scholarly journals Revised-MALT-IPI: A New Predictive Model That Identifies High-Risk Patients with Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma (EMZL)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4010-4010
Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Alderuccio ◽  
Isildinha M Reis ◽  
Thomas M. Habermann ◽  
Brian K. Link ◽  
Catherine Thieblemont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Disease Characteristics ◽  
Risk Patients

INTRODUCTION: EMZL is a heterogeneous disease with variable risk for relapse and progression. Based on age ≥70 years, stage III-IV and elevated LDH, Thieblemont et al (Blood. 2017) developed the MALT-IPI to identify high-risk patients. In this index, disease characteristics (stage and LDH) account for 66% while a disease nonspecific characteristic (age) for 33% of the index score. We reported (Am J Hematol. 2019) that EMZL with multiple mucosal sites (MMS) at diagnosis is characterized by shorter survival and increased incidence of higher grade transformation. To better recognize disease-attributable high-risk patients, we developed a new EMZL prognosis score chiefly based on patient's disease characteristics. METHODS: The revised (R)-MALT-IPI was developed using a retrospective data set of 405 EMZL patients treated at the University of Miami (UM) from 1995 to 2017. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of the potential prognostic variables on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and to develop the new index R-MALTI-IPI based on PFS. Model validation was performed in two independent cohorts of EMZL patients from the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) database (n=297) and the IELSG-19 study (n=400) used for the development of MALT-IPI. Performance of various prognostic indices was compared using AIC statistics, and concordance c-statistics by Harrell (CH) and by Gonen and Heller (CGH). RESULTS: Among the candidate variables tested in univariable analysis, the following were statistically significant predictors of shorter PFS: age >60, age ≥70, anemia (Hb<12g/dL), stage III-IV, ECOG PS ≥2, elevated serum LDH, number of extranodal sites >1, number of nodal sites >4, and presence of MMS at diagnosis, defined as EMZL with ≥2 different extranodal sites excluding spleen and bone marrow. A stepwise Cox regression analysis yielded a multivariable model with four independent predictors of shorter PFS: age >60 (HR=1.53, p=0.010), elevated LDH (HR=1.73, p=0.004), stage III-IV (HR=2.03, p=0.0003) and presence of MMS (HR=2.78, p<0.0001). Based on this, a new index R-MALT-IPI was developed with scores ranging from 0 to 5, calculated as a sum of 1 point for age >60, elevated LDH, stage III-IV, and 2 points for MMS. The R-MALT-IPI defined 4 risk groups: low-risk (score 0 (35%), reference group), low-medium risk (score 1 (39%), HR=1.91, p=0.005), medium-high risk (score 2 (13%), HR=3.77, p<0.0001), and high-risk (score 3+ (13%), HR=8.54, p<0.0001). When compared with MALT-IPI, R-MALT-IPI better stratifies and separates high risk patients (26%) into medium-high risk and high-risk patients with a median PFS of 5.8 years (2.9-9.1) and 1.8 years (1.3-2.6) respectively, compared to 2.6 years (1.8-4.7) in the high-risk MALT-IPI patients (16.8%). The R-MALT-IPI index also distinguished patients with different OS. For validation, we analyzed R-MALT-IPI index performance in independent Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER and IELSG-19 cohorts. Both R-MALT-IPI and MALT-IPI were useful in distinguishing PFS and OS in all the cohorts. In the UM training cohort, the concordance c-statistics' values for the two indices were similar: for PFS, CH=0.6893 and CGH=0.6611 for R-MALT-IPI, and CH=0.6551 and CGH=0.6367 for MALT-IPI; for OS, CH=0.7017 and CGH=0.6813 for R-MALT-IPI, and CH=0.7029 and CGH=0.67715 for MALT-IPI. In the validation cohorts, the concordance c-statistics' values for the two indices were also similar, but slightly lower than in the UM cohort for PFS. When comparing medium-high to high-risk R-MALT-IPI groups, there was a reduction of 4 years in median PFS in the UM cohort, and reduction in median EFS of 5.6 years in the MER cohort, an important difference between these risk groups identified by the R-MALT-IPI index. CONCLUSIONS: R-MALT-IPI is a new index for EMZL centered principally on disease characteristics. Overall, there is a similar prediction of PFS (EFS) by R-MALT-IPI and MALT-IPI indexes; however, R-MALT-IPI better recognizes a high-risk group accounting for 13% of EMZL patients with short median PFS and thus obviates the waiting period needed to recognize patients with shorter EFS24. Collaborative studies addressing best treatment approach for these high-risk EMZL patients are eagerly needed. Disclosures Alderuccio: Agios: Other: Immediate family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Immediate family member; OncLive: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Immediate family member; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member. Thieblemont:Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyte: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding. Zucca:Kite, A Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant, Research Funding; AstraZenaca: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celltrion Helathcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Other: Travel Grant. Lossos:NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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

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

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

scholarly journals Evaluation of Cytogenetic Stratifications in Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1763-1763
Author(s):  
Lucia Masarova ◽  
Prithviraj Bose ◽  
Naveen Pemmaraju ◽  
Zeev E. Estrov ◽  
Lingsha Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chromosome 1 ◽  
Trisomy 8 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Single Deletion ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Very High

