Impact and Safety of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy in Vulnerable Older Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

The development of chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR T) therapy has revolutionized the treatment of relapsed refractory diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, its impact in vulnerable older patients, especially those with multi-morbidity and functional limitations, has not been explored. Moreover, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has recently proposed Coverage with Evidence Development for CAR T, emphasizing the need for evidence in older patients. We retrospectively examined outcomes of older patients referred for commercial CAR T products, axicabtagene ciloleucel and tisagenlecleucel, at our institution from January 2018 to March 2019. Forty-two consecutive older patients (≥65yo) were included in the analysis of post-relapse (last documented relapse or refractory state) overall survival (PR-OS) accounting for time of CAR T entry. Geriatric assessment, including comorbidity, basic and instrumental activities of daily living, prior falls, and weight loss, was performed either by a geriatrician prior to admission, or by interdisciplinary clinical staff on the day of admission. In parallel, we compared the safety and toxicities of CAR T between older (≥65yo, n=24) and younger (<65yo, n=25) patients. Among the 42 patients ≥65yo, 18 did not receive CAR T due to clinical ineligibility and/or death during the pre-requisite clinical evaluation. Their gender distribution, comorbidity burden, measured by Deyo/Charlson Comorbidity Index (DCI/CCI), and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) were comparable to the 24 older patients who received a CAR T product. With a median follow-up of 291 days (range 162 - 572) for survivors, the PR-OS favored the group of older patients who had received CAR T with estimated 1-year PR-OS of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.99) versus 0.44 (95% CI: 0.27, 0.75) for patients who did not receive CAR T (p=0.04) (Figure). We next compared the safety and toxicity profiles among older (≥65yo, n=24) versus younger patients (<65yo, n=25) who received a CAR T. Baseline characteristics were similar among the two groups including: KPS, the prevalence of functional impairment, prior fall, and weight loss, and pre-treatment tumor burden measured by LDH (Table). The older group had more females (p<0.001) and higher comorbidity burden measured by DCI/CCI (p=0.04) (Table). Numerically more younger patients (84%) received axicabtagene ciloleucel compared to tisagenlecleucel versus older patients (63%; p=0.11). Importantly, the two groups had similar incidences of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity (NT) of all grades (Table). We also examined the incidence of grade 3-4 hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities by CTCAE v5.0 and found that numerically, older patients appeared to have less infection and cytopenia, and more metabolic and other toxicities (Table). In addition, the rate of Intensive Care Unit admission was similar. At the time of last follow-up, we observed only 1 treatment-related death, a 69-year-old female with a history of prior allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation who died of influenza pneumonia 129 days after CAR T infusion. Although limited by small sample size, retrospective design, and possible patient selection bias regarding disease biology, our results highlight potential benefits of CAR T in selected older patients even with functional limitation, multi-morbidity, and significant tumor burden; and the lack of excessive CRS, NT, and other high-grade toxicities. These findings extend beyond published results of older patients in ZUMA-1 and JULIET trials, and support that, with meticulous management of CAR T toxicities, older patients should not be excluded from CAR T based on chronologic age alone. Detailed geriatric assessment and correlation with toxicities should allow better selection of older adults who could benefit from this curative treatment. In addition, the biology of CAR T response in older adults may warrant additional investigation in the context of aging-associated changes in the immune system. Disclosures Batlevi: Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giralt:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. Noy:Medscape: Honoraria; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding. Palomba:Noble Insights: Consultancy; Hemedicus: Speakers Bureau; Merck & Co Inc.: Consultancy; Seres Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; STRAXIMM: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Evelo: Equity Ownership; MSK (IP for Juno and Seres): Patents & Royalties. Santomasso:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy. Sauter:Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Scordo:Angiocrine Bioscience, Inc.: Consultancy; McKinsey & Company: Consultancy. Shah:Janssen Pharmaceutica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Perales:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bellicum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; NexImmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MolMed: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kyte/Gilead: Research Funding; Omeros: 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.

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

MSKCC Early Experience Using Radiotherapy As a Bridging Strategy for Relapsed Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma before CD19 CAR T Therapy

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-131449 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3238-3238 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Brandon Imber ◽

M. Lia Palomba ◽

Carl DeSelm ◽

Connie Lee Batlevi ◽

Parastoo B. Dahi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Family Member ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Car T ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Bridging Strategy

