scholarly journals Multiple Myeloma Epigenetic Programming Prognostic of Outcome Converges with Loci Reprogrammed in Relapsed/Refractory Disease

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 858-858
Author(s):  
Benjamin G Barwick ◽  
Sheri Skerget ◽  
Jonathan J Keats ◽  
Daniel Auclair ◽  
Sagar Lonial ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dna Methylation ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Outcome Analysis ◽  
Pwwp Domain ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Poor Outcome ◽  
Epigenetic Programming ◽  
Risk Patients

The genetic and transcriptional program of multiple myeloma has identified novel markers of high-risk disease and mechanisms of pathogenesis. However, there remains a significant gap between prospective identification of high-risk patients and our ability to determine all patients that experience poor outcomes. Epigenetic alterations in myeloma have been less studied, but have significant potential as a translatable biomarker. To better understand how epigenetic programming may contribute to myeloma pathogenesis, we characterized the myeloma DNA methylome. DNA from CD138+ enriched myeloma specimens from the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) CoMMpass study (NCT01454297) were obtained after receiving permission from the CoMMpass Tissue Use Committee and Emory IRB. Whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) was performed by adapter ligation (Kapa HyperPrep) using fully methylated sequencing adapters followed by bisulfite conversion (Qiagen Epitect), library amplification (Kapa Uracil+ HiFi polymerase), and sequencing (NovaSeq 6000 S4 150bp paired-end reads). Sequencing data were mapped with Bismark and CpG methylation calls were extracted using R. WGBS DNA methylation data was generated for 120 specimens, including 87 baseline, 24 paired relapse, and 9 paired peripheral blood specimens. This yielded ≥5x coverage at 21,393,650 CpGs in 90% of samples with an average coverage of 20x. Myeloma exhibited extensive genomic hypomethylation such that the median level was 42% (range 21-67%) as compared to 64% in plasma cells from healthy individuals. Principle component analysis indicated most variation corresponded with hypomethylation, which occurred in megabase domains devoid of gene expression. In contrast, DNA methylation was retained in the bodies of expressed genes. Principle components 2 and 3 separated samples with t(4;14) translocations from others. This may be due to overexpression of WHSC1 driving excessive histone 3 lysine 36 di-methylation (H3K36me2), which in turn impacts the function of PWWP-domain containing DNA methyltransferases (DNMT3A, DNMT3B). Given the 3-fold variability observed in average methylation, we sought to understand if this was indicative of outcome. Analysis of 87 baseline specimens identified 23,386 loci where DNA methylation (or lack thereof) was prognostic of outcome (FDR ≤0.01) (Figure 1a). These prognostic loci were clustered into contiguous regions often found in gene bodies and could be used to stratify patients by progression-free and overall survival (P-value <1e-7; Hazard ratio >8) (Figure 1b). Importantly, the prognostic value of these CpG were independent of t(4;14) status and ISS stage, indicating these high-risk patients would not have otherwise been identified. Furthermore, analysis of 24 relapse specimens from 22 patients indicated epigenetic remodeling occurred at these prognostic loci. Specifically, loci where the presence of DNA methylation was indicative of poor outcome gained DNA methylation in relapsed samples, and loci where lack of DNA methylation was indicative of poor outcome lost DNA methylation in relapse samples (Figure 1c). These relapse/refractory DNA methylation changes occurred in contiguous regions proximal to genes including PRKCE, MGMT, FHIT, WWOX, and HDAC9 (Figure 1d and data not shown). Cumulatively, these data identify myeloma epigenetic markers of outcome that undergo reprogramming in relapsed samples suggesting they may be indicative of therapeutic resistance. Disclosures Lonial: Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Boise:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes By Cytogenetic Risk Category in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Evidence from a Cohort Review in France

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 4784-4784
Author(s):  
Huamao Mark Lin ◽  
Keith L Davis ◽  
James A. Kaye ◽  
Katarina Luptakova ◽  
Lu Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Standard Risk