Abstract Introduction: The revised cytogenetic risk stratification of patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) divided patients into 3 prognostic categories, with additional new category of very high risk patients (VHR). This score should enhance traditional classification incorporated in the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System-Plus (DIPPS-Plus). Objective: To evaluate the prognostic utility of cytogenetic stratifications (DIPSS-Plus and the revised cytogenetic model) in patients with PMF referred to our institution between 1984 and 2016. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 883 patients with PMF with available cytogenetic analysis at the time of referral to our institution (> 10 metaphases). Cytogenetic was reported according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature. Patients were classified into cytogenetic risks based on DIPSS-Plus (Gangat, JCO, 2011), and the revised cytogenetic model (Tefferi, Leukemia, 2017). Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared by the log rank test. Impact of cytogenetic abnormalities on OS was also evaluated by comparing them against patients with diploid karyotype using stepwise Cox regression. Results: Median age was 66 years (range, 27-88), and 64% of patients were male. The distribution of DIPSS scores was as follows: 8% low, 48% intermediate 1, 44% intermediate 2 and 14% high. OS in each DIPSS category was 53, 46, 26, 15 months (p<0.001). The JAK2, MPL and CALR mutation was present in 55% (n=486), 6% (n=50), and 7% (n=64). Overall, 563 (64%) patients had diploid karyotype. The most frequent abnormal karyotypes were single 20q- (n=68, 8%), single 13q- (n=40, 4.5%), and ≥3 abnormalities (Abn; complex karyotype, CK, n=52, 6%). Among patients with CK, 27 (52%) pts had VHR Abn. After a median follow-up of 22.4 months (range, 0.5-251); 708 (80%) of patients died. Eighty five patients (10%) developed acute leukemia, 39% of these patients had CK. According to DIPSS-plus, patients were stratified into favorable (FAV, n=758, 86%) and unfavorable (UNF, n=126, 14%) category with distinct median OS of 35 months (range, 31-39), and 17 months (range, 11.6-22), p < 0.001 (HR 1.37, [95% CI 1.11-1.7]). Three year OS was 49% and 32%, respectively (Figure 1a). The revised cytogenetic stratification classified patients into favorable (n=687, 78%), unfavorable (n=151, 17%), and VHR (n=47, 5%) with respective OS of 35, 32 and 10 months (overall p<0.001, FAV vs UNF p= 0.8; Figure 1b); similar between patients in favorable and unfavorable groups. Three year OS for each group was 49%, 46% and 12%, respectively. OS of patients with individual cytogenetics (as used in the revised classification) is depicted in Table. Patients with single deletion 13q have significantly inferior OS than the remaining patients in FAV group. Patients with sole abnormality of chromosome 1 and trisomy 9 had the longest OS within the FAV group, but without reaching a statistical significance. Similarly, patients with sole trisomy 8, sole deletion 7q/5q, and other sole Abn not included elsewhere, had inferior OS when compared to the remaining patients in UNF group (Table 1). After re-grouping patients with different OS from FAV and UNF groups, we have noticed an intermediate group of patients containing the above mentioned Abn with distinctly different OS from FAV and UNF group of 24 months (range, 14.5-33; Figure 1c). Conclusions: Results from our cohort of 883 PMF patients did not confirm better discriminatory power of revised cytogenetic stratification model when compared to the DIPSS-Plus, as it failed to differentiate different OS between favorable and unfavorable groups. In our cohort, patients with single deletion 13q, single trisomy 8, and abnormalities of 5q/7q have superior OS to very high risk patients, but inferior to all remaining patients. Because the revised cytogenetic stratification has been already incorporated into newer complex molecular prognostic models of patients with PMF (MIPSSversion2.0, GIPSS), its further validation is warranted. Table Abbr.: Chr, chromosome, del, deletion, DUP, duplication, transl, translocation, excl, excluding; ¥OTHER solo: INV(9) in [3], Abn chr. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18 (mostly deletion of p/q arms, or addition) [7]; VHR = very high risk (-7; inv(3)/3q21; i(17q); 12p-/12p11.2; 11q-/11q23; autosomal trisomies excl. +8/+9). Disclosures Bose: Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:plexxikon: Research Funding; cellectis: Research Funding; Affymetrix: Research Funding; daiichi sankyo: Research Funding; stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; samus: Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Research Funding. Cortes:novartis: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Long-Term Carfilzomib for High-Risk Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Pooled Analysis of Two Phase 1/2 Studies

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3240-3240
Author(s):  
Roberto Mina ◽  
Alessandra Larocca ◽  
Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽  
Gianluca Gaidano ◽  
Stelvio Ballanti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Induction Phase ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Standard Risk