Background: CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR T) therapies have remarkable overall response rates (ORR) for relapsed diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). There is strong rationale to use a radiotherapy (RT) bridge during the cell manufacturing process including palliation, local control and cytoreduction with limited count impact. Recent data from our institution suggests RT may augment an immune response and sensitize antigen negative cells to CAR-mediated death. This series details our early experience using RT conditioning. Methods: 13 patients (median age 64 years) with DLBCL (n=9) or transformed follicular lymphoma (n=4) were analyzed. Overall, patients had a median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-8) including 3 with autologous transplant, 3 with distant RT and 1 with CAR T infusion. Several CAR products were used, including axicabtagene ciloleucel (n=8), JCAR017 (n=3, per NCT02631044), tisagenlecleucel (n=1) and EGFRt/19-28z/4-1BBL "armored" CAR (n=1, per NCT03085173). Most patients (n=10) began RT post apheresis with median duration between RT and CAR infusion of 20d (range 13-80, Figure 2). The most common RT regimen (n=8) was 20 Gy in 5 fractions (range 20-47 Gy) but 2 received our pre-transplant regimen of 30 Gy in 20 BID fractions. None received concurrent chemotherapy with RT but one had a cycle post RT and pre CAR. All had cyclophosphamide and fludarabine lymphodepletion. PET response was evaluated by Lugano criteria. Results: Three patients had limited stage PET avid disease at RT and were treated comprehensively pre-CAR. The remaining 10 were advanced stage and were treated palliatively to limited sites. Irradiated sites included the pelvis/groin (n=4), neck (n=3), intraabdominal (n=2) and extremity (n=2). Most (n=10) had intensity modulated radiotherapy. RT fields were large (median planning treatment volume of 887 cc, range 163-1641). Post RT PET interpretation was challenging given a short interval since RT ended (median 11d) but of 11 evaluable patients, many (n=8, 73%) had partial response (PR). Though locally controlled, most (n=10, 91%) had out of field progressive disease (PD) pre-CAR. Post CAR T, no severe adverse events in the RT field were noted, 9/13 had cytokine release syndrome (n=1 grade 3, n=2 grade 2) and 4 had neurotoxicity (n=3 grade 3). At day 30, ORR was 90%; of 10 evaluable patients, 7 had complete response (CR) and 2 had partial response (PR). Of the 7 evaluable patients at day 90, 4 (57%) had continued CR and the other 3 (43%) had PD and subsequently died from DLBCL. One relapsed at 95d post armored CAR both in and out of the RT field, and the other relapsed at 64d post JCAR017 primarily out of field. Conclusions: Use of RT as a CAR T bridging strategy is feasible and associated with excellent pre-CAR local control and initial post CAR ORR in a cohort of heavily pre-treated DLBCL patients. We observed moderate serious CAR toxicity that did not appear to be augmented by RT. Future efforts should clarify the optimal RT timing/dose and assess the potential for incremental immunogenicity with combined therapy. Disclosures Palomba: Hemedicus: Other: Immediate Family Member, Speakers Bureau ; Merck & Co Inc.: Other: Immediate Family Member, Consultancy (includes expert testimony); Seres Therapeutics: Other: Immediate Family Member, Equity Ownership and Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; STRAXIMM: Other: Immediate Family Member, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate Family Member, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noble Insights: Consultancy; Evelo: Other: Immediate family member, Equity Ownership; MSK (IP for Juno and Seres): Other: Immediate Family Member, Patents & Royalties - describe: intellectual property rights . Batlevi:Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giralt:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Noy:Medscape: Honoraria; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Park:Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy. Sauter:Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding. Scordo:Angiocrine Bioscience, Inc.: Consultancy; McKinsey & Company: Consultancy. Shah:Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Sadelain:Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties. Perales:Bellicum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: 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; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; MolMed: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NexImmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyte/Gilead: Research Funding; Miltenyi: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Outcomes and Factors Impacting Use of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel in Refractory and Relapsed Large B-Cell Lymphoma: An Intent-to-Treat Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127087 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4452-4452 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Agrima Mian ◽

Wei Wei ◽

Allison M. Winter ◽

Jack Khouri ◽

Deepa Jagadeesh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Car T ◽

Ecog Ps ◽

Aggressive B Cell Lymphoma

Background: Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (Axi-cel), the first chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T), is approved for refractory/relapsed (R/R) aggressive B-cell lymphoma with the ZUMA-1 trial reporting an objective response in 83% and complete response in 58% patients at a median duration of 27 months (Locke et al. 2019). The availability to successfully deliver CAR-T therapy may be restricted by socio-economic, technical/manufacturing challenges and comorbidities related to aggressive B-cell lymphoma and its treatment. In this intent-to treat (ITT) analysis, we compared the outcomes of patients at our center with R/R B-cell lymphoma who received Axi-cel with those for whom Axi-cel therapy was intended but not administered, in order to identify factors that may limit its use in this population. Methods: We reviewed medical records of consecutive adult patients with R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), transformed follicular lymphoma (tFL) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) for whom letters of medical necessity (LMN) were sent to request approval for Axi-cel, from March 2018 to May 2019 at our center. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they ultimately received Axi-cel. Baseline characteristics between Axi-cel and Non-Axi-cel group were compared using Fischer's exact test for categorical and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. Comorbidities were assessed using the Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) (Sorror 2013). Time-dependent outcomes were calculated from the date of LMN. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: LMNs were sent for a total of 38 patients, 27 male (71%) with a median age of 63 (range, 25-77) years. 24 patients (63%) had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1 at study entry, while median IPI at diagnosis was 2 (range, 0-5). The most common histology was DLBCL in 25 patients (66%) and 18 (47%) had a germinal center B-cell (GCB) subtype. Four patients had double/triple hit lymphoma. The median number of prior therapies was 4 (range, 2-6) and 21 patients (55%) underwent prior autologous transplant. Forty-seven percent had relapsed and 53% had refractory disease. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Twenty seven (71%) patients received Axi-cel, while 11 patients (29%) were considered candidates for but could not receive Axi-cel. The median time from LMN to cell infusion was 62 (range, 33-248) days. A higher HCT-CI score was observed in the Non-Axi-cel group as compared to the Axi-cel group (median score of 4 vs 2, P=0.04). The two groups did not differ with respect to age, ECOG PS, IPI, number of prior therapies or transplant status. Median follow- up was 5 (range, 2-16) months. At the time of last follow-up, 8 out of 27 patients (30%) in the Axi-cel and 10 out of 11 (91%) in the Non-Axi-cel group had died. The median OS for the entire cohort was 10 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 13), Axi-cel group was 13 months (95% CI, 7.7 to N.R.) and Non-Axi-cel group was 1 month (95% CI, 0.4 to 3.7) (Figure 1). In the Non-Axi-cel group, 3 patients underwent leukapheresis but died prior to infusion (including 1 manufacturing failure and 2 patients with rapid systemic progression). The other 7 deaths in this group were prior to leukapheresis (3 due to sepsis, 3 due to rapid progression including 1 case of active CNS disease and 1 patient could not receive therapy due to caregiver and financial barriers). The one surviving patient in the Non-Axi-cel group had refractory CNS relapse at the time of last follow-up. Conclusions: In this retrospective ITT analysis, approximately one third of patients with R/R aggressive B-cell lymphoma for whom CAR-T therapy was intended were unable to receive it and had extremely short median OS. Patients who could not receive Axi-cel had a higher comorbidity index at the time of decision to proceed with CAR-T therapy; the majority of them died before leukapheresis from disease progression or complications of prior treatment. Improved strategies are needed to safely bridge patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma intended to receive Axi-cel. New targeted agents such as polatuzumab vedotin and tafasitamab (formerly MOR208) may increase the proportion of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma who ultimately receive and benefit from CAR-T therapy. Disclosures Anwer: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau. Gerds:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding. Majhail:Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Atara Bio: Consultancy; Nkarta: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Honoraria. Hill:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Oral Azacitidine (CC-486) Plus R-CHOP in Patients with High-Risk or Previously Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Grade 3B Follicular Lymphoma, or Transformed Lymphoma (AFT-08)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-114438 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2964-2964 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Peter Martin ◽

