ALL

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 42-44
Author(s):  
Jonathan Webster ◽  
Hua-Ling Tsai ◽  
Eric Gehrie ◽  
Tania Jain ◽  
Christopher S. Hourigan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Allogeneic Bone ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
2Nd Generation ◽  
Reduced Intensity

Background: Reduced-intensity induction (RII) with imatinib yields comparable outcomes to HyperCVAD with imatinib with fewer induction deaths and an improved CR rate in Ph+ ALL (Chalandon. Blood. 2015). Dasatinib with steroids also produces excellent responses with little toxicity (Foa. Blood. 2011). Allogeneic bone marrow transplant (AlloBMT) remains the goal of therapy in Ph+ ALL based on contemporary trials with TKIs demonstrating improved survival in patients transplanted in CR1, and we have shown that transplant following induction with dasatinib yields better outcomes than with imatinib. Thus we implemented RII with dasatinib for the treatment of Ph+ ALL and compared to patients who received HyperCVAD with a 2nd generation TKI. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital from September 2017-June 2020 underwent a 4-week RII with: vincristine 2 mg/d weekly, dexamethasone 40 mg PO weekly on days 1 and 2, and dasatinib 100 mg PO daily. CNS prophylaxis with IT MTX was given on day 8. Dexamethasone and vincristine were reduced by 50% for patients over age 70. Filgrastim was started on day 15 for patients without ANC recovery. Patients who received HyperCVAD with dose adjustments for age (Rausch et al. Cancer. 2020) from July 2011-June 2020 were included for comparison. Dasatinib 100 mg PO daily or nilotinib 400 mg PO BID were given with HyperCVAD at the discretion of the treating physician. Rituximab 375 mg/m^2 on days 1 and 8 was given based on CD20 status. Subsequent therapy after induction was not specifically mandated. Results: 21 patients received RII and 24 received HyperCVAD. The cohorts were comparable in terms of gender (38.1% female vs. 50%, p=0.55), age (median 49.8 vs. 50.3, p=0.33), age &gt;60 (33.3% vs. 29.2%, p&gt;0.99), median WBC at diagnosis (19 vs. 23.5, p=0.56), and the presence of decompensated DIC (fibrinogen &lt;150) prior to treatment initiation (4.8% vs. 8.3%, p&gt;0.99). Among the patients treated with HyperCVAD, 15 received dasatinib (62.5%) and 9 received nilotinib (37.5%). Rituximab use was balanced between the cohorts (61.9% vs. 58.3%, p&gt;0.99). Table 1 compares the time to ANC recovery &gt;500, transfusion requirements within 30 days of chemotherapy initiation, rates of decompensated DIC following treatment initiation, and the duration of inpatient hospitalization for induction. While the rates of decompensated DIC were similar in each cohort, patients treated with RII required fewer platelet and pRBC transfusions. ANC recovery was faster following RII, and only 5 patients (23.8%) received growth factor support. All patients achieved a hematologic response. There was one induction death with HyperCVAD (4.2%). Most patients received a subsequent cycle of high-dose (HD) MTX and Ara-C with TKI (76.2% following RII and 91.7% following HyperCVAD). The remaining patients treated with RII subsequently received HD MTX (14.2%) or blinatumomab (9.5%) with TKI due to co-morbidities. Among those patients treated with HD MTX and Ara-C, blinatumomab was given with TKI to 6 patients (37.5%) who initially received RII and 1 patient (4.5%) after HyperCVAD (p=0.03) due to persistent MRD. As shown in Figure 1, the incidence of MRD-negativity by multi-color flow cytometry (MFC) with a sensitivity of 10-4 at day 120 after treatment initiation was similar for RII (85.4%, 95% CI 64.8-97.1) versus HyperCVAD (86.7%, 95% CI 69.8-96.6). Among patients subsequently treated with HD MTX and Ara-C, 62.5% proceeded to alloBMT after RII with an additional 12.5% currently undergoing transplant evaluation, while 86.4% proceeded to alloBMT after HyperCVAD. The 1-year RFS and OS following RII were 87.9% (95% CI 59.6-96.8) and 100% compared to 87.5% (95% CI 66.1-95.8) and 95.8% (95% CI 73.9-99.4) following HyperCVAD. Conclusion: RII with dasatinib results in fewer transfusions and less myelosuppression compared to HyperCVAD with a 2nd generation TKI. More patients treated with RII received blinatumomab following high-dose MTX and Ara-C, but the rates of MRD-negativity were comparable between the two regimens. Thus RII with dasatinib followed by MRD-guided follow-up therapy facilitates MRD negative remissions with less toxicity than HyperCVAD. The vast majority of fit patients were able to proceed to alloBMT following either regimen. Transplant outcomes following dasatinib with induction are presented in our concurrent abstract demonstrating a 5-year RFS of 83% (95% CI 59.8-93.5). Disclosures Webster: Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Jain:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: for advisory board participation; CareDx: Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dalton:AbbVie: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding. DeZern:Abbvie: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; MEI: Consultancy. Gojo:Genentech: Research Funding; Amphivena: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Bolanos-Meade:Incyte: Other: DSMB Fees. Luznik:WindMil Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: Patent holder; AbbVie: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding. Ali:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borrello:Celgene: Research Funding; Aduro: Patents & Royalties; WindMIL Therapeutics: Other: Founder , Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, CALIB-R, Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Smith:Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levis:Menarini: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; FujiFilm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Allogeneic Transplantation for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia with Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide: Assessing the Importance of Conditioning Regimen, Donor Choice, and Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Use