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is an incurable hematologic cancer characterized by multiple recurrences. With each recurrence, patients have a lower probability of response and duration of response is shorter. Therefore, there is an unmet need to improve outcomes in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). There is a shortage of data describing clinical features and outcomes in these patients in real-world practice, particularly with regard to differences in outcomes by baseline cytogenetic risk. To help address this information gap, this study analyzed data from a cohort of RRMM patients in France. METHODS: A retrospective observational review of medical records was conducted in a cohort of 200 patients with RRMM in France. Patients were selected (based on randomly generated first letter of last name) from the caseloads of 40 hematology/oncology providers across France practicing mainly in academic hospitals. Inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years of age at initial MM diagnosis; first determined to have RRMM between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, where RRMM was defined by (1) first-line (induction) regimen of chemotherapy with or without stem cell transplant (SCT) and with or without other post-induction/SCT therapy and (2) disease progression while on or at any time after completion of first-line therapy. Patients could be alive or deceased at the time of record abstraction. Baseline cytogenetic risk was defined as follows: high-risk: cytogenetic abnormalities del(17p), t(4:14), or t(14;16); unknown/unassessed risk: patients for whom cytogenetics were unavailable; or standard-risk: all patients with known cytogenetics not classified as high-risk. Patients were assessed for treatment response, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from date of first relapse (study index date). All analyses were descriptive. Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method. RESULTS: Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1. A total of 55 high-risk and 113 standard-risk patients were identified; risk category was unknown or unassessed for 32 patients. Among all patients, mean (SD) age at RRMM diagnosis was 66.3 (8.9) years and 62% of the sample was male. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone was the most common second-line systemic regimen initiated (50% of high-risk patients, 59.5% of standard-risk patients receiving second-line treatment). A total of 114 patients (57%) initiated a third-line treatment. Despite clinical response in second-line treatment occurring sooner in high-risk patients (median: 106 days) than in standard-risk patients (median: 237 days), physician-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was lower in high-risk patients (63%: 17% complete response, 46% partial response) than standard-risk patients (91%: 26% complete response, 65% partial response) across all second-line treatments combined (Table 2).. For third-line treatment, ORR was lower in high-risk patients (54%: 12% complete response, 42% partial response) than standard-risk patients (74%: 9% complete response, 65% partial response). Among patients who initiated a second-line treatment (n = 192), 47.4% were deceased at the time of data collection. From second-line initiation, K-M estimates of 1- to 5-year OS and PFS were substantially lower for high-risk patients versus standard-risk. Specifically, the proportions of patients still alive 1, 3, and 5 years after second-line treatment initiation were 73%, 51%, and 36%, respectively, for high-risk patients and 94%, 73%, and 61% for standard-risk patients. The proportions of patients without disease progression at 1, 3, and 5 years after second-line initiation were 48%, 13.5%, and 5% for high-risk patients and 82%, 42%, and 14% for standard-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of cytogenetic risk classification as a prognostic factor in RRMM was apparent in this retrospective review, in which patients with high-risk cytogenetics had less favorable outcomes in terms of ORR, OS, and PFS than standard-risk patients. Decreased response rate and lower PFS and OS was documented among patients with high-risk cytogenetics, which is in contrast to shorter time needed to achieve best clinical response in this subgroup. Results from this real-world study provide further confirmation of the unmet medical need presented by RRMM, especially for patients with high-risk cytogenetics. Disclosures Lin: Takeda: Employment. Davis:Takeda: Research Funding. Kaye:Takeda: Research Funding. Luptakova:Takeda Oncology: Employment. Gao:Takeda: Employment. Nagar:Takeda: Research Funding. Seal:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Final Analysis of MELISSE, a Large Multicentric Observational Study to Determine Risk Factors of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Treated with Immunomodulator Drugs