Nancy L. Bartlett ◽

Julio C. Chavez ◽

John L. Reagan ◽

Sonali M. Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Febrile Neutropenia ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Dose Escalation ◽

Research Funding ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: For patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), resistance to standard R-CHOP immunochemotherapy remains an urgent and unmet clinical challenge. Aberrant DNA methylation likely contributes to chemoresistance and may represent a therapeutic target.In a phase I study of R-CHOP plus subcutaneous azacitidine, a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor, complete responses (CRs) were achieved in 10/11 high-risk DLBCL patients (Clozel et al. Cancer Discovery 2013), providing the rationale for this study of oral azacytidine (CC-486) plus R-CHOP. Previously reported data from the dose escalation phase of this study demonstrated promising response rates in patients with high-risk DLBCL (Martin et al. Blood 2017). Here, we present results from both the dose escalation and expansion phases after substantially longer follow-up. Methods: CC-486-DLBCL-001 (NCT02343536) is a phase I, open-label, multicenter study of CC-486 plus standard R-CHOP in patients with previously untreated DLBCL, grade 3B follicular lymphoma (FL), or transformed FL. Eligible patients were aged ≥18-80 years with no active viral hepatitis, had an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score ≥2 or DLBCL double-positive for BCL2 and c-MYC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2, and Ann Arbor stage II-IV disease. Patients in the dose escalation phase were enrolled sequentially into 4 dose cohorts of CC-486 (100, 150, 200, and 300 mg) using the time-to-event continual reassessment method. Additional patients were enrolled in the expansion phase to evaluate preliminary efficacy. Patients received up to six 21-day cycles. CC-486 was administered for 7 days before initiation of R-CHOP and on days 8-21 of cycles 1-5. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was mandated by protocol and anti-emetics were standard treatment. The primary objectives were to determine safety (per NCI CTCAE v4.03) and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of CC-486 in combination with standard R-CHOP. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy per the International Working Group criteria (Cheson et al.J Clin Oncol 2014). Results: Fifty-nine patients were enrolled as of May 31, 2018, including 40 treated at the RP2D of CC-486 300 mg. The median age in the overall population was 66 years (range, 25-80), 76% were aged >60 years, 59% were male, and 59% had an IPI score ≥3. Fifty-four patients (92%) completed all 6 planned cycles of study treatment. Thirteen patients (22%) had CC-486 dose reductions because of adverse events (AEs). Two patients discontinued CC-486 due to AEs: febrile neutropenia (n=1; 150 mg) and sepsis (n=1; 300 mg). The most common AEs were gastrointestinal, which were mainly grade 1/2; hematologic AEs were the most common grade 3/4 toxicity (Table 1). Grade 3/4 AEs related to CC-486 occurred in 36 (61%) patients, most commonly neutropenia (41%) and febrile neutropenia (20%). Febrile neutropenia was more common among older patients (9/15 patients with this AE were aged >70 years) and those with IPI scores ≥3 versus ≤2 (31% vs 17%) but was not correlated with CC-486 dose. One patient died during the study (acute respiratory failure possibly related to study treatment). All patients were evaluable for response. The overall response rate was 95%, with 52 patients (88%) achieving a CR; response rates were generally similar in patients with IPI scores ≥3 and ≤2 and in patients treated at the RP2D (Table 2). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached (median follow-up of 12 months); estimated 1-year PFS rates were similar in the overall population (86%) and in patients with IPI scores ≥3 (84%) and ≤2 (89%). Conclusions: Epigenetic priming with CC-486 before R-CHOP demonstrated promising clinical activity in patients with high-risk, previously untreated DLBCL, transformed FL, or grade 3B FL. AEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of azacitidine and toxicities associated with R-CHOP. These results support further investigation of oral azacitidine (CC-486) in combination with R-CHOP, including patients with high-risk disease. Disclosures Martin: Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Pfizer: 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; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding. Chavez:Merck: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy. Reagan:Alexion: Honoraria; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Smith:Portola: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Drew:Celgene Corp.: Employment. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cerchietti:Celgene: Research Funding; Weill Cornell Medicine: Employment. Leonard:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Portia: A Phase 1b Study Evaluating Safety and Efficacy of Tisagenlecleucel and Pembrolizumab in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-129120 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5325-5325 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ulrich Jaeger ◽

