Characterization of Relapse and Second-Line Therapy in Lenalidomide-Refractory, Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Subanalysis of the Phase 3 First Trial

BACKGROUND: Rd continuous is now a standard treatment option in patients (pts) with transplant-ineligible NDMM based on the results of the large phase 3 registrational FIRST trial showing significant PFS and OS benefits of lenalidomide (LEN) + low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) vs melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide (MPT). However, pts who relapse on frontline LEN represent a growing population for whom there is limited clinical evidence on subsequent treatment. Factors associated with relapse within 12 mos in Rd- and MPT-treated pts (LDH ≥ 200 U/L, ISS stage III, high-risk cytogenetics, ECOG PS ≥ 2, and baseline platelet count ≤ 150 × 109/L) indicate that the individual risk of progression may involve a combination of disease biology, genetics, and pt-specific factors (Facon, EHA 2019). Physicians may consider these early relapse factors when making treatment decisions. To characterize pts relapsing while receiving frontline LEN, this analysis evaluated Rd-treated pts from the FIRST trial who progressed while receiving LEN based on their time of relapse, type of relapse (CRAB [symptomatic] vs non-CRAB [nonsymptomatic]), and second-line treatment. METHODS: Pts randomized to Rd continuous (n = 535) or Rd for 18 cycles (n = 541) arms and who progressed while receiving LEN or within 60 days of treatment end (per IMWG criteria) were pooled and grouped according to their time of relapse after randomization (< 12 mos = early< 12; 12-18 mos = early12-18, and > 18 mos = late relapse). The data cutoff was January 2016. RESULTS: Of the 389 pts who relapsed, 203 had early< 12 relapse, 69 had early12-18 relapse, and 117 had late relapse. Pts who relapsed within the first 12 mos or between 12 and 18 mos had higher rates of elevated LDH, ISS Stage III disease, and ECOG PS 2 compared with those who relapsed beyond 18 mos (Table). Early< 12 and early12-18 relapses were also associated with poor PFS and OS outcomes. Median PFS in pts with early< 12, early12-18, and late relapse was 6.5, 15.9, and 26.4 mos, and median OS was 26.8, 41.6, and 78.0 mos, respectively (Figure). Pts with late relapse had more dose reductions prior to PD vs those with early relapse and were more likely to experience nonsymptomatic progression. Across the 3 groups, in pts experiencing a nonsymptomatic progression who started second-line treatment, 88% started second-line treatment prior to experiencing CRAB symptoms. The median time from PD to second-line treatment was shorter in those with CRAB relapse (1.4-2.5 mos) vs non-CRAB relapse (2.5-5.9 mos). Second-line treatment was reported in 170 (83.7%), 62 (89.9%), and 99 (84.6%) pts with early< 12, early12-18, and late relapse, respectively. The majority of these pts received bortezomib-based regimens (65.6% overall), most commonly bortezomib + dexamethasone, bortezomib + melphalan + prednisone, or bortezomib + alkylator (cyclophosphamide or bendamustine). Second PFS was similar regardless of time of relapse. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis focused on an emerging and clinically relevant population of transplant-ineligible pts relapsing on frontline LEN. Pts with late relapse on LEN more commonly had nonsymptomatic progression vs pts relapsing early. This raises the question on the possible impact of the immune stimulatory effects of LEN in pts able to remain on therapy and achieve a longer OS and warrants further investigation of the biological impact of IMiD agent-based therapies on long-term disease control. The increase in dose reductions in the late- vs early-relapse groups is also an important consideration for continuous treatment. Consistent with the prior analysis of the FIRST study exploring Rd and MPT-treated pts with early< 12 relapse (Facon, EHA), pts relapsing on LEN within 12 mos and between 12-18 mos both appeared to have functionally high-risk disease and represent a population with an unmet need that should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials investigating new therapeutic strategies. Due to the timing of the FIRST trial, limited novel-novel agent combination treatments were available at relapse, and the majority of pts received bortezomib-based second-line regimens. These results highlight the need for effective therapies for pts with early relapse. Further characterization of first- and second-line outcomes according to type of relapse are ongoing and will be reported at the meeting. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Hulin:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen, AbbVie, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria. Leleu:Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Delforge:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen , Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel:Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Srinivasan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Costa:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Robinson:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Facon:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Variation in Health-Related Quality of Life by ECOG Performance Status and Fatigue Among Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.4591.4591 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 4591-4591 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Chris L. Pashos ◽

Christopher R Flowers ◽

Mark Weiss ◽

Nicole Lamanna ◽

Charles M Farber ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Performance Status ◽

Clinical Practices ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Ecog Performance Status ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Ecog Ps ◽

The Impact

Abstract Abstract 4591 Introduction: Clinicians and investigators appreciate the value of measuring HRQOL for monitoring CLL and the impact of treatments, and commonly use ECOG performance status (PS) and clinician-reported patient fatigue as surrogates for HRQOL in clinical practice. However, limited data exist on the relationships between PS, fatigue, and HRQOL in CLL patients (pts) undergoing treatment in clinical practices. We examined the associations between these measures and 3 psychometrically validated, patient-reported, HRQOL instruments: the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), EQ-5D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu). Methods: Data were collected as part of Connect CLL®, a prospective observational registry initiated in March 2010 involving US practices. Data on pt demographics and clinical characteristics were provided by clinicians. HRQOL was self-reported by pts at enrollment using the BFI, EQ-5D, and FACT-Leu. Mean BFI, EQ-5D and FACT-Leu scores were analyzed by ECOG PS and clinician-reported fatigue. Differences in HRQOL scores between sub-cohorts were assessed by ANOVA. Results: HRQOL data were reported by 604 pts enrolled from 10 academic, 148 community, and 3 government centers. Pts were predominantly male (62%) and white (90%); mean age was 70 (standard deviation 11) years. BFI data (scale: 0 [no fatigue] - 10 [worst fatigue]) indicated that on average pts report that global fatigue, fatigue severity and fatigue-related interference worsen by ECOG severity (Table 1) and are statistically associated with clinician-reported fatigue (Table 2). Mean EQ-5D overall HRQOL as measured by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) worsens by ECOG severity and is significantly worse in pts with fatigue. Mean EQ-5D domain scores (scale: 1 [no problem], 2 [some problems], 3 [incapacity]) indicated that pain/discomfort, mobility and usual activities increase in severity as ECOG worsens and in pts with fatigue. FACT-Leu domains except social/family were statistically worse with worse ECOG PS and in pts with fatigue. Conclusions: Initial results from Connect CLL® indicate that HRQOL worsens with worsening ECOG PS, especially in physical / functioning domains, pain/discomfort, and mobility, and worsens across multiple domains among pts whose physicians reported fatigue. Future analyses should be conducted on how HRQOL, PS and fatigue may change over time with changes in CLL, and how they are influenced by therapies. These results may serve as baseline reference. Disclosures: Pashos: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flowers:Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Wyeth: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weiss:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lamanna:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Farber:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kipps:Igenica: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbot Industries: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Lerner:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Grinblatt:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flinn:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kozloff:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kahn:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Street:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Keating:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Improved Survival in Patients with First Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Treated with Vosaroxin Plus Cytarabine Versus Placebo Plus Cytarabine: Results of a Phase 3 Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Multinational Study (VALOR)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.lba-6.lba-6 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. LBA-6-LBA-6 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Farhad Ravandi ◽