Abstract INTRODUCTION: High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, such as del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16), are associated to an unfavorable prognosis. Several trials investigating current approved regimens have shown that high-risk multiple myeloma (MM) patients have shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as compared to standard-risk patients. Carfilzomib, a second generation proteasome inhibitor, demonstrated to be able to improve the survival of high-risk MM patients in the relapse setting. Here we present a pooled analysis of two phase 1/2 studies to investigate the role of carfilzomib in high-risk, newly diagnosed (ND) MM patients. METHODS: Transplant ineligible patients with NDMM enrolled in the IST-CAR 561 and IST-CAR 506 studies were pooled together and analyzed. All patients received 9 28-day induction cycles of carfilzomib, either 70 mg/m2 once weekly (IST-CAR 561) or 36 mg/m2 twice weekly (IST-CAR 506), combined with weekly cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) and dexamethasone (40 mg) (CCyd). After the induction phase, patients proceeded to maintenance with single-agent carfilzomib until progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. The primary objective was to compare response to treatment, PFS, PFS-2 and OS in standard versus high-risk FISH, defined by the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16). A 15% cut-off point was used for detection of translocation [t(4;14) and t(14;16)] and 10% for detection of del(17p). RESULTS: 121 NDMM patients were enrolled in the IST-CAR 561 (n=63) and in the IST-CAR 506 (n=58) study. Cytogenetic data were available in 94 patients: 37 (31%) had high-risk chromosomal abnormalities by FISH, including 10% of patients with t(4;14), 3% with t(14;16) and 18% with del(17p), while 57 patients (47%) were classified as standard-risk. After the induction phase, no difference in terms of overall response rate (ORR; 86% vs. 92%; p=0.52) and at least near complete response (39% vs. 41%; p=1) was observed between standard and high-risk patients. After a median follow-up of 39 months, median PFS from enrollment was NR in standard-risk patients and 27.8 months in high-risk ones (HR: 0.76; p=0.38) (Figure 1); at 3 years, 52% and 43% of patients, respectively, were alive and free from progression. The PFS benefit for the comparison between standard and high-risk patients was more pronounced in patients who received once weekly carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2, (median: NR vs. 39.6 months; HR: 0.78, p=0.63) as compared to those treated with twice weekly carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 (median: NR vs. 24.2 months; HR: 0.52, p=0.12). Median PFS-2 from enrollment was NR in standard-risk patients and 44.1 months in high-risk ones (HR: 0.66; p=0.26), without significant differences in the once weekly (median, NR vs. 39.6; p=0.27) and the twice weekly group (median; NR vs. 44.1; p=0.63). Median OS from enrollment was NR in standard-risk patients and 47.5 months in high-risk ones (HR:0.71; p=0.36) (Figure 1). In patients who received once weekly carfilzomib, median OS was NR and 47.5 months (HR:0.66, p=0.48) in standard and high-risk patients, respectively, while median OS in the twice weekly group was NR in standard-risk patients and 44.1 months (HR:0.73; p=0.55) in high-risk ones. CONCLUSION: In transplant ineligible patients with NDMM, carfilzomib combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone as initial treatment mitigated the poor prognosis of high-risk FISH in terms of PFS, PFS-2 and OS. The median PFS of high-risk patients treated with CCyd compares favorably with those reported with current standard of care. As compared to twice weekly carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2, once weekly carfilzomib, at the dose of 70 mg/m2, confirmed to be effective in high-risk patients. These data support the use of carfilzomib for the treatment of high-risk NDMM patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Larocca: Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Petrucci:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Gaidano:AbbVie: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Offidani:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Cavo:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caravita di Toritto:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel and Accomodation EMN; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Johnson & Johnson: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation EHA; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation ASH, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Advisory Board. Montefusco:Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment. Boccadoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria.

scholarly journals New Score Prognostic System for Patients with MDS and Intermediate IPSS-R: Novel Algorithm to Distinguish Between Low and High Risk in This Subset of Patients. Results from the Spanish Group of MDS (GESMD). Gesmdi Score

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 4323-4323
Author(s):  
Alba Redondo ◽  
Mercedes Sánchez Barba ◽  
Guillermo Sanz ◽  
Teresa Bernal ◽  
Montserrat Arnan Sangerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Intermediate Group ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
R Value