Nina Worel ◽

Joseph P. McGuirk ◽

Peter A. Riedell ◽

Isabelle Fleury ◽

...

Keyword(s):

T Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

T Cell Therapy ◽

Car T Cell Therapy ◽

Car T ◽

Phase 1B

Background: Tisagenlecleucel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL) after ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy. T-cell exhaustion due to an immunosuppressive environment has been a hypothesized mechanism for CAR-T cell therapy failure. Subgroup analyses of the JULIET trial suggested an association between programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) interaction in baseline biopsies and lack of response (Agoulnik et al. EHA. 2018). Moreover, the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab has shown clinical activity in r/r DLBCL after failing tisagenlecleucel therapy (Chong et al. Blood. 2017). PORTIA is a phase 1b, multicenter, open-label trial investigating the safety and efficacy of tisagenlecleucel plus pembrolizumab in patients with r/r DLBCL. We report data from a completed cohort of the ongoing study. Methods: Eligible patients must be ≥ 18 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of DLBCL that has relapsed after or is refractory to ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Patients treated with prior allogeneic stem cell transplantation, anti-CD19 therapies, or checkpoint inhibitors are excluded. Lymphodepleting chemotherapy consists of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide. Patients receive a single tisagenlecleucel intravenous infusion (target dose: 0.6-6.0x108 cells) on Day 1. Pembrolizumab is given at 200 mg every 21 days, for up to 6 doses. Pembrolizumab was started on Day 15 post-tisagenlecleucel in Cohort 1, with the option of moving to Day 8 or 22 in subsequent cohorts, based on observed data and guided by a Bayesian Logistic Regression Model with Escalation with Overdose Control principle, evaluating the distribution of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring in the 21 days following the first pembrolizumab dose. As per study protocol, a total of 20 patients will be treated at the optimal dose timing. Primary endpoints are the proportion of patients receiving pembrolizumab per protocol schedule, the incidence of DLTs in the dose-timing selection phase, and the overall response rate in the dose-expansion phase. Secondary outcomes include duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, cellular kinetics, and immunogenicity. Results: As of 5 March 2019, 5 patients were screened for Cohort 1. Four patients were enrolled and received tisagenlecleucel and pembrolizumab. Median age was 54 (range, 35-79). Median follow-up from time from tisagenlecleucel infusion to data cut-off was 46 days (range, 36-85). Patients received 1.7-3.0x108 CAR-positive T cells, and 1, 2, 2 and 4 pembrolizumab doses, respectively, with no delays. All 4 patients experienced at least 1 adverse event (AE), with no exacerbation or recurrence of tisagenlecleucel-related AEs following pembrolizumab infusion. No pembrolizumab-related AEs were observed. No DLTs or grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed. TRAEs and AEs are summarized in Table 1. Two patients discontinued pembrolizumab treatment (after 1 and 2 doses, respectively) due to disease progression. All 4 patients experienced initial expansion between Days 6 and 15 post-tisagenlecleucel infusion, with peak transgene levels ranging from 1,980 to 77,200 copies/µg DNA (Figure 1). No secondary expansion was observed after pembrolizumab administration. The overall exposure is consistent with the observed exposure in r/r DLBCL patients in the JULIET trial. With very limited follow-up, 1 partial response has been observed. Cohort 2 (pembrolizumab starting Day 8) was ongoing at the time of submission. Conclusions: Overall, PD-1 blockade with pembrolizumab on Day 15 after tisagenlecleucel infusion was feasible and showed a manageable safety profile in the first 4 patients. No DLTs and no clinically significant exacerbation of AEs were observed, supporting the initiation of Cohort 2. Efficacy and safety data with an updated cutoff for Cohort 1 and new data from Cohort 2 will be presented at the congress. Clinical trial information: NCT03630159. Disclosures Jaeger: Novartis, Roche, Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, Roche, Takeda Millennium: Research Funding; Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Takeda Millennium, MSD, BMS, Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene, Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Novartis, MSD, AbbVie, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Worel:Sanofi Genzyme, Malinckrodt Therakos: Research Funding; Jazz, Sanofi, Celgene, Novartis, Malinckrodt Therakos: Honoraria; Sanofi Genzyme, Malinckrodt Therakos: Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Riedell:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Fleury:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chu:Novartis: Employment. Abdelhady:Novartis: Employment. Forcina:Novartis: Employment. Bubuteishvili Pacaud:Novartis: Employment. Waller:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Cerus Corporation: Other: Stock, Patents & Royalties; Chimerix: Other: Stock; Cambium Oncology: Patents & Royalties: Patents, royalties or other intellectual property ; Amgen: Consultancy; Kalytera: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Impact of Interim FDG-PET (iPET) in the Outcomes of Patients with Aggressive B-Cell Lymphomas Receiving DA-EPOCH-R

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-122393 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 2898-2898

Author(s):

Vania Phuoc ◽

Leidy Isenalumhe ◽

Hayder Saeed ◽

Celeste Bello ◽

Bijal Shah ◽

...