Ellen Ritchie ◽

Hamid Sayar ◽

Jeffrey Lancet ◽

Michael D. Craig ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Adaptive Design ◽

Late Relapse ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Double Blind ◽

Early Relapse ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

To Receive

Abstract Introduction: Despite 40 years of intense clinical research, there remain no new approved treatments or standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). New safe and effective salvage treatments are urgently needed. Vosaroxin is a first-in-class anticancer quinolone derivative that is active in AML. Vosaroxin is minimally metabolized, evades P glycoprotein receptormediated efflux and has activity independent of p53 status. VALOR is a rigorously designed and conducted phase 3, adaptive design, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating vosaroxin plus cytarabine (vos/cyt) vs placebo plus cytarabine (pla/cyt) in patients with R/R AML (NCT01191801). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cytarabine (1 g/m2 IV over 2 hr, d 1-5) plus either vosaroxin (90 mg/m2 IV over 10 min d 1 and 4; 70 mg/m2 in subsequent cycles) or placebo. Up to 2 induction and 2 consolidation cycles were administered. Eligible patients had refractory disease (persistent disease after induction, or first complete remission [CR1] < 90 d) or were in first relapse (early relapse: CR1 of 90 d to 12 mo; late relapse: CR1 of 12 mo to 24 mo). Patients had received 1-2 cycles of prior induction chemotherapy including at least 1 cycle of anthracycline (or anthracenedione) and cytarabine. Randomization was stratified by disease status (refractory, early relapse, late relapse), age (< 60, ≥ 60 years), and geographic location (US, non-US). Primary efficacy and safety endpoints were overall survival (OS) and 30- and 60-day mortality; secondary endpoints were complete remission (CR) rate and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results: Between Dec 2010 and Sept 2013, 711 patients were randomized to receive vos/cyt (n = 356) or pla/cyt (n = 355) at 124 sites; per the adaptive design, a prespecified 1-time sample size increase of 225 patients was implemented after the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI: 6.4-8.5) with vos/cyt vs 6.1 mo (95% CI: 5.2-7.1) with pla/cyt (HR = 0.866 [95% CI: 0.73-1.02]; 2-sided unstratified log-rank P = 0.06) (Figure). The OS difference was statistically significant in a preplanned analysis accounting for the stratification factors at randomization (2-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.02). Overall, 29.5% of patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT), including 45.8% of patients < 60 years and 20.2% of patients ≥ 60 years. Transplant rates were comparable between the 2 treatment arms (30.1% with vos/cyt and 29.0% with pla/cyt). In a predefined analysis censoring for subsequent ASCT, median OS was improved with vos/cyt (6.7 mo vs 5.3 mo with pla/cyt; HR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.67-0.97]; P = 0.02; stratified P = 0.03) (Figure). In predefined subgroup analyses, OS benefit was greatest in patients aged ≥ 60 years (7.1 mo with vos/cyt vs 5.0 mo with pla/cyt; HR = 0.75; P = 0.003) (Figure) and those with early relapse (6.7 mo vs 5.2 mo; HR = 0.77; P = 0.04). OS with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt was 9.1 mo vs 7.9 mo in patients < 60 years (HR = 1.08; P = 0.60); 6.7 mo vs 5.0 mo in patients with refractory disease (HR = 0.87; P = 0.23); and 14.1 mo vs 12.3 mo in patients with late relapse (HR = 0.98; P = 0.96), respectively. A CR was achieved in 30.1% of patients treated with vos/cyt vs 16.3% treated with pla/cyt (P = 0.00001). Thirty-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was similar in the 2 arms (30-day: 7.9% vs 6.6%; 60-day: 19.7% vs 19.4% with vos/cyt vs pla/cyt, respectively). Most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (11.3% with vos/cyt vs 7.4% with pla/cyt), sepsis (8.7% vs 4.3%), pneumonia (7.6% vs 4.9%), bacteremia (8.5% vs 2.9%), and stomatitis (3.4% vs 1.4%). Serious and non-serious cardiac, renal, neurologic, and hepatic AEs were comparable between treatment groups. Conclusion: Vos/cyt demonstrated improved OS and higher CR rates in patients with R/R AML without increased early mortality. In the primary OS analysis, the overall clinical benefit associated with vosaroxin may be underestimated, particularly in younger patients, due to the confounding effect of high transplant rates, a methodological limitation of AML trials. Vosaroxin-containing therapy had acceptable tolerability. VALOR results represent one of the largest datasets available in this setting, and the OS benefit was confirmed by a robust sensitivity analysis. These data support the use of this combination as a new option for salvage therapy in patients with R/R AML. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ravandi: Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sayar:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy. Horst:Sunesis: Research Funding. Recher:Sunesis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Klimek:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Craig:Sunesis: Equity Ownership. Fox:Sunesis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Ward:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:Sunesis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Acton:Sunesis: Consultancy. Mehta:Sunesis: Consultancy. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Real-World Outcomes for Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone, or Bortezomib and Dexamethasone: An Enhanced Electronic Health Records Database Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-111121 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2243-2243