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 1235-1235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Leleu ◽  
Laurent Daley ◽  
Philippe Rodon ◽  
Cyrille Hulin ◽  
Charles Dauriac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Abstract 1235 Background. Immunomodulator drugs (IMiDs) are associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events (TE). Multiple Myeloma patients (MM) that can not benefit from novel agents, including IMiDs, only have 9 months survival. IMiDs must be stopped when TE occurs with the consequence of potential shortened life expectancy. MELISSE was designed to prospectively evaluate the incidence and risk factors of venous TE (VTE) associated with IMiDs in MM. We have presented the interim analysis of MELISSE at ASH 2010. A reduced incidence rate of early VTE was observed when a prophylaxis for VTE was started as compared to patients that had no prophylaxis. Interestingly, we also reported that most of the patients had received aspirin, while aspirin is not considered to exert any venous prophylactic effect. LMWH was primarily proposed to patients with high risk of TE according to physician's evaluation. We present the final analysis of MELISSE with updated results at 1 year. Method. A total of 524 MM treated with IMiDs-based therapy were included in 52 IFM centers. VTE prophylaxis was recommended prior to start IMiDs, the choice of which was left at the discretion of the investigator. Patients gave written informed consent according to the declaration of Helsinki. The physicians were to record the risk of VTE occurrence, categorized as low, moderate and high, based on guidelines and their own appreciation of the risk. Occurrence of any VTE was to be recorded along with the management of the event and the patient's outcome. The data were collected at entry in the study, and then after 4 and 12 months. Results. The median age was 70 years old, with 64.67% of patients >65 years old. Overall 36.0% had thalidomide-based and 64.0% had lenalidomide-based therapy, with 180 patients in first line and the remaining patients in 2nd and 3rd lines of therapy. The observed repartition of TE risk factors was as expected in a European population with myeloma. The risk of VTE was assessed as high in 14.2% patient and small or intermediate otherwise. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients rated as low and intermediate risk received aspirin as a routine prophylaxis for VTE as compared to 20% in high risk patients. LMWH was primarily given to high risk patients, 45.8%. Surprisingly, 16.0% of patients had no VTE prophylaxis. Investigators recorded 29 (5.5% annual incidence rate) TE at 12 months, including 12 associated with PE. The incidence rate of TE was similar within the first 4 months (early occurrence, 3.5%) versus after 4 months (late, 2.5%). We have not identified any risk factor that would explain early versus late occurrence of VTE. Interestingly, the incidence of VTE was higher in patients that had no prophylaxis treatment, 8.5%, as compared to 4.4% and 5.9% in the LMWH and aspirin groups, respectively. There was no PE recorded in patients that were on LMWH prophylaxis. The VTE was equally breakdown across the 3 groups of risk factors. The bleeding adverse events were reported for 27 patients, mainly patients with aspirin. We isolated a model with 3 variables that independently predicted a higher risk to develop VTE in the multivariate model, and that comprised the male gender [OR 4.31 (95% CI 1.60 – 13.90)], the smoking habit [6.76 (1.73–22.42)] and the association to EPO [2.66 (1.04–6.58)]. Aspirin showed no significance, but with a p value at 0.55. The multivariate analysis is limited as certain subgroups with high risk factors might have received the optimal VTE prophylaxis, such as patients with bed rest and patients with prior history of VTE. These 2 groups rarely had aspirin. Survival data will be updated and presented at ASH 2011. Conclusion. This study further demonstrates that TE prophylaxis is required for MM treated with IMiDs-based therapy. There is a slight increase risk of VTE/PE with the use of aspirin as compared to LMWH, but a significant increase in bleeding events. Although we have identified risk factors of VTE in MM treated with IMiDs, for the first time, we could not identified VTE risk factors to guide investigators between LMWH and aspirin-based prophylaxis. The optimal dose and duration of LMWH remains to be determined. Disclosures: Leleu: LeoPharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding. Daley:LeoPharma: Employment. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Lamblin:LeoPharma: Employment. Natta:LeoPharma: Employment.