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Fdg Pet ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

End Of Treatment

Introduction: 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) remains the standard of care for baseline and end of treatment scans for aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs). However, the role of interim FDG-PET remains not as well defined across aggressive NHLs, especially in the era of high-intensity chemoimmunotherapy. Interim FDG-PET (iPET) can serve as an early prognostic tool, and prior studies evaluating the utility of iPET-guided treatment strategies primarily focused on diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) and frontline R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). Classification criteria systems assessing response also differ between studies with no clear consensus between use of Deauville criteria (DC), International Harmonization Project (IHP), and the ΔSUVmax method. Methods: This study evaluates our institutional experience with iPET during treatment with DA-EPOCH ± R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin with or without Rituximab) in aggressive NHLs. We retrospectively evaluated 70 patients at Moffitt Cancer Center who started on DA-EPOCH ± R between 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2018 for aggressive NHLs. Response on interim and end-of-treatment (EOT) scans were graded per DC, IHP, and ΔSUVmax methods, and progression free survival (PFS) probability estimates were calculated with chi-square testing and Kaplan Meier method. PFS outcomes were compared between interim negative and positive scans based on each scoring method. Outcomes were also compared between groups based on interim versus EOT positive or negative scans. Results: We identified 70 patients with aggressive NHLs who received DA-EPOCH ± R at our institute. The most common diagnoses were DLBCL (61%) followed by Burkitt's lymphoma (10%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (9%), plasmablastic lymphoma (7%), gray zone lymphoma (6%), primary cutaneous large B-cell lymphoma (1%), primary effusion lymphoma (1%), and other high-grade NHL not otherwise specified (3%). Of the 43 patients with DLBCL, 21/43 (49%) had double hit lymphoma (DHL) while 7/43 (16%) had triple hit lymphoma (THL), and 3/43 (7%) had MYC-rearranged DLBCL while 2/43 (5%) had double expressor DLBCL. Thirty nine out of 70 (56%) were female, and median age at diagnosis was 58.39 years (range 22.99 - 86.86 years). Most patients had stage IV disease (49/70, 70%), and 43/70 (61%) had more than one extranodal site while 45/70 (64%) had IPI score ≥ 3. Forty-six out of 70 (66%) received central nervous system prophylaxis, most with intrathecal chemotherapy (44/70, 63%). Fifty-five out of 70 (79%) had iPET available while 6/70 (9%) had interim computerized tomography (CT) scans. Fifty-six out of 70 (80%) had EOT PET, and 4/70 (6%) had EOT CT scans. Sustained complete remission occurred in 46/70 (66%) after frontline DA-EPOCH ± R (CR1), and 12/70 (17%) were primary refractory while 5/70 (7%) had relapse after CR1. Four of 70 (6%) died before cycle 3, and 3/70 (4%) did not have long-term follow-up due to transition of care elsewhere. Median follow-up was 15.29 months (range 0.85 - 60.09 months). There was significantly better PFS observed if iPET showed DC 1-3 compared to DC 4-5 (Χ2=5.707, p=0.0169), and PFS was better if iPET was negative by IHP criteria (Χ2=4.254, p=0.0392) or ΔSUVmax method (Χ2=6.411, p=0.0113). Comparing iPET to EOT PET, there was significantly better PFS if iPET was negative with EOT PET negative (iPET-/EOT-) compared to iPET positive with EOT negative (iPET+/EOT-), and iPET+/EOT+ and iPET-/EOT+ had worse PFS after iPET-/EOT- and iPET+/EOT- respectively. This pattern in iPET/EOT PFS probability remained consistent when comparing DC (Χ2=30.041, p<0.0001), IHP (Χ2=49.078, p<0.0001), and ΔSUVmax method (Χ2=9.126, p=0.0104). These findings fit clinical expectations with positive EOT scans indicating primary refractory disease. There was no significant difference in PFS when comparing DLBCL versus non-DLBCL (Χ2=3.461, p=0.0628) or DHL/THL versus non-DHL/THL diagnoses (Χ2=2.850, p=0.0914). Conclusion: Our findings indicate a prognostic role of iPET during treatment with DA-EPOCH ± R for aggressive NHLs. Significant differences in PFS were seen when graded by DC, IHP, and ΔSUVmax methods used in prior studies and when comparing interim versus EOT response. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. Disclosures Bello: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Shah:Novartis: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Spectrum/Astrotech: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene/Juno: Honoraria. Sokol:EUSA: Consultancy. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Easix As Prediction Score before CAR-T Cells Vs Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (alloHCT) for Relapsed/Refractory (r/r) Large B Cell Lymphoma (LBCL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-139615 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 11-12

Author(s):

Felix Korell ◽

Thomas Luft ◽

Michael Schmitt ◽

Sascha Dietrich ◽

Anita Schmitt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

T Cells ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Tumor Board ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Educational Activities ◽