Author(s):

Ajai Chari ◽

Brian Ung ◽

Marc Tian ◽

Amit Agarwal ◽

Kejal Parikh

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Second Line ◽

Second Line Therapy ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: For transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), the only category 1 regimens recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd)-based, including triplet therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) (NCCN Myeloma v4.2018). Other doublet regimens, such as bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), are still a first-line option for patients with NDMM, especially for those who are elderly and/or frail. However, the latter population is either excluded or markedly underrepresented in clinical trials. Using an electronic health records (EHRs) database, we compared outcomes when either RVd or Vd were used in the treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in a real-world practice setting, after adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical differences between the two cohorts. Methods: A retrospective observational study of patients with NDMM was conducted using EHRs from a nationally representative database (Flatiron Health). The Flatiron Network database is an enhanced oncology EHR database of patients treated at 265 clinics throughout the USA. Patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma, ICD-9 (203.0x) or ICD-10 (C90.xx), between January 2011 and May 2018 who were treated with RVd or Vd and did not undergo stem cell transplantation were included in the analysis. The primary comparison was time to next therapy (TTNT) in the overall population and in a subset of frail patients, as determined by a composite score based on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Data regarding overall and progression-free survival (PFS) were limited as patient data prior to adoption of the Flatiron Network database were incomplete. Treatment-free interval (TFI) for patients who initiated a second-line therapy was defined as time from start of first-line to start of second-line therapy minus the duration of therapy (DOT). The Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods were used to calculate TTNT after adjusting for differences in patient baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of the 8,470 transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in the database, 2,369 were treated with either RVd (n = 1,309) or Vd (n = 1,060) and met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Patients treated with Vd were more likely to be older (median age 75 vs 70 years; P < 0.0001), frail (76.3% vs 65.4%; P = 0.0002), have creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min (23.9% vs 10.7%, P < 0.0001), have a higher ECOG PS score (P = 0.0031), and have International Staging System stage III disease (45.1% vs 28.8%; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in baseline neutropenia, anemia, or thrombocytopenia, or in median CCI. The proportion of patients with high-risk cytogenetics was lower in the Vd group (19.7% vs 26.0%; P < 0.0001). The mean DOT was longer for RVd (11.4 ± standard deviation [SD] 13.3 months) than for Vd (7.7 ± SD 9.7 months). However, the median adjusted TTNT was significantly longer with RVd than Vd (40.9 vs 14.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.55; P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients initiating a new treatment was lower in the RVd group (24.8% vs 40.6%; P < 0.0001). Among those who initiated a second-line therapy, the mean TFI for RVd compared with Vd was 42.6 versus 39.3 days, respectively (P = 0.2214). Among the 735 frail patients (416 RVd and 319 Vd), the median TTNT was significantly longer with RVd (32.6 vs 17.1 months; HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.29-0.54; P < 0.0001; Figure). Similar to the overall population, there were no significant differences in TFI (54.9 vs 29.6 days, P = 0.2598) and a significantly higher proportion of Vd patients initiated a new treatment (22.1% vs 36.4%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this real-world practice setting where PFS cannot be measured directly, triplet therapy with RVd significantly prolonged TTNT compared with Vd by 26.1 months in the overall patient population, and by 15.5 months in frail transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Disclosures Chari: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; The Binding Site: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Ung:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tian:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Agarwal:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Parikh:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Demographics By Age Group (AG) and Line of Therapy (LOT) in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Patients (Pts) Treated in US Practices from the Connect® CLL Registry

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.3338.3338 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 3338-3338 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jeff P. Sharman ◽

Anthony Mato ◽

Neil E. Kay ◽

Thomas J. Kipps ◽

Nicole Lamanna ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Center ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Therapy ◽