Abstract INTRODUCTION MDS are a heterogeneous group, and it is necessary an adequate prognostic stratification in order to the best management. The new revised international prognostic scoring system (IPSS-R) has improved prognostic ability for survival and AML evolution comparing with the previous prognostic indexes. But, it is not clear the prognosis of patients included in the intermediate group, 20% of MDS, patients with a median OS of 3 years according to Greenberg et al, are they in the high or in the low risk category? The aims of the present study were to describe characteristics of patients included in this intermediate group of the IPSS-R in the Spanish MDS cohort and to identify which factors could have an impact on survival. A new score prognostic system (GESMDi score) in order to a better stratification should be proposed in this subset of patients that will be useful for determine the best therapeutic approach for them. METHODS: All patients were included in the GESMD, diagnosed of Primary MSD and Intermediate IPSS-R. The Statistical analyzes were performed using SPSS version 21, Cox models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to demonstrate clinical outcomes. Regarding the new score proposed, GESMDi score, modeling of prognostic risk was based on multivariate analysis of survival time. Cox model for survival was built to derive the relative weights within the score. RESULTS: Data from 957 patients of 69 centers of GESMD were evaluated. Their median age was 73.9 years (p25/p75 66-80), 61.6% males (N=590), and median follow-up 21,4 months (p25-p75 de 11-41). Regarding WHO 2001 classification: 31% were RAEB-1, 21% CMML, 18% RCMD, 14% RAEB-2, 3% RCMD-RS, 3.1% RARS, 2.5% RA, 2% 5q-syndrome, 2% AML, 1% unclassified. Median hemoglobin at diagnosis was 9.8 g/dL (p25/p75:8.3-11.6), median bone marrow (BM) blasts 6% (p25/p75:3-8) and median platelet count 99x109/L (p25/p75:66-180). According to IPSS, 5% of patients were classified as low risk, 78% as intermediate-1, 16% as intermediate-2 and 1% as high risk. Cytogenetic were very good in 2% of patients, good in 76%, intermediate in 17%, poor in 5% and in 1% very poor. IPSS-R score classified patients in 3 different groups, with a punctuation of≤ 3.5 (35.6%), >3.5 and ≤ 4 (35.8%) and> 4 and ≤ 4.5 (28.5%). Median OS was 30.1 months, the estimated 1-year and 2-y OS were 79.2% and 57.8%, respectively. In the univariate analysis for OS older age (>74y, p<0.001), lower Hb level (≤9.5 g/dL, p<0.001), WHO 2001 with excess of blasts classification (p=0.035), lower platelets level (≤30 x 109/L, p=0.01), PB blasts (yes, p=0.001), ferritine level (>500 ng/ml, p=0.002), and higher IPSS-R score (>3.5 and ≤ 4 and >4 and ≤ 4.5, p=0.023 and p=0.004, figure 1) had a deleterious impact on survival. In the multivariate analysis, only age, Hb level, PB blast, ferritine level and IPSS-R value retained statistical significant impact on OS (table 1a). In the multivariate analysis, Hazard ratio, a new score system (GESMDi score) was established for all patients. Patients with adverse features were added points in order to stratify the risk of death: age<74y and/or PB blasts (2 points) and Hb level ≤9.5 g/dL and/or ferritine level >500 ng/ml and/or IPSS-R of >3.5 (1 point), table 1a. The GESMDi score was performed in 685 patients with all data available and 7 groups of patients were defined with different median OS (p<0.0001, table 1b). Two final categories were established according to the definition of risk from the Spanish MDS group, low risk patients (estimated OS >30 months) and high risk patients (<30 months). Patients with scores between 0-3 (70.6% patients, me OS 41.1, 95CI 34.4-47.7) were in the low risk definition while patients with scores between 4-6 (29.3% patients, me OS 17.5 mo, 95CI 13.4-21.5) were classified as high risk patients (p< 0.0001, Figure 2). CONCLUSIONS: GESMDi score, a proposed prognostic score system from patients with intermediate IPSS-R, allow us to establish a better prognosis stratification in this heterogeneous MDS population. Treatment and management should be better established for those patients nowadays according to this novel stratification. Table 1 a) Univariate and multivariate analysis for OS among patients with Intermediate IPSS-R b) OS according to the GESMDi score proposed Table 1. a) Univariate and multivariate analysis for OS among patients with Intermediate IPSS-R b) OS according to the GESMDi score proposed Figure 1 OS according to IPSS-R value in the intermediate group (≤3.5, ≤4 and ≤4.5) Figure 1. OS according to IPSS-R value in the intermediate group (≤3.5, ≤4 and ≤4.5) Figure 2 OS according the GESMDi score proposed in the intermediate IPSS-R group: low and high risk patients (n=685) Figure 2. OS according the GESMDi score proposed in the intermediate IPSS-R group: low and high risk patients (n=685) Disclosures Del Cañizo: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Díez Campelo:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals The Prognostic Power of Gene Expression Profiling with Cytogentics and Routinely Acquired Serum Markers: SKY92 Combined with Revised ISS

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 24-25
Author(s):  
Rowan Kuiper ◽  
Mark van Duin ◽  
Martin H Van Vliet ◽  
Erik H Van Beers ◽  
Berna Berna Beverloo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Ensembl Gene ◽  
Private Company ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Standard Risk

Background Updating prognostic models for multiple myeloma is important in the context of changing treatment options. Previously we have described the value of the prognostic marker SKY92, which identifies high-risk multiple myeloma patients, as well as the value of the combined SKY92-ISS marker. With the introduction of revised ISS, it is of interest to evaluate the value of the updated combination of SKY92 with R-ISS. Within the HOVON87/NMSG18 trial, stratification into 3 groups was described: high-risk: 11% SKY92 high-risk (HR) + R-ISS II-III, low-risk: 15% SKY92 standard risk (SR) + R-ISS I and intermediate risk (74%, other). The 3-year PFS rates were 54% (95%CI: 38-77%), 27% (95%CI: 21-37%) and 7% (95%CI: 1-46%) for SKY-RISS I, II and III, respectively (p &lt; 0.001). The 3-yr OS rates for SKY-RISS I to III were 88%, 66% and 26% (p=6×10-7). Here we describe the validation of SKY92-RISS in the CoMMpass dataset. Methods SKY92 was determined using RNA-seq data available from the CoMMpass dataset. Briefly, the SKY92 score was obtained as a weighted summation of the expression given by the available Ensembl gene IDs, corresponding to the probe sets of the SKY92 classifier. Renormalization of the original SKY92 discovery data (HOVON65/GMMG-HD4) allowing a direct remodeling between the Affymetrix probe-set expressions (i.e. SKY92) and RNAseq Ensembl gene IDs. Only Ensembl gene IDs with an average log2 expression &gt;8 were used. Revised ISS status was determined as described. For optimal comparison to the discovery cohort of the HOVON87/NMSG18 trial, the analysis was limited to 93 patients older than 65 years in the CoMMpass data set, that did not receive transplant, and for whom RNA-Seq at diagnosis, R-ISS and follow-up data were available. Results The median follow-up is 41 months. SKY92 identified 24 high-risk patients (24/93: 26%). The 3-yr PFS and OS rates of standard-risk patients were 49% and 80% respectively, compared to 23% and 44% for high-risk, resulting in a significant log rank test (p &lt; 0.005). The R-ISS classified patients into the low-risk R-ISS I (24% of patients), intermediate-risk R-ISS II (63%) and high-risk R-ISS III (13%). The 3-yr PFS rates were 76% (RISS I), 33% (RISS II) and 33% (RISS III); for OS: 100% (RISS I), 68% (RISS II) and 33% (RISS III; PFS, p = 0.07; OS, p &lt; 0.001). SKY92 and R-ISS were independent prognostic factors in terms of OS and PFS. The SKY-RISS classification resulted in 20% low-, 61% intermediate- and 18% high-risk patients (Figure 1). The 3-yr PFS rates were 81% (95%CI: 64-100%), 42% (95%CI: 30-59%) and 12% (95%CI: 3-44%; p &lt; 0.001) and 3-yr OS rates were 100% (95%CI: 100-100%), 77% (95%CI: 66-89%) and 32% (95%CI: 16-61%; p &lt;0.001). Out of 69 patients classed as standard risk using the SKY92 classifier (80% 3-yr OS rate), 17 and 52 were classified as SKY-RISS I and II, respectively, resulting in a 3-yr survival rate of 100% and 74%, respectively. In contrast, out of 24 SKY92 HR patients (44% 3 yr OS rate), 5 were classified as SKY-RISS II (100% alive at 3 years) with the remainder true high-risk patients (32% alive at 3 years). Out of 12 RISS III patients (3-yr OS, 33%), 5 were classified as SKY-RISS II (3-yr OS: 60%) and 7 as SKY-RISS III (3-yr OS: 14%). Conclusion This study demonstrates the value of gene expression profiling - SKY92 - alongside revised ISS. They form a solid combination, improving on either marker separately. Both models combined clearly identified more high-risk patients correctly, whilst also placing low risk patients into a more appropriate risk category. This was shown in the discovery set and was subsequently applied to an independent set, confirming the validity and usability of the SKY-RISS. Disclosures Kuiper: SkylineDx: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Van Vliet:SkylineDx: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Van Beers:SkylineDx: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Zweegman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Broijl:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sonneveld:Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Skyline Dx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Prediction of Molecular Response of Chronic Phase CML Patients by the EUTOS Score: Results of the Randomized CML-Study IV,