Bulky Disease ◽

Car T Cells ◽

Car T

BACKGROUND: In a previous study we have shown that CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells do not appear to be inferior to alloHCT when used as standard cellular immunotherapy (CI) for patients with multiply r/r LBCL (EBMT 2020). The purpose of the present follow-up analysis was to further compare the risk profile of the 2 cohorts by applying the EASIX score (lactate dehydrogenase (U/L) × creatinine (mg/dL)/thrombocytes (109 cells per L)), and to assess if EASIX could be used as outcome predictor in patients with r/r LBCL undergoing CAR-T and alloHCT, respectively. METHODS: Eligible were all patients referred to our institution with relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL and a tumor board decision recommending treatment with CAR-T cells between 07/2018 and 02/2020 and those recommending allogeneic donor search between 2004 and 2019. Patients with DLBCL transformed from CLL were excluded. EASIX was evaluated retrospectively using uni- and multivariable analyses (with regards to age, gender and number of failed therapy lines) and mortality using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: 41 patients intended for CAR-T cells and 60 patients intended for alloHCT were included. In both cohorts nearly all patients had active disease at indication. Cohorts were comparable for sex, time from diagnosis, ZUMA1 eligibility, and PS, but CAR-T patients tended to be older (median 56 vs 51 years, p=0.093), and had more often primary refractory and bulky disease (p=0.004 and p=0.04, respectively). Median EASIX score across both cohorts was 1.50 (0.27-70.5), with significantly higher scores in the CART group both at indication (EASIX-ind; median 1.79 and 1.22 for CAR-T and alloHCT, respectively, p=0.031) and at conditioning for CI (EASIX-pre, median 2.24 vs 1.26, p=0.005). Median OS from indication was 475d for the CAR-T cohort vs 285d for the alloHCT cohort (p=0.88). On multivariate analysis, EASIX-ind was significantly associated with adverse OS if alloHCT was intended (HR per 2fold increase 1.43, 95%CI 1.08-1.90, p=0.013), but not if CAR-T was intended (HR per 2fold increase 1.16, 95%CI 0.88-1.53, p=0.3). After CI, 12-month estimates for NRM, relapse incidence, PFS, and OS for CAR-T vs alloHCT were 3% vs 21% (p=0.04), 59% vs 44% (p=0.12), 39% vs 33% (p=0.97), and 68% vs 54% (p=0.32). EASIX-pre predicted overall survival (OS) in both CAR-T (HR per 2fold increase 2.11, 95%CI 1.21-3.7, p=0.009) and alloHCT (HR per 2fold increase 3.69, 95%CI 1.54-8.31, p=0.003) cohorts. In the alloHCT group, the EASIX effect was largely driven by higher NRM risk with increasing EASIX-pre, while in the CAR-T group poorer OS with increasing EASIX-pre was largely relapse-related. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CI for r/r LBCL, EASIX measured prior to conditioning can predict mortality after both CAR-T and alloHCT. If applied already at indication for CI, the predictive capacity of EASIX is weaker and no longer significant if CAR-T is intended. Further studies for validation of this data appear to be warrantable. Disclosures Schmitt: MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: PI of clinical trials on letermovir; TolerogenixX Ltd: Other: Co-Founder and shareholder; Hexal: Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Apogenix: Research Funding; Kite: Other: Travel grants, educational activities and conferences; Novartis: Other: educational activities and conferences, Research Funding. Dietrich:Roche: 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; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schmitt:Hexal: Other: Travel grants ; TolerogenixX LtD: Other: Co-founder, Part-time employee ; Therakos/Mallinckrodt: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel grants . Dreger:Neovii: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Rituximab Plus Three Cycles of Dexamethasone In the Treatment of Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP): a Pilot Study.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.3697.3697 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 3697-3697

Author(s):

Rebecca Elstrom ◽

Soo Y. Lee ◽

James B. Bussel

Keyword(s):

Platelet Count ◽

Pilot Study ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Initial Treatment ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Almost All

Abstract Abstract 3697 Introduction: Rituximab has been a useful treatment for patients with ITP; many hundreds of patients have been treated. 30–40% of patients will achieve a complete remission (CR: platelet count >150 × 109/l) with initial treatment and, of this group, the CR will last at least a year in almost all patients. However, emerging data suggests that at least 40% of these patients in CR will relapse between 1 and 3 years from initial treatment suggesting that long-term “cures” only occur in 20% of the initial patients. Therefore it would be desirable if CR's could be achieved in more patients and especially if these would be durable in more than 20%. One approach would be to use rituximab maintenance, however it results in suppression of B-cells for more than 2 years. Dexamethasone has also been used to achieve “cure” in ITP especially in adults at or near diagnosis. Cheng's study suggested that approximately 50% of patients would achieve a long-term response with only one 4-day cycle of high dose (40 mg/day) dexamethasone (N Engl J Med, 2003). A follow up study from GIMEMA suggested that 3–4 cycles of dexamethasone would be better than 1 cycle (Blood, 2007). Finally, Zaja's study suggested that rituximab plus one cycle of dexamethasone was superior to dexamethasone alone with a > 50% CR rate at 6 months (Blood, 2010). Therefore, we elected to perform a pilot study to explore the combination of rituximab with three cycles of dexamethasone at 14 day intervals. Methods: Patients with ITP with platelet counts < 30,000 off therapy and in need of treatment were enrolled. The standard dose (4 infusions of 375mg/m2) rituximab was given on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 and dexamethasone 40 mg (adjusted for size) on days 1–4, 15–18, and 29–32. Results: Fourteen patients between the ages of 4 and 53 years with ITP were treated with rituximab and dexamethasone (R&D) (Table 1). All had received previous steroid therapy as well as other treatments. The median platelet count was 40,000 at initiation of rituximab (range 7,000-230,000); several patients with low counts started with dexamethasone prior to initiating Rituximab to sustain their counts during initial treatment. Patients received rituximab weekly for between 2 and 4 doses and dexamethasone for either 2 or 3 courses at intervals between 1 and 8 weeks (median 2 week intervals). A summary of the results is shown in table 2 demonstrating short-lived platelet increases in response to dexamethasone in almost all patients. With short follow up, there were 7 CR's, 3 PR's and 4 NR's. If this was divided by duration of ITP prior to R&D, there were 4 CR's and 1 NR for ≤ 12 months and 3 CR, 3 PR, and 3 NR for > 12 months. More of the children who were treated had chronic disease than did adults explaining their apparently poorer response. Observed toxicities included hyperglycemia, grade 1 and 2 liver function abnormalities, weight gain, and 1 episode of colitis requiring hospitalization. Three patients opted to skip the third cycle of dexamethasone. Conclusion: A regimen of rituximab + 2–3 courses of dexamethasone is active in patients with pretreated ITP with appreciable but usually manageable toxicity. It appears to yield superior results if administered to patients within one year of diagnosis. This combination merits further exploration in a prospective clinical trial. Disclosures: Bussel: Portola: Consultancy; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ligand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cangene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