The Us ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Line Of Therapy ◽

Ecog Ps

Abstract Introduction: CLL pts who qualify for participation in clinical trials are often thought of as a highly selected population. Therefore whether safety and efficacy data from these trials can be generalized to all CLL pts treated in the community setting is unknown. Prospective, observational studies can provide significant insight into pt and disease characteristics as well as practice patterns in different clinical settings. Here we report on baseline demographics and clinical characteristics for 1495 pts who participated in the Connect CLL observational study and were followed prospectively. Methods: Connect®CLL is a non study-specific intervention treatment registry which collects data on the management and outcomes of CLL pts in clinical, academic and community practices in the US. Clinical information was prospectively collected for pts treated in community (n=1312), academic (n=155), or government (n=28) centers in the US between March 2010 – Jan 2014. Pts eligible for treatment or on treatment not more than 2 months were eligible for enrollment. Here we report on the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of a large CLL cohort stratified by AG, LOT and type of treatment center. Results: In total,1,495 pts were accrued with a median age at enrollment of 69 (range 22–99). Pts were Caucasian (92.2%), African American (6.9%), and male (63.7%). Median duration from diagnosis until initial therapy was 3.7 years (range 0-32). Age of enrolled pts was as follows; 527 pts age <65 years (AG1; 35%); 511 age 65–75 (AG2; 34%); and 457 age ≥75 (AG3; 31%) at the time of enrollment. Eight hundred and ninety-four pts (60%) were treated with front-line therapy (LOT1); 259 pts (17%) treated with second-line therapy (LOT2); and 342 pts (23%) treated beyond second-line therapy (LOT≥3). Patient age: Pt age was associated with significant variation in several clinical variables: Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score ≥3 (AG 1-3 35/46/52%; p<0.0001), ECOG PS = 0 (AG1-3 60, 48, 33%, p<0.0001) and mean creatinine clearance (CrCl) decreased (AG 1-3 101/74/53 mL/min; p<0.0001). Line of therapy: Differences in baseline characteristics were observed between pts enrolled at LOT1 (previously untreated) and LOT2/≥3 (relapsed). Median age of pts accrued at LOT1 was 68 vs. 70 years for pts enrolled at LOT2/≥3 (p=0.007). ECOG PS = 0 was more frequent at LOT1 (50%) vs. LOT2/≥3 (42%) (p=0.0057). CCI ≥3 at LOT1 was 41% vs 48% at LOT2/≥3 (p=0.0072). When adjusted for differences in age, logistic regression also demonstrated significant differences in performance status (PS=0; p=0.02) and CCI (p=0.03) stratified by LOT. Treating institution: Baseline characteristics also differed by type of treating institution. Median age was 63 vs 70 at academic vs non-academic (p<0.0001). Pts treated at academic sites also had lower CCI (CCI≤2; 72.9% vs 54.2%, academic vs non-academic) and higher median CrCl (86.4 vs 71.4) (p=0.0017). In this registry, only 16% of patients under age 75 had CCI <= 2, CrCl >= 70 mL/min, ECOG 0-1; 18% of patients on LOT1 and 12% of pts on LOT=2 would satisfy these criteria. They represent 36% of eligible pts from academic treating institutions and 13% from community/government centers. Only 20% of patients on LOT1 would satisfy enrollment criteria for CLL8 (FCR vs. FC; Hallek; Lancet 2010) CLL 10 (BR vs FCR; NCT00769522). which did not have enrollment restrictions for age. Conclusions:Baseline characteristics of pts with CLL vary by age, LOT, and type of treatment center. In this large prospective observational study, our data confirms that older pts typically have a worse ECOG PS, more medical comorbidities, more advanced disease when initiating therapy and a lower probability of being treated at an academic medical center. Based on inclusion criteria used for entry in either CLL10 or CLL8, fewer than 20% of pts satisfy age, renal clearance, and fitness profile to be considered suitable for aggressive chemoimmunotherapy in the front line setting. This observation supports the notion that current clinical trial data might not always be applicable to the general CLL population seen in the community and argues for designing clinical trials that are more generalizable to the broader pt population. Disclosures Sharman: Gilead: Research Funding; Calistoga: Honoraria; Phamacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Mato:Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Kay:Celgene: Research Funding. Kipps:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lamanna:Genentech-Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weiss:Celgene: Consultancy; Phamacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Nabhan:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Flinn:Celgene: Research Funding. Grinblatt:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kozloff:Celgene: Consultancy. Farber:Alexion: Equity Ownership, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Street:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Swern:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Phamacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Unpaid consultancy Other; Millennium: Research Funding, Unpaid consultancy, Unpaid consultancy Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Prescription Solutions: Consultancy; Celgene: Unpaid consultancy Other.

Download Full-text

Carfilzomib in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients with Early or Late Relapse Following Prior Therapy: An Analysis of Overall Survival in Subgroups from the Randomized Phase 3 Aspire and Endeavor Trials

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-112189 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1964-1964

Author(s):

Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽

Hartmut Goldschmidt ◽

Jesus F San-Miguel ◽

Julie Blaedel ◽

Mihaela Obreja ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Late Relapse ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Prior Therapy ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Line Of Therapy ◽

Post Hoc

Abstract Introduction: Carfilzomib is an irreversible proteasome inhibitor with proven efficacy as a single agent and in doublet and triplet combinations (Siegel et al, Blood. 2012;120:2817-25; Dimopoulos et al, Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1327-37; Siegel et al, J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:728-34). The phase 3 ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR trials demonstrated that treatment with carfilzomib-based regimens led to superior efficacy outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS], and overall response rate [ORR]) compared with standard regimens in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) (ASPIRE: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone [KRd] vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone [Rd]; ENDEAVOR: carfilzomib-dexamethasone [Kd] vs bortezomib-dexamethasone [Vd]). A previous subanalysis of these trials found that carfilzomib improved PFS and ORR, regardless of whether pts experienced an early or late relapse following the immediate prior therapy (Mateos et al, ASH 2017). Here we performed post hoc analyses of ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR to examine OS and updated safety in the ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR early or late relapse subgroups. Methods: ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR enrolled pts with RRMM (1-3 prior lines of therapy). Pts in both studies received carfilzomib twice weekly in 28-day cycles. In ASPIRE, pts were randomized to KRd or Rd, and those in the KRd arm received carfilzomib 27 mg/m2, which was discontinued after cycle 18. In ENDEAVOR, pts were randomized to Kd or Vd. The Kd group received carfilzomib 56 mg/m2; the Vd group received 21-day bortezomib cycles (1.3 mg/m2). In ENDEAVOR, treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Early relapsers were defined as pts who relapsed ≤1 year after initiating the most recent prior line of therapy (as assessed by investigator), while late relapsers were those who relapsed after >1 year. OS was summarized via Kaplan-Meier methods. In this post hoc analysis, P values were calculated for exploratory purposes. Data cutoff dates used here were April 28, 2017 for ASPIRE and July 19, 2017 for ENDEAVOR. Results: In ASPIRE, median OS for early relapsers was 36.0 months for KRd vs 27.7 months for Rd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.807; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.586-1.110; P=0.0935) (Figure 1). For late relapsers in ASPIRE, median OS was 53.2 months for KRd vs 41.2 months for Rd (HR: 0.752; 95% CI: 0.606-0.932; P=0.0046). Rates of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in ASPIRE were similar for early and late relapsers (KRd vs Rd, 89.3% vs 82.0% for early relapsers and 86.9% vs 83.0% for late relapsers). In ENDEAVOR, early relapsers had a median OS of 28.6 months for Kd vs 21.7 months for Vd (HR: 0.807; 95% CI: 0.587-1.109; P=0.0920) (Figure 2). For late relapsers in ENDEAVOR, median OS was not evaluable (NE) for Kd vs 42.3 months for Vd (HR: 0.722; 95% CI: 0.576-0.905; P=0.0023). Grade ≥3 TEAEs (Kd vs Vd) in ENDEAVOR occurred in 77.0% vs 77.0% of early relapsers and 83.6% vs 69.0% of late relapsers. Conclusions: RRMM pts who received KRd and Kd had longer OS compared with those who received Rd and Vd, regardless of whether they had an early or late relapse following the most recent prior line of therapy. Late relapsers had a numerically greater magnitude of OS benefit with KRd and Kd compared with control arms than early relapsers. Rates of grade ≥3 AEs were consistent with those previously reported in ASPIRE and ENDEAVOR for the overall population. In conclusion, these findings underscore the impressive efficacy of carfilzomib-based therapy for the treatment of pts with RRMM. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Mateos: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldschmidt:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy. San-Miguel:Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Blaedel:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Obreja:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yang:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Szabo:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Leleu:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Combination of Umbralisib, Ublituximab, and Bendamustine Is Safe and Highly Active in Patients with Advanced Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma and Follicular Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-118917 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4197-4197 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Matthew A. Lunning ◽