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 3762-3762
Author(s):  
Susanne Saussele ◽  
Michael Lauseker ◽  
Verena Hoffmann ◽  
Ulrike Proetel ◽  
Benjamin Hanfstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Eutos Score

Abstract Abstract 3762 Introduction: The EUTOS Score was developed and validated as a prognostic tool for the achievement of complete cytogenetic response (CCR) at 18 months for chronic phase (CP) CML patients under imatinib therapy. The score identifies high-risk patients not reaching CCR at 18 months with a positive predictive value of 34% and a specificity of 92% using only two variables, peripheral blood basophils and spleen size at diagnosis (Hasford et al. Blood 2011). We sought to evaluate the clinical impact of the EUTOS score to predict molecular response. Therefore, we analyzed the EUTOS score with patients from the German CML-Study IV, a randomized 5-arm trial (imatinib 400 mg vs. imatinib 800 mg vs. imatinib in combination with interferon alpha vs. imatinib in combination with araC vs. imatinib after interferon failure). Results: From July 2002 to December 2010, 1,502 patients with BCR-ABL positive CML in CP were randomized. 129 patients with imatinib after interferon alpha and 36 other patients had to be excluded (14 due to incorrect randomization or withdrawal of consent, 22 with missing baseline information). 1,337 patients were evaluable for overall and progression-free survival (OS and PFS), 1,252 for molecular responses. 749 of these patients were part of the score development sample. Therefore cytogenetic analyses are not described here. By EURO score, 36% of patients (n=475) were low risk, 51% (n=681) intermediate risk, and 12% (n=167) high risk. The EUTOS score was low risk in 88% (n=1163) and high risk in 12% (n=160). The high-risk patients differed between the two scores: EUTOS high-risk patients were classified according to EURO score in 12% as low (n=19), in 45% as intermediate (n=68) and in 43% as high risk (n=73). Patients with high, intermediate, and low risk EURO score achieved MMR in 22, 16, and 13 months and CMR4 (BCR-ABL <=0.01%) in 59, 41, and 34 months. P-values for low vs. intermediate risk groups were borderline only (0.03 for MMR and 0.04 for CMR4), whereas p-values for high vs. low/intermediate risk groups were for both molecular response levels <0.001. At 12 months the proportion of patients in MMR was 38%, 46%, 54% for high, intermediate, and low risk patients, respectively. Similar results were observed with the Sokal score. Patients with high risk EUTOS score achieved deep molecular responses (MMR and CMR4) significantly later than patients with low risk EUTOS score (MMR: median 21.0 vs. 14.8 months, p<0.001, Fig. 1a; CMR4: median 60.6 vs. 37.2 months, p<0.001, Fig. 1b). The proportions of patients achieving MMR at 12 months were significantly lower in the EUTOS high-risk group than in the EUTOS low-risk group (30.8% vs. 50.6%, p<0.001). OS after 5 years was 85% for high and 91% for low risk patients (p=n.s.), PFS was 85% and 90%, respectively. Conclusions: The EUTOS score clearly separates CML patients also according to MMR and CMR4 (MR4). The new EUTOS score should be used in future trials with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in CML. Disclosures: Neubauer: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Kneba:Hoffmann La Roche: Honoraria. Schnittger:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hochhaus:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. German CML Study Group:Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMBF: Research Funding; EU: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Essex: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) By Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Is Highly Predictive of Progression Free Survival in the IFM/DFCI 2009 Trial