LONG-TERM RESULTS of the GIMEMA VTD Consolidation TRIAL In Autografted MULTIPLE Myeloma PATIENTS (VEL-03-096): IMPACT of Minimal RESIDUAL DISEASE Detection by REAL Time Quantitative PCR On LATE Recurrences and Overall SURVIVAL

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.827.827 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 827-827 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Marco Ladetto ◽

Simone Ferrero ◽

Daniela Drandi ◽

Federica Cavallo ◽

Luigia Monitillo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clin Oncol ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Tumor Burden ◽

Long Term Results ◽

Clinical Relapse ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Tumor Load

Abstract Abstract 827 Background and aims: We have recently shown that a consolidation therapy with bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone (VTD) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients responding to autologous transplantation (ASCT) induces major tumor shrinking assessed by real time-quantitative (RQ)-PCR. Moreover we found that low levels of minimal residual disease (MRD) associated to a better progression-free survival (PFS) [GIMEMA VEL-03-096 trial, EudraCT Number 2004-000531-28: Ladetto et al, J Clin Oncol 2010]. We here present the updated results of this study at a median follow-up of 65 months. In the present analysis the following additional issues have been addressed: a) impact of MRD on PFS over time, with special interest to the role of MRD kinetics on outcome; b) impact of MRD on overall survival (OS). Patients and methods: Inclusion criteria and treatment schedule for this study have been already reported [Ladetto et al., J Clin Oncol 2010] and included: 1) a documented complete or very good partial remission following ASCT delivered as first line treatment; 2) no previous therapy with thalidomide or bortezomib; 3) presence of a molecular marker based on the immunoglobulin heavy chain rearrangement (IGH). MRD was assessed on bone marrow samples at diagnosis, study entry, after two VTD courses, at the end of treatment and then at six months intervals, up to clinical relapse. Patients underwent MRD detection using either qualitative nested PCR and RQ-PCR, employing IGH-derived patient specific primers as already described [Voena et al., Leukemia 1997; Ladetto et al., Biol Bone Marrow Transpl 2000]. For outcome analysis patients were grouped according to following definitions: a) MRD negativity on two consecutive samples by the most sensitive PCR method (nested PCR): full molecular remission (FMR); b) MRD negativity on two consecutive samples by RQ-PCR (less sensitive but currently better standardized, according to European Study Group on MRD detection guidelines [van der Vendel et al., Leukemia 2007]): standard molecular remission (SMR); c) post-treatment tumor load above the median by RQ-PCR: high tumor burden (HTB); d) post-treatment tumor load below the median by RQ-PCR: low tumor burden (LTB); e) recurrence of detectable MRD after FMR/SMR: molecular relapse (M-rel); f) increase of MRD levels of at least one log: active disease (AD). Results: Feasibility, toxicity and clinical outcome of the trial have been already reported [Ladetto et al., J Clin Oncol 2010]. Thirty-nine patients were enrolled and median clinical follow-up from start of first line treatment is 65 months. 270 of the planned samples for MRD monitoring (86%) were actually received by the centralized lab. So far 17 relapses and six deaths have been reported. Following VTD consolidation, 7/38 evaluable patients achieved FMR (18%) and 15/38 achieved SMR (39%). Three M-rel were observed, two of them followed by clinical relapse within six months. Achievement of SMR proved highly predictive for PFS (5-years (y) PFS 82% vs 44%, p=0.009, figure 1A), as well as the presence of HTB and AD (5-y PFS 35% vs 87%, p<0.001, figure 2). Interestingly, patients with LTB and no evidence of M-rel or AD had an excellent outcome with a 5-y PFS of 87%, (even considering that molecular follow-up was incomplete due to lack of samples in the two events observed in the low risk group, figure 2). Most notably, none of the patients achieving FMR or SMR has so far died and both SMR and AD proved to be significant predictors for OS (respectively, 5y-OS 100% vs 74%, p=0.012, figure 1B, and 5y-OS 86% vs 100%, p=0.037, data not shown). Conclusions: Our long-term results indicate that: 1) the achievement of SMR following VTD consolidation in MM patients is associated with a better outcome in terms of PFS and OS; 2) a dynamic increase in molecular tumor burden (AD), detectable by RQ-PCR, predicts late disease relapses several months before clinical recurrence. Taken together these results suggest the importance of developing tailored treatment for patients with high residual burden or showing increasing levels of MRD during follow-up, as already pursued for example in mantle cell lymphoma [Andersen et al., J Clin Oncol 2009]. Disclosures: Ladetto: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding; Italfarmaco: Research Funding. Cavallo:celgene: Honoraria. Guglielmelli:celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:Merck: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Safety, Efficacy, and Survival Findings From Comfort-II, a Phase 3 Study Comparing Ruxolitinib with Best Available Therapy (BAT) for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.801.801 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 801-801 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Francisco Cervantes ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Dietger Niederwieser ◽