Philip Bierman ◽

R. Gregory Bociek ◽

Marshall T. Schreeder ◽

Tanya Siddiqi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Hematologic Malignancies ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Ecog Ps

Abstract Introduction: Umbralisib (UMB) is a next generation, once daily, PI3Kδ/CK1ε inhibitor, active in patients with relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) hematologic malignancies that, in long-term follow-up, has demonstrated a uniquely differentiated safety profile from prior PI3Kδ inhibitors (Davids, 2018). Ublituximab (UTX) is a novel glycoengineered mAb targeting a unique epitope on the CD20 antigen. Bendamustine (Benda) is an active chemotherapy agent in pts with lymphoma. The combination of UMB + UTX (U2) is tolerable and active in patients with rel/ref hematologic malignancies and registration directed trials for patients with CLL & NHL are ongoing. This Phase 1 trial evaluates the safety and efficacy of U2 + Benda in patients with advanced diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL). Methods: Eligible patients had rel/ref DLBCL or FL with an ECOG PS ≤ 2 w/o limit to number of prior therapies. ANC of ≥ 750 and Platelets ≥ 50,000 were required; no growth factor support was permitted in Cycle 1 (cohort escalation group only). Patients refractory to prior PI3Kδ, Benda, or anti-CD20's were eligible. UTX was dosed on Days 1, 8, 15 of Cycle 1, Day 1 of Cycle 2-6, followed by Cycle 9 & 12. UMB was started at 800 mg QD with a -1 dose reduction cohort at 600 mg if not tolerated in ≥ 2/6 patients. Benda was dosed at 90 mg/m2 on Days 1 & 2 of Cycles 1-6 only. Primary endpoints included safety and efficacy (Cheson 2007). Results: Thirty-nine patients were evaluable for safety: 26 DLBCL and 13 FL. Med age 67 yo (range 31-81); 23 M/16 F; median prior treatment regimens = 2 (range 1-6); 22 pts (56%) were refractory to prior treatment and 6 patients had progressed post-transplant; ECOG PS 0/1/2 (12/25/2). Initially 2/4 patients at 800 mg UMB experienced AE's in Cycle 1 that led to treatment interruption (rash, neutropenia) thus the 600 mg dose of TGR-1202 was explored. No additional Cycle 1 treatment delays were reported at the 600 mg dose level, which was later expanded and the 800 mg UMB dose was evaluated with the use of growth factor support in cycle 1 permitted. The most common AE's regardless of causality included diarrhea (54%; G3/4 15%), nausea (49%; G3/4 5%), vomiting (38%; G3/4 0%), neutropenia (33%; G3/4 33%) and pyrexia (31%; G3/4 0%). Thirty-eight patients (25 DLBCL/13 FL) were evaluable for efficacy (1 DLBCL patient came off study for G4 neutropenia prior to first assessment). ORR in the respective groups is shown in Table 1. The median time to response was 8 weeks. The median DOR was 9.6 months (95% CI: 2.5-NR) for patients with DLBCL, and was not reached (95% CI: 8.0-NR) for patients with FL, at a median duration of follow-up for responders of 11.5 months (range 2.9 - 30+ mos). Conclusions: The combination of U2 + bendamustine has exhibited manageable toxicity with significant activity in advanced DLBCL and FL patients, including an encouraging CR rate in advanced patients. Based upon the early activity of the triplet, a registration directed study is underway for patients with rel/ref DLBCL (UNITY-NHL). Disclosures Lunning: Gilead: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Flowers:Abbvie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/ Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding. Cohen:Millennium: 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; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: 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; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: 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, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioInvent: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Blumel:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy. Cutter:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy. Pauli:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy. Sportelli:TG Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Miskin:TG Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Weiss:TG Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vose:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Epizyme: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Clinical Outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) Among Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT)-Eligible and RCT-Ineligible Patients: Results from the Connect® MM Registry

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126143 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1843-1843

Author(s):

Lynne I. Wagner ◽

Kathleen Toomey ◽

Sikander Ailawadhi ◽

Sundar Jagannath ◽

Cristina Gasparetto ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Initial Therapy ◽