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 191-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herve Avet-Loiseau ◽  
Jill Corre ◽  
Valerie Lauwers-Cances ◽  
Marie-Lorraine Chretien ◽  
Nelly Robillard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Evaluation of MRD in multiple myeloma (MM) is becoming an important trial endpoint, especially in young patients. With current intensive approaches, the complete remission (CR) rates are up to 70%, making conventional evaluations of response quite useless. More sensitive tools are mandatory. Two techniques may help investigators to reach this goal, flow cytometry (FCM) and NGS. We applied both techniques to the IFM part of the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial. Briefly, this trial enrolled 700 patients under 66 years of age who were randomized to receive either 8 cycles of VRD (Velcade®-Revlimid®-Dexamethasone) (arm A), or 3 VRD cycles, high-dose melphalan, followed by two consolidation VRD cycles (arm B). All patients received a lenalidomide maintenance for 12 months. A bone marrow MRD evaluation was planned before and after maintenance for all patients achieving at least very good partial response (VGPR). A one-mL bone marrow aspirate was sent overnight to one of the central labs. The primary purpose was to assess MRD by FCM. When extra cells were available, they were frozen as a dry pellet for NGS analyses, using the LymphoSight® platform (Sequenta/Adaptive Inc.). A total of 246 patients have been evaluated by NGS before maintenance and 178 after maintenance. Patients were classified in 3 categories: negative (< 10-6), low-positive (between 10-4 and 10-6), and positive (> 10-4). At pre-maintenance, 87 patients were negative, 80 were low-positive, and 79 were positive. At post-maintenance, these numbers were respectively 86, 52, and 40. Using a cutoff at 10-6, patients below 10-6 at pre-maintenance presented a 3-year PFS at 83%, vs 53% for patients > 10-6. At post-maintenance, these % were 90% and 59% respectively. When restricted to patients in CR, the 3-year PFS was 87% and 63% at pre-maintenance, and 92% and 64% at post-maintenance (Figure). Finally, we compared the two MRD techniques. Using a 7-color FCM strategy, the sensitivity level was 10-4. Amongst the 163 patients negative with the FCM approach, 84 (51 %) patients were positive using NGS and among 72 patients positive with FCM, 67 (93%) were also positive using NGS. In the subgroup of patients with negative MRD using FCM, the 3 year PFS was 86% for NGS negative patients vs 66 % for NGS positive at pre-maintenance and 91% vs 65% at post maintenance. Looking at high-risk patients, 26 patients with t(4;14), and 16 with del(17p) were evaluated. Half of the t(4;14) patients achieved MRD negativity, versus only 1/16 patients with del(17p). Interestingly, 9/13 patients with t(4;14) who achieved MRD negativity, and 0/1 patients with del(17p) did not relapse, showing the importance of achieving deep response in these high-risk patients. In conclusion, this study clearly demonstrates that a sensitive technique like NGS is able to predict PFS in patients treated with modern approaches. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Avet-Loiseau: Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hulin:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Arnulf:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Garderet:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Karlin:Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. MACRO:millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Faham:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Employment, Equity Ownership. Facon:Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Adboard; Takeda: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Adboard; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard. Attal:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Honoraria.

scholarly journals A Novel Prognostic Model That Is Superior to FLIPI-1 and FLIPI-2 and Integrates Clinical and Treatment Factors to Predict Progression-Free Survival and Early Treatment Failure in Patients with Follicular Lymphoma in the GALLIUM Trial