scholarly journals The role of idecabtagene vicleucel in patients with heavily pretreated refractory multiple myeloma

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204062072110196
Author(s):  
Albert Oriol ◽  
Laura Abril ◽  
Anna Torrent ◽  
Gladys Ibarra ◽  
Josep-Maria Ribera
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Clinical Development ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Acceptable Safety Profile ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

The development of several treatment options over the last 2 decades has led to a notable improvement in the survival of patients with multiple myeloma. Despite these advances, the disease remains incurable for most patients. Moreover, standard combinations of alkylating agents, immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies targeting CD38 and corticoids are exhausted relatively fast in a proportion of high-risk patients. Such high-risk patients account for over 20% of cases and currently represent a major unmet medical need. The challenge of drug resistance requires the development of highly active new agents with a radically different mechanism of action. Several immunotherapeutic modalities, including antibody–drug conjugates and T-cell engagers, appear to be promising choices for patients who develop resistance to standard combinations. Chimeric antigen-receptor-modified T cells (CAR-Ts) targeting B-cell maturation antigen have demonstrated encouraging efficacy and an acceptable safety profile compared with alternative options. Multiple CAR-Ts are in early stages of clinical development, but the first phase III trials with CAR-Ts are ongoing for two of them. After the recent publication of the results of a phase II trial confirming a notable efficacy and acceptable safety profile, idecabtagene vicleucel is the first CAR-T to gain regulatory US Food and Drug Administration approval to treat refractory multiple myeloma patients who have already been exposed to antibodies against CD38, proteasome inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents and who are refractory to the last therapy. Here, we will discuss the preclinical and clinical development of idecabtagene vicleucel and its future role in the changing treatment landscape of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

scholarly journals Open-Labeled, Multicenter Phase II Study of Bortezomib for Maintenance Therapy in Patients with High Risk Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): Borma Trial from Consortium for Improving Survival of Lymphoma (CISL)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2884-2884
Author(s):  
Jae-Cheol Jo ◽  
Ho Sup Lee ◽  
Cheolwon Suh ◽  
Hye Jin Kang ◽  
Won Seog Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Risk Patients

Background: High-intermediate or high risk in international prognostic index (IPI) has a long-term chance of cure in the range about 50% in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated by R-CHOP. These high risk patients should be considered for additional new treatment to standard R-CHOP or investigational approaches in the context of clinical trials that are designed to ensure that potentially curative therapy. Bortezomib inhibits NF-κB activation through proteasome inhibition, providing rationale for its use in cells that constitutively express NF-κB. Non-germinal center B cell (GCB) DLBCL has a worse survival after upfront chemotherapy and is characterized by constitutive activation of the antiapoptotic NF-κB pathway, which can inhibit chemotherapy. There is no study of bortezomib as maintenance therapy after treated with R-CHOP in high risk patients with DLBCL. So we applied additional bortezomib as maintenance therapy in order to assess improving efficacy and survival rates in high risk patients with non-GCB DLBCL who had been confirmed complete response (CR) after treated with R-CHOP. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed stage II(bulky)-IV DLBCL with high or high intermediate IPI score of 3 to 5, and patients achieving a CR at the end of 6 or 8 cycles of R-CHOP21 were eligible for enrollment. Non-GCB DLBCL according to Hans criteria confirmed by central review was need before enrollment. Bortezomib maintenance treatment was consisted of bortezomib 1.3mg/m2 subcutaneously administration day 1 and day 15 per 28-day cycle with a total of 12 cycles. The primary endpoint was 3-year progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were 3-year overall survival (OS), and toxicites. Toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. Results: Fifty-nine patients were enrolled between May 2014 and Oct 2018. The type of Non-GCB DLBCL in all patients was confirmed by the central pathology review. The median age was 65 years (range: 27-86 years), and 60% were > 61 years. The baseline clinical features were as follows: female sex, 45.8%; ECOG >1, 10.2%; stage II bulky (>10cm), 6.8%; stage III/IV, 93.2%. At the time of analysis, 29 patients completed 12-cycles of bortezomib maintenance, and 3 patients is ongoing. Seven patients did not finished maintenance therapy due to toxicities (fatigue, atrial flutter, neuropathy, pleural effusion, thrombocytopenia), and withdrawal of informed consent (n=4). Sixteen patients experienced disease progression during bortezomib maintenance treatment. With a median follow-up of 25.1 months, 3-year PFS rate was 56.9% and 3-year OS rate was 86.4% (Figure 1). Toxicity was assessed in 489 cycles of bortezomib maintenance in all 59 patients. There was no treatment-related death and febrile neutropenia. Conclusion: Bortezomib maintenance showed 3-year PFS rate of 56.9% with acceptable toxicities in patients with high risk DLBCL achieving a CR at the end of 6 or 8 cycles of R-CHOP21. Figure 1 Disclosures Kim: Celltrion: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; J + J: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e018322
Author(s):  
Jez Fabes ◽  
William Seligman ◽  
Carolyn Barrett ◽  
Stuart McKechnie ◽  
John Griffiths
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Data Set ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Poor Outcome ◽  
Icu Discharge ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Scoring