World Population ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Ecog Ps

Background: MM clinical trials often have stringent eligibility criteria that limit the enrollment of patients (pts) reflective of the general patient population (Shah, Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2017). The Connect® MM Registry, a prospective observational study of pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) in the US, provided the opportunity to examine differences between pts with MM who were identified as RCT-eligible vs -ineligible, to observe the generalizability of clinical trial results to real-world clinical settings. Differences in baseline characteristics, treatment, clinical outcomes, and HRQoL were examined in RCT-eligible and -ineligible pts from this registry, which represents an unselected, broad real-world population. Methods: Pts with NDMM were enrolled at 250 community, academic, and government sites. Eligible pts were ≥18 y of age with symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤2 months preenrollment per the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. For this analysis, pts were considered ineligible for RCT per the following key exclusion criteria previously described: absolute neutrophil count ≤1.5 × 109/L, platelet count ≤75 × 109/L, creatinine >2.5 mg/dL, AST/ALT >3 times the ULN, peripheral neuropathy grade >2; ECOG PS 3/4; history of myelodysplastic syndromes/other hematologic malignancies, or solid tumors (Shah 2017). Sites administered pt HRQoL questionnaires and provided clinical data at baseline and quarterly during follow-up until death or study discontinuation. Differences in HRQoL at baseline, changes from baseline to 1 and 2 years, and survival outcomes, adjusted for covariates via propensity score, were compared between RCT-eligible/-ineligible pts. Results: Of the 3011 pts enrolled, 2873 pts met the CRAB (hyperCalcemia, Renal failure, Anemia, and Bone disease) criteria per IMWG at enrollment. Of these, 1622 (56.5%) were identified as RCT-eligible and 1251 (43.5%) as RCT-ineligible (data cut-off February 7, 2019). Both groups were similar in median age, sex, race, and ethnicity distribution, although the RCT-ineligible group had more pts aged ≥75 y (26.3% vs 23.2%) and more pts with ECOG PS 3/4 (6.2% vs none). Overall, 34.5% of RCT-ineligible pts received a transplant vs 42.8% of RCT-eligible pts. More RCT-ineligible pts had ISS stage III disease (39.4% vs 19.8%), elevated calcium (≥11.5 mg/dL; 12.7% vs 6.8%), elevated creatinine (>2.0 mg/dL; 40.3% vs 6.5%), and low hemoglobin (<10 g/dL or >2 g/dL <LLN; 60.8% vs 40.3%). Use of triplet treatment (54.2% vs 56.2%) and alkylator (24.9% vs 20.1%) was similar between the RCT-ineligible/-eligible groups. Lenalidomide + bortezomib + dexamethasone (RVd) was the most common initial therapy, and R was the most common maintenance therapy in both groups, but fewer RCT-ineligible pts received RVd as initial therapy (23.9% vs 31.0%) and R as first maintenance regimen (18.1% vs 22.7%). Absolute baseline HRQoL scores were significantly higher, indicating better HRQoL, in RCT-eligible (115.9) vs -ineligible (111.5) pts on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM) Total score (P=0.007), FACT-MM Trial Outcome Index (74.3 vs 70.3, P=0.002), and FACT-MM Subscale (37.3 vs 35.5, P=0.003). Scores were similar for EuroQol-5D Overall Index (0.73 vs 0.72, P=0.5) and Brief Pain Inventory (3.42 vs 3.43, P=0.9). Both RCT-eligible and -ineligible pts showed significant improvement in HRQoL from baseline at years 1 and 2, although the magnitude of improvement was similar between both groups (Fig. 1a and b). RCT-ineligible pts showed significantly shorter median PFS and OS vs RCT-eligible pts (Fig. 2 & 3, respectively). Conclusions: The CONNECT MM registry provided the opportunity to examine key differences between RCT-eligible and -ineligible pts. By applying common RCT eligibility criteria, a substantial proportion of MM pts (43.5%) in this real-world population may have been ineligible to participate in a RCT. RCT-ineligible pts had advanced disease, poor performance status, and poor laboratory parameters at baseline vs RCT-eligible pts, which could affect PFS and OS. These findings enhance our understanding of HRQoL among MM pts, which at present, is largely based on RCT participants. A similar magnitude of HRQoL improvement in both groups at 1 and 2 years suggests the need to evaluate RCT eligibility criteria in MM to help broaden enrollment and maximize external validity. Disclosures Wagner: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Cancer Society: Other: Section editor, Cancer journal. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Jagannath:Merck & Co.: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Rifkin:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terebelo:Celgene: Honoraria; Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; Newland Medical Asociates: Employment. Omel:Celgene, Takeda, Janssen: Other: Patient Advisory Committees. Hardin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lee:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline plc: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Srinivasan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:TechData: Consultancy. Dhalla:Celgene: Employment. Catamero:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Abonour:BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Characterization of Real World Survival Outcomes Among Older Adults with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Receiving Second Line Treatment in the Pre Novel-Agents Era: An Analysis of the 2007-2013 SEER-Medicare Database

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4790.4790 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4790-4790 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Anthony R. Mato ◽

Jordan Jahnke ◽

Pengxiang Li ◽

Maneesha Mehra ◽

Vrushabh P Ladage ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Initial Therapy ◽