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2872-2872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farheen Mir ◽  
Andrew Grigg ◽  
Michael Herold ◽  
Wolfgang Hiddemann ◽  
Robert Marcus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Prognostic Model ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Prognostic Variables ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Disease ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction: Progression of disease within 24 months of initial therapy (POD24) is associated with poor survival in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). Existing prognostic models, such as FLIPI-1 and FLIPI-2, show poor sensitivity for POD24, and are derived from cohorts lacking bendamustine-treated patients. More accurate predictive models based on current standard therapies are needed to identify patients with high-risk disease. The Phase III GALLIUM trial (NCT01332968) compared the safety and efficacy of standard chemotherapy regimens plus rituximab (R) or obinutuzumab (G) in patients with previously untreated FL. Using GALLIUM data, we developed a novel risk stratification model to predict both PFS and POD24 in FL patients after first-line immunochemotherapy. Methods: Enrolled patients were aged ≥18 years with previously untreated FL (grades 1-3a), Stage III/IV disease (or Stage II with bulk), and ECOG PS ≤2, and required treatment by GELF criteria. Patients were randomized to receive either G- or R-based immunochemotherapy, followed by maintenance with the same antibody in responders. The chemotherapy arm (CHOP, CVP, or bendamustine) was selected by each study center. POD24 was defined as progressive disease or death due to disease within 24 months of randomization (noPOD24 = no progression or lymphoma-related death in that period). The most strongly prognostic variables, based on PFS hazard ratios, were estimated using penalized multivariate Cox regression methodology via an Elastic Net model. Selected variables were given equal weights, and a clinical score was formed by summating the number of risk factors for each patient. Low- and high-risk categories were determined using a cut-off that provided the best balance between true- and false-positives for PFS. PFS correlation and sensitivity to predict POD24 were assessed. The data used are from an updated GALLIUM efficacy analysis (data cut-off: April 2018; median follow-up: 57 months). Results: 1202 FL patients were enrolled. Based on data availability and biological plausibility (i.e. could reasonably be linked with high-risk disease), 25 potential clinical and treatment-related prognostic variables were entered into the Elastic Net model (Table). A model containing 11 factors was retained by the methodology and chosen as the best model (Table). Patients were categorized as 'low risk' if they scored between 0 and 3 (n=521/1000 patients with complete data) and as 'high risk' if they scored between 4 and 11 (n=479/1000 patients). At 2 years, the PFS rate was 84.5% in the whole FL population. Using our model, 2-year PFS for high-risk patients was 77% compared with 79.9% for FLIPI-1 and FLIPI-2. In low-risk patients, 2-year PFS was 92% compared with 87.9% for FLIPI-1 and 87.6% for FLIPI-2 (low-intermediate-risk patients). Our model increased the inter-group difference in 2-year PFS rate from 8% (FLIPI-1) and 7.7% (FLIPI-2) to 15%. At 3 years, the inter-group difference increased from 6.9% (FLIPI-1) and 9% (FLIPI-2) to 17% (Figure). Sensitivity for a high-risk score to predict POD24 was 73% using our model compared with 55% for FLIPI-1 and 52% for FLIPI-2 (based on 127 POD24 and 873 noPOD24 patients with complete data). Excluding patients who received CVP, which is now rarely used, resulted in an inter-group difference in PFS of 15% at 2 years and 16.8% at 3 years. A sensitivity analysis showed that inclusion of the 9 clinical factors only (i.e. removal of CVP and R treatment as variables) formed a more basic scoring system (low-risk patients, 1-3; high-risk patients, 4-9); the inter-group difference in PFS was 16.5% at 2 years and 17.6% at 3 years. However, sensitivity for POD24 decreased to 56%. Conclusion: Our clinical prognostic model was more accurate at discriminating patients likely to have poor PFS than either FLIPI-1 or FLIPI-2, and its prognostic value was sustained over time. Our model also identified the FL population at risk of POD24 with greater sensitivity. Variables such as age and bone marrow involvement were not retained by our model, and thus may not have a major impact in the current era of therapy. Factors such as sum of the products of lesion diameters were included, as this captures tumor burden more accurately than presence of bulk disease. Future studies will aim to improve the accuracy of the model by considering gene expression-based prognostic markers and DNA sequencing to form a combined clinico-genomic model. Disclosures Mir: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Hiddemann:F. Hoffman-La Roche: 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Marcus:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Other: Travel support and lecture fees; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support and lecture fees ; Gilead: Consultancy. Seymour:Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bolen:Roche: Other: Ownership interests PLC*. Knapp:Roche: Employment. Launonen:Launonen: Other: Ownership interests none PLC; Travel, accommodation, expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: Ownership interests none PLC; Travel. accommodation, expenses; Roche: Employment, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses. Mattiello:Roche: Employment. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Oestergaard:Roche: Employment, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Wenger:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Casulo:Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding.

Phase II Study with R-FND Followed by 90-Y Ibritumomab Tiuxetan Radioimmunotherapy and Rituximab Maintenance for Untreated High-Risk Follicular Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 99-99
Author(s):  
Nathan H. Fowler ◽  
Sattva S. Neelapu ◽  
Michelle A. Fanale ◽  
Maria A. Rodriguez ◽  
Barbara Pro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Ibritumomab Tiuxetan ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Rituximab Maintenance

Abstract Abstract 99 Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) patients (pts) with high-risk features using the FL International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) have an expected 5-year survival of approximately 50% with conventional chemotherapy. The incorporation of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy has improved results in this poor risk subgroup. (Buske, Blood 2006;108:1504) We have previously demonstrated that R-FND (rituximab, fludarabine, mitoxantrone, dexamethasone) is an effective regimen for indolent lymphoma, capable of inducing molecular remissions. (McLaughlin, ASCO 2003;102:564). Both extended dosing of rituximab following induction, and consolidation of first remission with 90-Y ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmnotherapy (RIT) can improve complete response rates and progression free survival (PFS) rates for patients with advanced FL. (Morschhauser, JCO 2008;32:5156; Salles, Lancet 2011;377:42) This is the first report of a chemoimmunotherapy approach followed by both RIT consolidation and rituximab maintenance. Methods: Untreated patients with FL (grade 1–3), with high risk disease (FLIPI score ≥ 3) who had adequate hematologic function and extensive stage (III/IV) disease were eligible for study entry. Patients received rituximab (375mg/m2 days 1 and 8 of cycle 1, and day 1 of subsequent cycles) fludarabine (25mg/m2 days 1–3), mitoxantrone (10mg/m2 day 1), and dexamethasone (20mg days 1–5) for four 28 day cycles. RIT was given 12–16 weeks following R-FND pending hematologic recovery. Six weeks following RIT, patients received rituximab 375mg/m2 every two months for one year. The primary objective of the study was to determine the PFS rates based on 1999 International Working Group criteria. The secondary objectives included assessing the safety and tolerance of RIT and maintenance rituximab after R-FND, assessing the CR and overall response rates, and determining the overall survival following treatment. Results: Forty nine patients were enrolled and 47 received treatment between October 2004 and April 2009. Forty-six patients were eligible for efficacy analysis. The median age was 61 (37–78), 80% had bone marrow involvement, and all had stage III/IV disease. Twenty four (51%) patients had bulky disease (>5cm) and 42 (91%) had elevated β2M. Thirty six patients completed all planned courses of treatment. Eight patients did not receive RIT, two due to neutropenia after R-FND. One patient had progressive disease while on treatment. Following R-FND, the complete (CR + CRu) and partial response rates were 87% and 13%. With RIT consolidation, the CR rate increased to 91%. At a median follow up of 50 months, the projected five year overall survival and PFS rates were 93% and 74%. Toxicity was mainly hematologic. Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 57% and 35% of patients respectively. Thirty seven patients required growth factors and 17 patients required transfusions. The median time to hematologic recovery following RIT was 10 weeks. The most common non-hematologic adverse events (≥Gr 3) were fatigue (17%), dypsnea (13%), and myalgia (11%). There were 3 cases of myelodysplasia (MDS), one in a patient who did not receive RIT. Conclusions: The combination of R-FND followed by RIT intensification and rituximab maintenance results in OS and PFS outcomes that are better than traditional combinations in this high risk population. Given the potential for serious toxicity (eg. MDS) seen in this trial and other intensive treatment strategies, this approach may be most appropriate in high-risk FLIPI patients whose outlook with standard therapy is poor. Acknowledgments: This study was sponsored by Genentech and Spectrum. Disclosures: Fowler: Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fanale:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Younes:Genentech, SBIO, Seattle Genetics, Syndax, Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Comparison Of Conventional, FISH and GEP Prognostic Factors In Multiple Myeloma: Introducing a Novel Risk Stratification