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 44-45
Author(s):  
Jonathan Webster ◽  
Leo Luznik ◽  
Hua-Ling Tsai ◽  
Philip H. Imus ◽  
Amy E. DeZern ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Post Transplant ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory ◽  
Donor Type

Background: Contemporary trials in adult Ph+ ALL patients with TKIs continue to show improved outcomes with allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation (alloBMT) in first remission (CR1) (Chalandon. Blood. 2015 AND Ravandi. Blood Adv. 2016). These studies have relied on myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and largely required an HLA-matched donor. Post-transplant survival in Ph+ ALL has been shown to be similar between patients transplanted with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) and MAC, but the incidence of relapse after RIC is higher (Bachanova. Leukemia. 2014). Post-transplant TKI maintenance reduces the incidence of relapse (Brissot. Haematologica. 2015), but this strategy has not specifically been investigated after RIC. Additionally, HLA-haploidentical donor transplants using post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as a component of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis have comparable outcomes to HLA-matched transplants (McCurdy. Haematologica. 2017). We analyzed outcomes among patients who universally received PTCy and attempted post-transplant TKI prophylaxis to determine the importance of remission status (CR1 vs. later), conditioning regimen, donor type, and TKI choice. Methods: The bone marrow transplant database at Johns Hopkins was queried for adult patients with de novo Ph+ ALL who received alloBMT using PTCy between January 2008 and August 2018. Characteristics of patients were summarized and compared using the student's T test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Estimators of OS and RFS were reported using the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences in time-to-event outcomes were estimated using Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 81 transplants for Ph+ ALL were performed: 69 (85%) in CR1 and 12 (15%) in second or greater remission (CR2+). The demographics are presented in Table 1 and separated by conditioning regimen [MAC vs. nonmyeloablative (NMAC)] for transplants in CR1. The cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 and grade 3-4 aGVHD at 1 year were 33% (95% CI, 23% to 44%) and 9% (95% CI, 3% to 15%), respectively. The incidence of moderate or severe cGVHD at 2 years was 8% (95% CI, 2% to 13%). Nearly all patients (91.4%) initiated a post-transplant TKI at a median of 56 days. Overall, 44.4% of patients were able to take a TKI on ≥85% of nonrelapse days from day 31-395 post-transplant. AlloBMT in CR1 (compared to CR2+) improved RFS (HR=0.25, p=0.0002) and pre-transplant minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry (MFC) was associated with decreased RFS (HR=2.57, p=0.039). The presence of pre-transplant MRD by PCR did not confer an increased risk of relapse (HR 1.12, p=0.84). Among the 69 patients transplanted in CR1, the 5-year OS was 77.6% (95% CI, 64.8% to 86.2%) and RFS was 67% (95% CI, 52.4-76.5%). As shown in Figure 1, the use of NMAC versus MAC (HR 0.37, p=0.02) and dasatinib versus imatinib at diagnosis (HR 0.21, p=0.007) led to improved relapse-free survival (RFS) in univariate analyses. Neither donor type (with the majority being haploidentical) nor recipient age ≥60 affected RFS. Post-transplant TKI prophylaxis was discontinued prior to relapse in 20 patients among whom 12 remain in an MRD-negative remission, 4 died of non-relapse causes, 3 relapsed, and 1 developed recurrent MRD controlled by a TKI. The median duration of post-transplant TKI prophylaxis prior to discontinuation was 46.5 months in those who remain in treatment-free remission versus 15.6 months in those who relapsed (p=0.01). Eighteen relapses occurred on maintenance therapy, and 90% of tested cases were positive for a kinase domain mutation conferring resistance to the TKI in use at relapse. No significant difference in the median time to TKI initiation post-transplant was noted between those who relapsed on maintenance and those who did not (70 days vs. 55 days, p=0.6). All patients in ongoing remission were MRD-negative by PCR at their most recent evaluation. Conclusions: AlloBMT with PTCy in Ph+ ALL was most effective when performed in CR1 with negative MFC for MRD. The initiation of post-transplant TKI prophylaxis was nearly universal. Among patients transplanted in CR1, the best results were achieved in patients treated with dasatinib at diagnosis (5-year RFS 83%) and NMAC (5-year RFS 73.1%). Thus post-transplant TKI prophylaxis appeared to overcome any relapse control advantage for MAC, yielding better outcomes with NMAC. Disclosures Webster: Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Luznik:WindMil Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: Patent holder; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy. DeZern:Abbvie: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pratz:Jazz Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Millennium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Agios: Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Boston BioMedical: Consultancy; Astellas: Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding. Levis:Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Menarini: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; FujiFilm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria. Gojo:Amgen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Research Funding. Bolanos-Meade:Incyte: Other: DSMB Fees. Dalton:Eli Lilly: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Jain:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: for advisory board participation; CareDx: Other: Advisory Board. Ali:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borrello:Celgene: Research Funding; Aduro: Patents & Royalties; WindMIL Therapeutics: Other: Founder , Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, CALIB-R, Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Smith:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document