Fee For Service ◽

Line Treatment ◽

Second Line ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia among adults in Western countries with a median age of 72 years at diagnosis. Prior to the introduction of kinase inhibitor therapies, chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) combinations, monoclonal antibody monotherapies, and chemotherapy combinations were the predominant therapy regardless of line of CLL treatment. Given the increased frequency of high-risk features (del17p, del11q,) and prior exposure to CIT combinations, shortened disease-free periods and increased short-/long-term toxicities are frequently seen in relapsed CLL setting. However, data from recent randomized clinical trials of novel agents, such as ibrutinib in the relapsed setting, have shown significant improvements in overall survival (OS). While we await real-world data on how novel agents impact real-world CLL outcomes, little is known about the management and survival among CLL patients prior to their availability, particularly in the relapse setting. Our study uses comprehensive prescription and medical insurance claims linked with registry data to describe survival outcomes in older adults with CLL receiving second line treatment between 2007-2013--an era that predates the approvals of ibrutinib, idelalisib, venetoclax and obinutuzumab. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the 2007 to 2013 SEER-Medicare linked database. The sample included patients with first primary tumor site as CLL or SLL (ICD-O histology codes '9670' and '9823') diagnosed between 2007 and 2011. This date of first diagnosis of CLL or SLL defines the index date. Patients aged > 65 years with Medicare fee-for-service coverage in the 12 months pre-index and Medicare fee-for-service and prescription drug coverage in the 6-months post-index period or until death were included. Second line treatment date was defined as the date a treatment was received that was not part of the initial therapy or the date where initial therapy was restarted after a 180+ day gap in treatment. Our primary study outcome was overall survival (OS) from the date of initiation of second line treatment. The association of patient-level characteristics with OS was measured using cox regression analysis. Results: Of the 1047 patients who received any CLL treatment, 387 (37%) patients met the definition for receiving a second line of therapy. The mean age of this second line cohort was 76 years (SD = 6) and 48.3% were male. Only 9 patients who left fee-for-service Medicare during the second line follow up period were excluded from analysis. Of our 387 patient cohort, 25.3% (n=98) received fludarabine as part of their initial treatment, with remaining 74.7% (n=289) receiving a non-fludarabine containing initial therapy. The median time from CLL diagnosis date to second treatment was 664 days (Q1-Q3 390-1159 days). Rituximab containing regimens were the most common second line treatment (n=276, 71.3% of patients), with 118 patients (30.5%) in our second line cohort receiving rituximab monotherapy. Another 35 (9%) patients received chlorambucil monotherapy and the remaining 76 (19.6%) patients received a non-rituximab mono- or combination chemotherapy as their second line treatment. The median follow-up time in the sample from second line treatment was 14.9 months. Median OS for the cohort from initiation of their second line of treatment was 34.3 months, with 72% OS at 1-year and 58% at 2-years (See Figure). Multivariate Cox regression modeling showed OS from second line of treatment was associated with year of CLL diagnosis (2011 vs. 2007, HR 2.2; p=0.02), higher age at time of treatment (70-74 vs 80+, HR 0.67; P=0.04), male gender (HR 1.5; P=0.01), Northeast census region (vs West, HR 1.7; P=0.01),and initial treatment that included fludarabine (HR 1.5; P=0.04). Conclusions: In our real world analysis, over one-third of the newly diagnosed CLL patients who received treatment progressed to second line therapy. We found poor survival in these older adults following initiation of second line CLL therapy treated in the pre-kinase / BCL-2 inhibitor era with about half who died within two years of initiating second line therapy. While available clinical trials suggest novel CLL agents offer significant improvements in OS in relapsed CLL, future studies should examine real world CLL outcomes to correlate how results obtained in recent landmark clinical trials translate into clinical practice. Disclosures Mato: Abbvie, Acerta Pharma, Gilead Sciences, ProNAi, TG Therapeutics, Theradex: Research Funding; Abbvie, Gilead Sciences, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mehra:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Doshi:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer Inc.: Other: Spouse owns stock in company, Research Funding; Alkermes: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forest Labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; National Pharmaceutical Council: Research Funding; PhRMA: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck & Co., Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Spouse owns stock; Sanofi: Research Funding; Humana: Research Funding. Huntington:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Oncosec Medical: Equity Ownership; Exelixis: Equity Ownership; Geron: Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Rapid and Robust Mobilization of CD34+ HSCs without G-CSF Following Administration of Mgta-145 Alone or in Combination with Plerixafor

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127523 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1961-1961

Author(s):

John F. DiPersio ◽

Jonathan Hoggatt ◽

Steven Devine ◽

Lukasz Biernat ◽

Haley Howell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Single Dose ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Preliminary Data ◽

Research Funding ◽

Fold Change ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cd34 Cells ◽

Equity Ownership

Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the standard of care for mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). G-CSF requires 4-7 days of injections and often multiple aphereses to acquire sufficient CD34+ cells for transplant. The number of CD34+ HSCs mobilized can be variable and patients who fail to mobilize enough CD34+ cells are treated with the combination of G-CSF plus plerixafor. G-CSF use is associated with bone pain, nausea, headaches, fatigue, rare episodes of splenic rupture, and is contraindicated for patients with autoimmune and sickle cell disease. MGTA-145 (GroβT) is a CXCR2 agonist. MGTA-145, in combination with plerixafor, a CXCR4 inhibitor, has the potential to rapidly and reliably mobilize robust numbers of HSCs with a single dose and same-day apheresis for transplant that is free from G-CSF. MGTA-145 plus plerixafor work synergistically to rapidly mobilize HSCs in both mice and non-human primates (Hoggatt, Cell 2018; Goncalves, Blood 2018). Based on these data, Magenta initiated a Phase 1 dose-escalating study to evaluate the safety, PK and PD of MGTA-145 as a single agent and in combination with plerixafor. Methods This study consists of four parts. In Part A, healthy volunteers were dosed with MGTA-145 (0.0075 - 0.3 mg/kg) or placebo. In Part B, MGTA-145 dose levels from Part A were selected for use in combination with a clinically approved dose of plerixafor. In Part C, a single dose MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered on day 1 and day 2. In Part D, MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered followed by apheresis. Results MGTA-145 monotherapy was well tolerated in all subjects dosed (Table 1) with no significant adverse events. Some subjects experienced mild (Grade 1) transient lower back pain that dissipated within minutes. In the ongoing study, the combination of MGTA-145 with plerixafor was well tolerated, with some donors experiencing Grade 1 and 2 gastrointestinal adverse events commonly observed with plerixafor alone. Pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure and maximum plasma concentrations increased dose proportionally and were not affected by plerixafor (Fig 1A). Monotherapy of MGTA-145 resulted in an immediate increase in neutrophils (Fig 1B) and release of plasma MMP-9 (Fig 1C). Neutrophil mobilization plateaued within 1-hour post MGTA-145 at doses greater than 0.03 mg/kg. This plateau was followed by a rebound of neutrophil mobilization which correlated with re-expression of CXCR2 and presence of MGTA-145 at pharmacologically active levels. Markers of neutrophil activation were relatively unchanged (<2-fold vs baseline). A rapid and statistically significant increase in CD34+ cells occurred @ 0.03 and 0.075 mg/kg of MGTA-145 (p < 0.01) relative to placebo with peak mobilization (Fig 1D) 30 minutes post MGTA-145 (7-fold above baseline @ 0.03 mg/kg). To date, the combination of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor mobilized >20/µl CD34s in 92% (11/12) subjects compared to 50% (2/4) subjects receiving plerixafor alone. Preliminary data show that there was a significant increase in fold change relative to baseline in CD34+ cells (27x vs 13x) and phenotypic CD34+CD90+CD45RA- HSCs (38x vs 22x) mobilized by MGTA-145 with plerixafor. Mobilized CD34+ cells were detectable at 15 minutes with peak mobilization shifted 2 - 4 hours earlier for the combination vs plerixafor alone (4 - 6h vs 8 - 12h). Detailed results of single dose administration of MGTA-145 and plerixafor given on one day as well as also on two sequential days will be presented along with fully characterized graft analysis post apheresis from subjects given MGTA-145 and plerixafor. Conclusions MGTA-145 is safe and well tolerated, as a monotherapy and in combination with plerixafor and induced rapid and robust mobilization of significant numbers of HSCs with a single dose in all subjects to date. Kinetics of CD34+ cell mobilization for the combination was immediate (4x increase vs no change for plerixafor alone @ 15 min) suggesting the mechanism of action of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor is different from plerixafor alone. Preliminary data demonstrate that MGTA-145 when combined with plerixafor results in a significant increase in CD34+ fold change relative to plerixafor alone. Magenta Therapeutics intends to develop MGTA-145 as a first line mobilization product for blood cancers, autoimmune and genetic diseases and plans a Phase 2 study in multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2020. Disclosures DiPersio: Magenta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; NeoImmune Tech: Research Funding; Cellworks Group, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; RiverVest Venture Partners Arch Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; WUGEN: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bioline Rx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hoggatt:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Devine:Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Biernat:Medpace, Inc.: Employment. Howell:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schmelmer:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Neale:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boitano:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Cooke:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Goncalves:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Raffel:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Falahee:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Morrow:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Davis:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Results from the Connect® MM Registry