ObjectiveTo develop a clinical prediction model for poor outcome after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge in a large observational data set and couple this to an acute post-ICU ward-based review tool (PIRT) to identify high-risk patients at the time of ICU discharge and improve their acute ward-based review and outcome.DesignRetrospective patient cohort of index ICU admissions between June 2006 and October 2011 receiving routine inpatient review. Prospective cohort between March 2012 and March 2013 underwent risk scoring (PIRT) which subsequently guided inpatient ward-based review.SettingTwo UK adult ICUs.Participants4212 eligible discharges from ICU in the retrospective development cohort and 1028 patients included in the prospective intervention cohort.InterventionsMultivariate analysis was performed to determine factors associated with poor outcome in the retrospective cohort and used to generate a discharge risk score. A discharge and daily ward-based review tool incorporating an adjusted risk score was introduced. The prospective cohort underwent risk scoring at ICU discharge and inpatient review using the PIRT.OutcomesThe primary outcome was the composite of death or readmission to ICU within 14 days of ICU discharge following the index ICU admission.ResultsPIRT review was achieved for 67.3% of all eligible discharges and improved the targeting of acute post-ICU review to high-risk patients. The presence of ward-based PIRT review in the prospective cohort did not correlate with a reduction in poor outcome overall (P=0.876) or overall readmission but did reduce early readmission (within the first 48 hours) from 4.5% to 3.6% (P=0.039), while increasing the rate of late readmission (48 hours to 14 days) from 2.7% to 5.8% (P=0.046).ConclusionPIRT facilitates the appropriate targeting of nurse-led inpatient review acutely after ICU discharge but does not reduce hospital mortality or overall readmission rates to ICU.

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 >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= <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 <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.

Aggressive Chemotherapy (CHOEP-14) and Rituximab or High-Dose Therapy (MegaCHOEP) and Rituximab for Young, High-Risk Patients with Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma: Results of the MegaCHOEP Trial of the German High — Grade Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group (DSHNHL).

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 404-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norbert Schmitz ◽  
Maike Nickelsen ◽  
Marita Ziepert ◽  
Matthias Haenel ◽  
Peter Borchmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Conventional Chemotherapy ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Aggressive B Cell Lymphoma