Andres Sirulnik ◽

Viktoriya Stalbovskaya ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Extension Phase ◽

Spleen Volume ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 801 Background: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1 & 2 inhibitor that has demonstrated superiority over traditional therapies for the treatment of MF. In the two phase 3 COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life. COMFORT-II is a randomized, open-label study evaluating ruxolitinib versus BAT in patients (pts) with MF. The primary and key secondary endpoints were both met: the proportion of pts achieving a response (defined as a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume) at wk 48 (ruxolitinib, 28.5%; BAT, 0%; P < .0001) and 24 (31.9% and 0%; P < .0001), respectively. The present analyses update the efficacy and safety findings of COMFORT-II (median follow-up, 112 wk). Methods: In COMFORT-II, 219 pts with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF and splenomegaly were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib (15 or 20 mg bid, based on baseline platelet count [100-200 × 109/L or > 200 × 109/L, respectively]) or BAT. Efficacy results are based on an intention-to-treat analysis; a loss of spleen response was defined as a > 25% increase in spleen volume over on-study nadir that is no longer a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median follow-up was 112 wk (ruxolitinib, 113; BAT, 108), and the median duration of exposure 83.3 wk (ruxolitinib, 111.4 [randomized and extension phases]; BAT, 45.1 [randomized treatment only]). Because the core study has completed, all pts have either entered the extension phase or discontinued from the study. The primary reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs; ruxolitinib, 11.6%; BAT, 6.8%), consent withdrawal (4.1% and 12.3%), and disease progression (2.7% and 5.5%). Overall, 72.6% of pts (106/146) in the ruxolitinib arm and 61.6% (45/73) in the BAT arm entered the extension phase to receive ruxolitinib, and 55.5% (81/146) of those originally randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment at the time of this analysis. The primary reasons for discontinuation from the extension phase were progressive disease (8.2%), AEs (2.1%), and other (4.1%). Overall, 70 pts (48.3%) treated with ruxolitinib achieved a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume at any time during the study, and 97.1% of pts (132/136) with postbaseline assessments experienced a clinical benefit with some degree of reduction in spleen volume. Spleen reductions of ≥ 35% were sustained with continued ruxolitinib therapy (median duration not yet reached); the probabilities of maintaining the spleen response at wk 48 and 84 are 75% (95% CI, 61%-84%) and 58% (95% CI, 35%-76%), respectively (Figure). Since the last report (median 61.1 wk), an additional 9 and 12 deaths were reported in the ruxolitinib and BAT arms, respectively, resulting in a total of 20 (14%) and 16 (22%) deaths overall. Although there was no inferential statistical testing at this unplanned analysis, pts randomized to ruxolitinib showed longer survival than those randomized to BAT (HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27–1.00). As expected, given the mechanism of action of ruxolitinib as a JAK1 & 2 inhibitor, the most common new or worsened grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities during randomized treatment were anemia (ruxolitinib, 40.4%; BAT, 23.3%), lymphopenia (22.6%; 31.5%), and thrombocytopenia (9.6%; 9.6%). In the ruxolitinib arm, mean hemoglobin levels decreased over the first 12 wk of treatment and then recovered to levels similar to BAT from wk 24 onward; there was no difference in the mean monthly red blood cell transfusion rate among the ruxolitinib and BAT groups (0.834 vs 0.956 units, respectively). Nonhematologic AEs were primarily grade 1/2. Including the extension phase, there were no new nonhematologic AEs in the ruxolitinib group that were not observed previously (in ≥ 10% of pts), and only 1 pt had a new grade 3/4 AE (epistaxis). Conclusion: In COMFORT-II, ruxolitinib provided rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly; this analysis demonstrates that these reductions are sustained over 2 years of treatment in the majority of pts. Ruxolitinib-treated pts showed longer survival than those receiving BAT, consistent with the survival advantage observed in previous (Verstovsek et al. NEJM. 2012) and current analyses of COMFORT-I, as well as with the comparison of pts of the phase 1/2 study with matched historical controls (Verstovsek et al. Blood. 2012). Disclosures: Cervantes: Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Celgene: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Pfizer: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: AdvisoryBoard Other, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Niederwieser:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Sirulnik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stalbovskaya:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. McQuity:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunter:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte: Employment, stock options Other. Passamonti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Barbui:Novartis: Honoraria. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knoops:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harrison:Shire: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text