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126205 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3129-3129

Author(s):

Hans C. Lee ◽

Sikander Ailawadhi ◽

Cristina Gasparetto ◽

Sundar Jagannath ◽

Robert M. Rifkin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Causes Of Death ◽

Age Groups ◽

Treatment Patterns ◽

Age Group ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is common among the elderly, with 35% of patients (pts) diagnosed being aged ≥75 years (y). With increasing overall life expectancy, the incidence and prevalence of newly diagnosed and previously treated MM patients ≥80 y is expected to increase over time. Because elderly pts are often excluded from clinical trials, data focused on their treatment patterns and clinical outcomes are lacking. The Connect® MM Registry (NCT01081028) is a large, US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) designed to examine real-world diagnostic patterns, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and health-related quality of life patient-reported outcomes. This analysis reviews treatment patterns and outcomes in elderly pts from the Connect MM Registry. Methods: Pts enrolled in the Connect MM registry at 250 community, academic, and government sites were included in this analysis. Eligible pts were adults aged ≥18 y with symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤2 months before enrollment, as defined by International Myeloma Working Group criteria; no exclusion criteria were applied. For this analysis, pts were categorized into 4 age groups: <65, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 y. Pts were followed from time of enrollment to the earliest of disease progression (or death), loss to follow-up, or data cutoff date of February 7, 2019. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics and treatment regimens. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Cox regression. Time to progression (TTP) analysis excluded causes of death not related to MM. Results: Of 3011 pts enrolled (median age 67 y), 132 (4%) were aged ≥85 y, and 615 (20%) were aged 75-84 y at baseline. More pts aged ≥85 y had poor prognostic factors such as ISS stage III disease and reduced hemoglobin (<10 g/dL or >2 g/dL <LLN) compared with other age groups, although no notable differences between creatinine and calcium levels were observed across age groups (Table). A lower proportion of elderly pts (75-84 and ≥85 y) received triplet regimens as frontline therapy. More elderly pts received a single novel agent, whereas use of 2 novel agents was more common in younger pts (Table). The most common frontline regimens among elderly pts were bortezomib (V) + dexamethasone (D), followed by lenalidomide (R) + D, whereas those among younger pts included RVD, followed by VD and CyBorD (Table). No pt aged ≥85 y, and 4% of pts aged 75-84 y received high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (vs 61% in the <65 y and 37% in the 65-74 y age group). The most common maintenance therapy was RD in pts ≥85 y (although the use was low) and R alone in other age groups (Table). In the ≥85 y group, 27%, 10%, and 4% of pts entered 2L, 3L, and 4L treatments respectively, vs 43%, 23%, and 13% in the <65 y group. Progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the ≥85 y age group vs the 75-84 y age group (P=0.003), 65-74 y age group (P<0.001), and <65 y age group (P<0.001; Fig.1). TTP was significantly shorter in the ≥85 y group vs the <65 y group (P=0.020); however, TTP was similar among the 65-74 y, 75-84 y, and ≥85 y cohorts (Fig. 2). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the ≥85 y group vs the 75-84 y, 65-74 y, and <65 y groups (all P<0.001; Fig. 3). The mortality rate was lowest (46%) during first-line treatment (1L) in pts aged ≥85 y (mainly attributed to MM progression) and increased in 2L and 3L (47% and 54%, respectively); a similar trend was observed in the younger age groups. The main cause of death was MM progression (29% in the ≥85 y vs 16% in the <65 y group). Other notable causes of death in the ≥85 y group included cardiac failure (5% vs 2% in <65 y group) and pneumonia (5% vs 1% in <65 y group). Conclusions: In this analysis, elderly pts received similar types of frontline and maintenance regimens as younger pts, although proportions varied with decreased use of triplet regimens with age. Considering similarities in TTP across the 65-74 y, 75-84 y, and ≥85 y cohorts, these real-world data support active treatment and aggressive supportive care of elderly symptomatic pts, including with novel agents. Additionally, further clinical studies specific to elderly patients with MM should be explored. Disclosures Lee: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline plc: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Jagannath:AbbVie: Consultancy; Merck & Co.: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rifkin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Terebelo:Celgene: Honoraria; Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; Newland Medical Asociates: Employment. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy. Hardin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wagner:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Cancer Society: Other: Section editor, Cancer journal. Omel:Celgene, Takeda, Janssen: Other: Patient Advisory Committees. Srinivasan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:TechData: Consultancy. Dhalla:Celgene: Employment. Agarwal:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Abonour:BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text