Abstract Abstract 404 Comparison of conventional chemotherapy with high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) administered to young, high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma as part of first-line therapy gave conflicting results; none of the randomized studies used rituximab (R) in combination with conventional or HDT. In March 2003 we started a randomized phase III study for young (18-60 years), high-risk (age-adjusted IPI 2 or 3) patients with aggressive lymphoma. For patients with B-cell lymphomas this study compared 8 cycles of CHOEP-14 (CHOP + etoposide 300 mg/m2 given every 2 weeks) with MegaCHOEP. The MegaCHOEP program used cyclophoshamide (1500 mg/m2 in cycle 1; 4500 mg/m2 in cycles 2 and 3; 6000 mg/m2 in cycle 4), doxorubicin (70 mg/m2 in all cycles), vincristine (2 mg, all cycles), etoposide (600 mg/m2 , cycle 1; 960 mg/m2 , cycles 2 and 3; 1480 mg/m2, cycle 4), and prednisone (500 mg, all cycles) to be administered every 21 days. Hematopoietic stem cells were harvested after cycles 1 and 2 and reinfused after HDT cycles 2, 3, and 4. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of MegaCHOEP + / - R have been described (Glass et al. Blood 2006 and BMT 2006). The phase III study originally had four arms (8 × CHOEP – 14, 8 × CHOEP – 14 and 6 × R, MegaCHOEP, and MegaCHOEP and 6 × R). Treatment arms without R were closed in June 2004 because other studies (e.g the MInT study) had shown major improvement in outcome parameters when R was added to chemotherapy. The study continued comparing 8 × CHOEP – 14 and 6 × R (375 mg/m2) with MegaCHOEP and 6 × R (375 mg/m2). At the time of this analysis 346 patients (pts) had been recruited; 216 pts. (median age 48 years, LDH > N 97 %, stage III or IV 96%, ECOG > 1 35%) had been randomized until 07 / 07 and were availabel for this planned interim analysis ( 8 × CHOEP – 14 + 6 × R, n = 91; MegaCHOEP + 6 × R, n = 94; 8 × CHOEP – 14, n = 15; MegaCHOEP, n = 16). Major toxicities included mucositis, diarrhea, and infections all of which were significantly more frequent in the MegaCHOEP arm of the study. Treatment – related deaths occurred in 5 / 94 pts. ( 5.3%) in the MegaCHOEP arm and in 1 / 91 pts. (1.1 %) in the R – CHOEP arm (p = 0.211). Surprisingly, the 3 – year event – free survival ( EFS : time from randomization to either disease progression, no CR / CRu at the end of treatment, initiation of salvage therapy, relapse or death from any cause) was better after conventional than after HDT / ASCT: 71.0% after 8 × CHOEP-14 + 6 × R vs. 56.7 % after MegaCHOEP + 6 × R (p = 0.050). After a median observation time of 29 months the estimated 3-year overall survival was 83.8 % after 8 × CHOEP – 14 + 6 × R and 75.3 % after MegaCHOEP + 6 × R (p = 0.142). Progression – free survival was 76.0 % after 8 × CHOEP – 14 + 6 × R and 64.6 % after MegaCHOEP + 6 × R (p = 0.119). A comparison of the rituximab-containing treatment arms (8 × CHOEP 14 + 6 × R and Mega CHOEP + 6 × R) with the chemotherapy – only arms (8 × CHOEP -14 and MegaCHOEP) revealed a 27.1 % difference in the 3-year EFS-rate ( p = 0.003 ) pointing to the unexpectedly high efficacy of R particularly in untreated, young, high-risk patients with aggressive B-NHL. These data were presented to the members of the study group and the data safety and monitoring committee who decided to stop the MegaCHOEP arm of the study. In conclusion, 8 × CHOEP -14 + 6 × R gave excellent results in young, high-risk patients with untreated aggressive B cell lymphoma. The 3-year EFS and OS are the best ever reported for this group of patients. MegaCHOEP + 6 × R was no better than aggressive conventional chemotherapy regarding any of the study endpoints; EFS (primary endpoint of the study) was significantly worse. Because of higher toxicity and inferior survival the MegaCHOEP arm was discontinued. HDT / ASCT has no role to play as part of first-line therapy for patients with high-risk aggressive B cell lymphoma if rituximab is combined with aggressive conventional chemotherapy. Disclosures: Schmitz: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Nickelsen:Roche: Honoraria. Trümper:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pfreundschuh:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Glass:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document