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 3092-3092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rowan Kuiper ◽  
Martin van Vliet ◽  
Annemiek Broyl ◽  
Yvonne de Knegt ◽  
Bronno van der Holt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Partial Likelihood ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Introduction Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with highly variable survival. Gene expression profiling (GEP) classifiers, such as the EMC-92, can consistently distinguish high risk patients from standard risk patients. Other prognostic factors for MM include the international staging system (ISS) and FISH. Here we present a comparison of prognostic factors and introduce a novel stratification based on EMC-92 and ISS. Methods Scores were calculated for the GEP classifiers EMC-92, UAMS-70, UAMS-17, UAMS-80 and MRC-IX-6 for the following five studies: HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 (n=328; GSE19784), MRC-IX (n=247; GSE15695), UAMS-TT2 (n=345; GSE2658), UAMS-TT3 (n=238; E-TABM-1138 and GSE2658) and APEX (n=264; GSE9782; for details, see Kuiper R, et al. Leukemia (2012) 26: 2406–2413). FISH data were available for the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial and the MRC-IX trial. ISS values were available for all datasets except UAMS-TT2. Univariate associations between markers and overall survival (OS) were investigated in a Cox regression analysis, using Bonferroni multiple testing correction. For pair wise analysis of markers, the significance in the increase of partial likelihood was calculated. In order to find the strongest combination (defined as the highest partial likelihood) of GEP-ISS, we compared these pair-wise on the same data. Training sets of classifiers were excluded for those analyses in which that specific classifier was tested. All survival models have been stratified for study. The calculations were done in R using the package survival. Results Prognostic value of FISH, GEP and serum markers was determined in relation to overall survival (Figure 1). GEP classifiers generally performed much better than FISH markers. Of 6 FISH markers with known adverse risk, del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;20) and del(13q) demonstrated a significant association only in one of two data sets with available FISH (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4). GEP classifiers, on the other hand, are much more robust. Classifiers EMC-92, UAMS-70 and UAMS-80 significantly identify a high-risk population in all evaluated data sets, whereas the UAMS-17 and the MRC-IX-6 classifiers predict high-risk patients in three of four datasets. As expected, ISS staging demonstrated stable and significant hazard ratios in most studies (three out of four). Indeed, when evaluating a merged data set, both ISS and all evaluated GEP classifiers are strong prognostic factors independent of each other. Markers with additive value to each other include all combinations of GEP classifiers as well as the combination of GEP classifiers together with ISS. Tested in independent sets, the EMC-92 classifier combined with ISS is the best combination, as compared to other classifier-ISS combinations tested on the same independent data sets. The strongest risk stratification in 3 groups was achieved by splitting the EMC-92 standard risk patients into low risk, based on ISS stage I, and intermediate risk, based on ISS stage II and III. This stratification retains the original EMC-92 high-risk group, and is robust in all cohorts. The proportions of patients defined as low, intermediate and high risk for this combined EMC-92-ISS classifier are 31% / 47% / 22 % (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4), 19% / 61% / 20 % (MRC-IX), 46% / 39% / 15 % (UAMS-TT3) and 32% / 55% / 13 % (APEX). Variability in low risk proportion is caused by the variable incidence of ISS stage I. Conclusions We conclude that GEP is the strongest predictor for survival in multiple myeloma and far more robust than FISH. Adding ISS to EMC-92 results in the strongest combination of any of the GEP classifier-ISS combinations. Stratification in low risk, intermediate and high risk may result in improved treatment and ultimately in longer survival of MM patients. This research was supported by the Center for Translational Molecular Medicine (BioCHIP project) Disclosures: van Vliet: Skyline Diagnostics: Employment. Mulligan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Morgan:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: 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; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Johnson-Cilag: Honoraria; Mudipharma: Honoraria. van Beers:Skyline Diagnostics: Employment. Sonneveld:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document